Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of using predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including two before-and-after studies), in the USA, found that coyote scent reduced food consumption by mountain beavers and white-tailed deer. The third study found that it did not reduce trail use by white-tailed deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2505Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:01:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use target species scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using target species scent to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that African elephants were not deterred from feeding by the presence of secretions from elephant temporal glands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2506https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2506Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:31:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive rear in large enclosures prior to release Four studies evaluated the effects of captive rearing mammals in large enclosures prior to release. Two studies were in the USA, one was in Mexico and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): A study in Mexico found that peninsular pronghorn taken from the wild and kept in a large enclosure bred successfully and the population increased, providing stock suitable for reintroductions. Survival (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that black-footed ferrets reared in outdoor pens had higher post-release survival rates than did ferrets raised indoors. A controlled study in Australia found that Tasmanian devils reared free-range in large enclosures did not have greater post-release survival rates than animals from intensively managed captive-rearing facilities. Condition (1 study): A controlled study in Australia found that Tasmanian devils reared free-range in large enclosures did not gain more body weight post-release compared to animals from intensively managed captive-rearing facilities. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in USA found that captive-bred black-footed ferrets raised in large enclosures dispersed shorter distances post-release than did ferrets raised in small enclosures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2507https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2507Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:36:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock collars (combined with loud noise) reduced damage caused by black-tailed deer to tree seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2508https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2508Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:39:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Twelve studies evaluated the effects of using repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Nine studies were in the USA, two were in the UK and one was in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (12 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (12 studies): Five of 11 controlled studies (including 10 replicated studies), in the USA, Italy and the UK, of a range of contact repellents, found that they reduced herbivory or consumption of baits. The other six studies reported mixed results with at least some repellents at some concentrations deterring herbivory, sometimes for limited periods. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that a repellent did not prevent chewing damage by coyotes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2509https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2509Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:44:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals Thirty-one studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals. Seven studies were in Australia, and in the USA, four were in the UK, three in Argentina, two in each of Israel, Saudi Arabia and China and one in each of Canada, Namibia, South Africa and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (30 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A study in Saudi Arabia found that a population of captive-bred Arabian sand gazelles kept in holding pens prior to release nearly doubled in size over four years. A before-and-after study in China found that following release of captive-bred animals from a pre-release enclosure into the semi-wild (free-roaming in summer, enclosed in winter and provided with food), Przewalski’s horses increased in number. Reproductive success (10 studies): Eight studies (one replicated) and one review in the UK, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Israel and Australia found that following the use of holding pens prior to release (and in some cases provision of supplementary food), captive-bred Eurasian otters, Arabian sand gazelles, eastern-barred bandicoots, some swift foxes, some red wolves and over 33% of Persian fallow deer reproduced, Arabian gazelles started breeding in the first year and the reproductive success of female Asiatic wild ass increased over 10 years. A study in Australia found that after being kept in a holding pen, all four mammal populations released into an invasive-species-free fenced enclosure reproduced. Survival (23 studies): One of three studies (two controlled, one replicated) in the UK, Canada and Australia found that using holding pens prior to release of captive-bred (and some translocated) animals resulted in greater post-release survival for water voles compared to animals released directly into the wild. The other two studies found similar survival rates for eastern barred bandicoots and swift foxes compared to animals released directly into the wild. A replicated study in the USA found that captive-bred Allegheny woodrats kept in holding pens prior to release, had higher early survival rates than those not kept in holding pens, but overall survival rates tended to be lower than wild resident woodrats. Three studies in South Africa, USA and Argentina found that released captive-bred (and some translocated) African wild dogs, riparian brush rabbits and guanacos that spent longer in, and in one case in larger, holding pens had a higher survival rate. Three studies (one controlled) in Australia and the USA found that captive-bred animals kept in holding pens prior to release had similar (bridled nailtail wallabies) or lower (black-footed ferret kits) annual survival rate after release to that of wild-born translocated animals and lower (black-footed ferrets) survival rates than resident animals. Ten studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study) and one review in Saudi Arabia, the USA, Argentina, China, Israel, Australia and Germany found that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred animals (or in some cases captive-reared/rehabilitated, or with provision of supplementary food), four of four mammal populations, 19% of red wolves, Asiatic wild ass, Persian fallow deer, most Arabian sand gazelles, most swift foxes, eastern-barred bandicoots and European mink survived at least 1-10 years, over half of giant anteaters, hare-wallabies and Père David’s deer survived for at least 1.5-6 months. Three studies in Namibia, the USA and Australia found that that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred or reared animals (some provided with nest boxes and/or supplementary food), red-tailed phascogales, most Mexican wolves and African wild dogs survived less than 6-12 months. Condition (4 studies): A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that eastern barred bandicoots released after time in holding pens lost a similar proportion of body weight and recovered to a similar weight compared to bandicoots released directly. A controlled study in the UK found that common dormice lost weight after being put into holding pens whereas wild translocated dormice gained weight. A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred rufous hare-wallabies placed in holding pens prior to release lost body condition in holding pens. A before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred brush-tailed rock-wallabies placed in a holding pen prior to release maintained good health. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being kept in holding pens and provided with supplementary food, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal in their activity patterns than released wild-born rehabilitated individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:17:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellents that smell bad (‘area repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using repellents that smell bad (‘area repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the UK. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that a repellent reduced use of treated areas by moles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2511https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2511Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:28:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Zimbabwe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Zimbabwe found that people with dogs took longer to repel African elephants from crops compared to scaring them by using combinations of people, dogs, slingshots, drums, burning sticks, large fires and spraying with capsicum. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2512https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2512Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:37:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Drive wild animals away using domestic animals of the same species to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using domestic animals to drive away wild mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in India found that using domestic elephants to drive wild Asian elephants away from villages did not reduce the probability of elephants damaging crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2513https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2513Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:48:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under roads Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under roads. Eight studies were in the USA, four were in Australia, four were in Canada, two were in Spain, one each was in Germany, the Netherlands and South Korea and three were reviews with wide geographic coverage. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): A study in South Korea found that road sections with higher underpass density did not have fewer wildlife-vehicle collisions. A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation of mammals using crossings under roads. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that overwinter survival of mountain pygmy-possums increased after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed. BEHAVIOUR (23 STUDIES) Use (23 studies): Seventeen of 20 studies (including seven replicated studies and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, and across multiple continents, found that crossing structures beneath roads were used by mammals whilst two studies found mixed results depending on species and one study found that culverts were rarely used as crossings by mammals. One of the studies found that crossing structures were used by two of four species more than expected compared to their movements through adjacent habitats. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was used by mountain pygmy-possums. A replicated study in Germany found that use of tunnels by fallow deer was affected by tunnel colour and design. A study in the USA found that a range of mammals used culverts, including those with shelves fastened to the sides. Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed, dispersal of mountain pygmy-possums increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514Fri, 05 Jun 2020 10:17:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate mammals away from sites of proposed energy developments Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals away from sites of proposed energy developments. One study was in Brazil and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A study in Brazil found that lesser anteaters translocated away from a hydroelectric development site remained close to release sites while a study in Australia found that at least one out of eight chuditchs translocated from a site to be mined returned to its site of capture. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2517https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2517Mon, 08 Jun 2020 07:49:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide live natural prey to captive mammals to foster hunting behaviour before release Three studies evaluated the effects of providing live natural prey to captive mammals to foster hunting behaviour before release. One study was in Spain, one was in the USA and one was in Botswana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies in Spain and Botswana found that a rehabilitated Iberian lynx and wild-born but captive-reared orphaned cheetahs and leopards that were provided with live natural prey in captivity survived for between at least three months and 19 months after release. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that captive-bred black-footed ferrets fed on live prairie dogs took longer to disperse after release but showed greater subsequent movements than did ferrets not fed with live prairie dogs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2518https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2518Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:14:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under railways Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under railways. Two studies were in Spain, one was in each of Australia, Canada and the Netherlands and one reviewed literature from a range of countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation in or around passages under railways or roads of mammals using those passages. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Five studies, in Spain, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands, found that tunnels, culverts and underpasses beneath railways were used by a range of mammals including rodents, rabbits and hares, carnivores, marsupials, deer and bears. One of these studies found that existing culverts were used more than were specifically designed wildlife tunnels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2519https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2519Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:27:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train captive-bred mammals to avoid predators Two studies evaluated the effects of training captive-bred mammals to avoid predators. One study was in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A randomized, controlled study in the USA found that training captive-born juvenile black-tailed prairie dogs, by exposing them to predators, increased post-release survival. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that rufous hare-wallabies could be conditioned to become wary of potential predators. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2520https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2520Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:30:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred mammals into fenced areas Fourteen studies evaluated the effects of releasing captive-bred mammals into fenced areas. Nine studies were in Australia and one each was in Jordan, South Africa, the USA, Saudi Arabia and Senegal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four studies (one replicated) and a review in Australia, Jordan and Senegal found that after releasing captive-bred animals into fenced areas, a population of burrowing bettongs increased, a population of Arabian oryx increased six-fold in 12 years, a population of dorcas gazelle almost doubled over four years, three populations of eastern barred bandicoot initially increased and abundance of eastern barred bandicoots increased. Reproductive success (6 studies): Four studies and a review in South Africa, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Senegal found that following release of captive-bred animals into fenced areas (in some cases with other associated management), African wild dogs, three populations of eastern barred bandicoot, dorcas gazelle and most female black-footed rock-wallabies reproduced, and Arabian gazelles started breeding in the year following the first releases. A study in Australia found that four of five mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one released into a predator-reduced enclosure reproduced, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not survive to reproduce. Survival (10 studies): A study in Australia found that four of five mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one population released into a predator-reduced enclosure survived, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not. Six studies (one controlled before-and-after study and two replicated studies) in Australia and the USA found that following release of captive-bred animals into fenced areas (in some cases with other associated management), a burrowing bettong population, three eastern barred bandicoot populations and over half of black-footed rock-wallabies survived between one and eight years, most captive-bred hare-wallabies survived at least two months, at least half of black-footed ferrets survived more than two weeks, and bandicoots survived at five of seven sites up to three years after the last release. One study in Australia found that following release into fenced areas, a captive-bred population of red-tailed phascogales survived for less than a year. A study in South Africa found that captive-bred African wild dogs released into fenced reserves in family groups had high survival rates. A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots released into a fenced reserve after time in holding pens had similar post-release survival compared to bandicoots released directly from captivity. Condition (1 study): A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots released into a fenced reserve after time in holding pens had similar post-release body weight compared to those released directly from captivity. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2521https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2521Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:55:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify culverts to make them more accessible to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying culverts to make them more accessible to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that modified culverts (with a dry walkway, open-air central section and enlarged entrances) were used more by bobcats to make crossings than were unmodified culverts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install ledges in culverts under roads/railways Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing ledges in culverts under roads or railways. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Portugal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): A replicated, controlled study in Portugal found that under-road culverts with ledges were used more than culverts without ledges by two of five mammal species. A before-and-after study in the USA found that installing ledges within under-road culverts did not increase the number or diversity of small mammal species crossing through them, and only one of six species used ledges. A study in the USA found that ledges in under-road culverts were used by nine of 12 small mammal species and ledges with access ramps were used more often than those without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2523https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2523Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:50:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Dig trenches around culverts under roads/railways One study evaluated the effects on mammals of digging trenches around culverts under roads and/or railways. This study was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that digging trenches alongside culverts did not reduce mammal mortality on roads. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2524https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2524Mon, 08 Jun 2020 11:41:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install fences around existing culverts or underpasses under roads/railways Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing fences around existing culverts under roads/railways. Two studies were in the USA one was in Portugal and one was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two out of three before-and-after studies (including a controlled and a site comparison study), in the USA, Portugal and South Africa, found that installing or enhancing roadside fencing alongside existing culverts reduced mammal road mortality whilst one study found that such fences did not alter mammal road mortality. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that fences installed to funnel animals to existing culverts did not increase culvert use by bobcats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2525https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2525Mon, 08 Jun 2020 11:56:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses over roads/railways Twenty-two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing overpasses over roads or railways. Seven studies were in Canada, three were in Spain, three were in Australia, two were in Sweden, one each was in the Netherlands, Germany, Croatia and the USA, and three (including two reviews) were conducted across multiple countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Survival (4 studies): Four studies (including three before-and-after studies), in Canada, Sweden and Australia, found that overpasses (in combination with roadside fencing) reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. In two of these studies, data from overpasses and underpasses were combined for analysis. BEHAVIOUR (21 STUDIES) Use (21 studies): Nineteen studies, in North America, Europe and Australia, found that overpasses were used by mammals. A wide range of mammals was reported using overpasses, including rodents and shrews, rabbits and hares, carnivores, ungulates, bears, marsupials and short-beaked echidna. A review of crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America found that overpasses were used by a range of mammals, particularly larger mammal species. A global review of crossing structures (including overpasses) found that all studies reported that the majority of crossings were used by wildlife. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2526https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2526Mon, 08 Jun 2020 13:33:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food during/after release of captive-bred mammals Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of providing supplementary food during/after release of captive-bred mammals. Four studies were in Australia, two were in each of the USA, China and Argentina, and one was in each of Poland, the UK, Oman and Saudi Arabia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four studies (one replicated, one before-and-after study) and one review in Poland, Oman, China and Australia found that following provision of supplementary food (and in one case water) to released captive-bred animals, populations of European bison increased more than six-fold over 20 years, Arabian oryx increased over 14 years, eastern-barred bandicoots increased for the first five years before declining, Père David's deer increased more than six-fold over 12 years and Przewalski’s horses (enclosed in winter) increased over 11 years. Reproductive success (9 studies): Eight studies (including two replicated and one before-and-after study) and one review in Poland, the UK, China, the USA, Australia and Saudi Arabia found that following the provision of supplementary food (and in one case water or artificial nests) after release of captive-bred animals, some from holding pens, European bison, European otters, Père David's deer, eastern-barred bandicoots, Przewalski’s horses and some captive-bred red wolves successfully reproduced, Arabian gazelles started breeding in the year following releases and sugar gliders established a breeding population. Survival (6 studies): Four of six studies (one controlled, before-and-after study) in the UK, USA, Argentina and Australia found that following the provision of supplementary food (and in one case water or nest boxes) after release of captive-bred animals, many from holding pens, 19% of red wolves survived for at least seven years, Eurasian otters survived for at least two years, over half the giant anteaters (some rehabilitated) survived for at least six months and hare-wallabies survived at least two months. Two of the studies found that red-tailed phascogales survived for less than a year and most Mexican wolves survived less than eight months. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being provided with supplementary food and kept in holding pens, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal in their activity patterns than released wild-born rehabilitated individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2527https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2527Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:23:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native mammals within a fenced area One study evaluated the effects on native mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals within a fenced area. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammal species richness was higher than outside the fenced area. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammals overall and two out of four small mammal species were more abundant than outside the fenced area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2528Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:51:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native plants Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invasive plants. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated study in the USA found that control of introduced saltcedar did not change small mammal species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that partial removal of velvet mesquite did not increase abundances of six mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2529https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2529Mon, 08 Jun 2020 15:23:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control non-native/problematic plants to restore habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling invasive or problematic plants to restore habitat. 'We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2530https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2530Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:20:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce top predators to suppress and reduce the impacts of smaller non-native predator and prey species We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of reintroducing top predators to suppress and reduce the impacts of smaller non-native predator and prey species. 'We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2531https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2531Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:22:00 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue