Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Habituate mammals to visitors One study evaluated the effects of habituating mammals to visitors. 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 study in the USA found that brown bears that were highly habituated to humans showed less aggression towards human visitors than did non-habituated bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2340https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2340Thu, 21 May 2020 15:54:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Hand-rear orphaned or abandoned young in captivity Six studies evaluated the effects of hand-rearing orphaned mammals. Two were in the USA, one each was in Australia, South Africa and India and one was in six countries across North America, Europe and Asia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One study in India found that three hand-reared orphaned or abandoned greater one-horned rhinoceroses gave birth in the wild. Survival (5 studies): Five studies (including one controlled and one replicated) in Australia, the USA, India and in six countries across North America, Europe and Asia, found that some hand-reared orphaned or abandoned ringtail possums, white-tailed deer, sea otters, bears and greater one-horned rhinoceroses survived for periods of time after release. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A study in South Africa found that a hand-reared, orphaned serval established a home range upon release. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2358https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2358Tue, 26 May 2020 14:14:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase crop diversity for mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing crop diversity. ‘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%2F2392https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2392Thu, 28 May 2020 09:38:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install mammal crossing points along fences on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing mammal crossing points along fences on farmland. Two studies were in Namibia and one each was in the USA and the UK. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): A study in the USA found that pronghorn antelopes crossed a modified cattle grid which prevented escape of domestic sheep and cows. A controlled, before-and-after study in Namibia found installing swing gates through game fencing reduced the digging of holes by animals under the fence, whilst preventing large predator entry. A study in the UK found that a vertical-sided ditch under an electric fence allowed access by otters. A before-and-after study in Namibia found that tyres installed as crossings through fences were used by wild mammals and reduced fence maintenance requirements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2410https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2410Fri, 29 May 2020 12:42:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one each was in Germany, the UK, Spain, China, Tanzania and Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (8 studies): Four replicated studies (including three before-and-after studies), in USA, China, Tanzania and Kenya, found that non-electric fencing reduced livestock predation by coyotes, Tibetan brown bears, and a range of mammalian predators. A replicated, controlled study in USA found that a high woven wire fence with small mesh, an overhang and an apron (to deter burrowing) was the most effective design at deterring crossings by coyotes. A replicated, controlled study in Germany found that fencing with phosphorescent tape was more effective than fencing with normal yellow tape for deterring red deer and roe deer, but had no effect on crossings by wild boar or brown hare. Two studies (one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison and one controlled study) in the UK and Spain found that fences reduced European rabbit numbers on or damage to crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2415https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2415Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:22:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA (and a further one was presumed to be in the USA) and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Brazil and Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Six out of 10 randomized and/or controlled or before-and-after studies (including eight replicated studies), in the USA (and a further one presumed to be in the USA), Canada, Brazil and Spain, found that electric fences reduced or prevented entry to livestock enclosures or predation of livestock by carnivores. Two studies found that some designs of electric fencing prevented coyotes from entering enclosures and killing or wounding lambs. The other two studies found electric fencing did not reduce livestock predation or prevent fence crossings by carnivores. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that electrifying a fence reduced digging of burrows under the fence that black-backed jackals could pass through. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2417Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:09:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Japan, three were in the USA, two were in the UK and one each was in Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 studies) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Nine of 11 studies (including three before-and-after studies and three controlled studies), in the USA, the UK, Japan, Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau, found that electric fences deterred crossings by mammals, ranging in size from European rabbits to elephants. Two studies had mixed results, with some fence designs deterring elephants and black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2439https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2439Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:46:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install metal grids at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects on mammal incursions of installing metal grids at field entrances to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Both of these studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study), in the USA, found that deer guards (horizontal, ground-level metal grids) reduced entry into enclosures by white-tailed deer whilst the other found that they did not prevent crossings by mule deer or elk. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2440https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2440Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:19:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install automatically closing gates at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammal movements of installing automatically closing gates at field entrances to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in USA. KEY 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 vehicle-activated bump gates prevented white-tailed deer from entering enclosures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2441Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:22:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Hold translocated mammals in captivity before release Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of holding translocated mammals in captivity before release. Four studies were in the USA, two were in Australia and one was in each of India, Canada, Switzerland, Croatia and Slovenia, the USA and Canada, the UK, France, Spain and South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated, before-and-after study) in Croatia and Slovenia and the USA found that following translocation, with time in captivity prior to release, Eurasian lynx established an increasing population and Allegheny woodrat numbers in four of six sites increased over the first two years. Reproductive success (4 studies): Four studies in Croatia and Slovenia, Spain, the USA and Canada and Australia found that following translocation, with time in captivity prior to release, Eurasian lynx established a breeding population, and swift foxes, European otters and red-tailed phascogales reproduced. Survival (10 studies): Two studies (one controlled) in the UK and USA found that being held for longer in captivity before release increased survival rates of translocated European hedgehogs and, along with release in spring increased the survival rate of translocated Canada lynx in the first year. Four of six studies in India, the USA and Canada, the USA, France, South Africa and Australia found that following translocation, with time in captivity prior to release, most swift foxes and greater Indian rhinoceroses survived for at least 12-20 months, 48% of Eurasian lynx survived for 2–11 years and red-tailed phascogales survived for at least six years. The other two studies found that most kangaroo rats and all rock hyraxes died within 5-87 days. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that translocated swift foxes that had been held in captivity prior to release had higher post-release survival rates than did released captive-bred animals. Condition (3 studies): A randomised, controlled study in Australia found that holding translocated eastern bettongs in captivity before release did not increase their body mass after release compared to animals released directly into the wild. A controlled study the UK found that being held for longer in captivity before release, reduced weight loss after release in translocated European hedgehogs. A study in Spain found that offspring of translocated European otters that were held in captivity before release, had similar genetic diversity to donor populations. Occupancy/range (2 studies): A study in the USA found that most translocated and captive-bred mountain lions that had been held in captivity prior to release established home ranges in the release area. A study in Croatia and Slovenia and review in Switzerland found that following translocation, with time in captivity prior to release, the range of Eurasian lynx increased over time. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2458Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:23:58 +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: 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: Install one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways Seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways. All seven studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated), in the USA, found that barrier fencing with one-way gates reduced deer-vehicle collisions. One of two studies (one before-and-after and one replicated, controlled), in the USA, found that barrier fencing with escape gates along roads with one or more underpasses reduced moose-vehicle collisions, whilst the other found no reduction in total mammal road casualty rates. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in USA found that earth escape ramps reduced mammal road mortalities. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One of two studies (one replicated) in the USA, found that one-way gates allowed mule deer to escape when trapped along highways with barrier fencing, whilst the other found that a small proportion used one-way gates. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that earth escape ramps were used more often than were one-way escape gates to enable deer to escape highways with barrier fencing. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that barrier fencing with escape gates and underpasses facilitated road crossings by a range of mammals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2558https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2558Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:28:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase size of protected area One study evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing the size of a protected area. This study was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that expanding a fenced reserve resulted in the home range of a reintroduced group of lions becoming larger but the core range becoming smaller. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2563Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:55:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase resources for managing protected areas One study evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing resources for managing protected areas. This study was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Species richness (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that mammal species richness was higher in a well-resourced national park, than in a less well-resourced forest reserve. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study Tanzania found that there were greater occupancy rates or relative abundances of most mammal species in a well-resourced national park than in a less well-resourced forest reserve. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2564Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:57:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along roads Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along roads. Eight studies were in the USA, one each was in Canada, Germany and Brazil and one spanned the USA, Canada and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Survival (9 studies): Three controlled studies, in the USA, Germany and Brazil, found that roadside fencing or equivalent barrier systems reduced the numbers of mammals, including wildcats and coypu, killed by vehicles on roads. Two before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that roadside fencing with one-way gates to allow escape from the road, reduced the number of collisions between vehicles and deer. A study in the USA found that a 2.7-m-high fence did not reduce road-kills of white-tailed deer compared to a 2.2-m-high fence. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that barrier fencing with designated crossing points did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences, (along with an underpass beneath one highway), reduced moose-vehicle collisions. A review of fencing studies from USA, Canada and Sweden, found that longer fencing along roadsides led to a greater reduction of collisions between large mammals and cars than did shorter fence sections. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that 2.3-m-high fencing in good condition prevented most white-tailed deer accessing a highway. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences reduced moose access to highways. Three studies (two replicated), in the USA, found that higher fences (2.4–2.7 m) prevented more white-tailed deer from entering highways than did fences that were 2.2 m high, 1.2 m high with outriggers or 1.2–1.8 m high. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:55:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads Fifty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing and underpasses along roads. Twenty-seven were in the USA, nine were in Canada, seven were in Australia, two each were in Spain, Portugal, the UK and Sweden, one each was in Denmark, Germany and Croatia and one was a review covering Australia, Europe and North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Survival (15 studies): Eleven of 15 studies (including 12 before-and-after studies and two site comparisons), in the USA, Australia, Sweden and Canada, found that installing underpasses and associated roadside barrier fencing reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. Three studies found that the roadkill rate was not reduced and one study found that vehicle-mammal collisions continued to occur after installation. BEHAVIOUR (52 STUDIES) Use (52 studies): Seventeen of 18 studies (including 10 before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada and Sweden, which reported exclusively on ungulates, found that underpasses installed along with roadside barrier fencing were used by a range of ungulate species. These were mule deer, mountain goat, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, elk, moose and Florida Key deer. The other study found that underpasses were not used by moose whilst one of the studies that did report use by ungulates further reported that they were not used by white-tailed deer. Further observations from these studies included that elk preferred more open, shorter underpasses to those that were enclosed or longer, underpass use was not affected by traffic levels and that mule deer used underpasses less than they used overpasses. Thirty-four studies (including four before-and-after studies, seven replicated studies, three site comparisons and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Croatia and across multiple continents, that either studied mammals other than ungulates or multiple species including ungulates, found that underpasses in areas with roadside fencing were used by mammals. Among these studies, one found that small culverts were used by mice and voles more than were larger underpasses, one found that bandicoots used underpasses less after they were lengthened and one found that culverts were used by grizzly bears less often than were overpasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:35:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along railways One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along railways. This study was in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Norway found that fencing eliminated moose collisions with trains, except at the fence end. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2590https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2590Thu, 11 Jun 2020 09:13:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install acoustic wildlife warnings along roads Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing acoustic wildlife warnings along roads. One study was in Demark and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A before-and-after study in Denmark found that sound from acoustic road markings did not alter fallow deer behaviour. A controlled study in Australia found that Roo-Guard® sound emitters did not deter tammar wallabies from food and so were not considered suitable for keeping them off roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:09:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incentivise species protection through licensed trophy hunting One study evaluated the effects on mammals of incentivising species protection through licensed trophy hunting. This study was in Nepal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A study in Nepal found that after trophy hunting started, bharal abundance increased, though the sex ratio of this species, and of Himalayan tahr, became skewed towards females. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2610https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2610Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:42:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install crossings over/under pipelines Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing crossings over/under pipelines. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): A study in USA found that buried pipeline sections were used more frequently than their availability as crossing points by caribou. A study in USA found that pipeline sections elevated specifically to permit mammal crossings underneath were not used by moose or caribou more than were other elevated sections. A controlled study in Canada found that a range of large mammal species used wildlife crossings over pipelines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2627https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2627Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:14:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses over waterways Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing overpasses over waterways. One study was in the USA and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated, one a site comparison) in the USA and Spain, found that bridges and overpasses over waterways were used by desert mule deer, collared peccaries and coyotes and by a range of large and medium-sized mammals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2628https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2628Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:38:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Harvest timber outside mammal reproduction period We found no studies that evaluated the effects of harvesting timber outside the mammal reproduction period. ‘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%2F2633https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2633Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:47:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along waterways We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along waterways. ‘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%2F2636https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2636Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:05:14 +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