Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set minimum distances for approaching mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of setting a minimum permitted distance to which they can be approached. ‘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%2F2327https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2327Thu, 21 May 2020 10:36:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set maximum number of people/vehicles approaching mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of setting a maximum to the number of people or vehicles permitted to approach mammals. ‘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%2F2328https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2328Thu, 21 May 2020 10:38:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate mammals that have habituated to humans (e.g. bears) Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals that have habituated to humans. One study was in the USA and one was in the USA and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A study in the USA found that almost half of the translocated ‘nuisance’ black bears returned to their capture locations. A review of studies in the USA and Canada found that black bears translocated away from sites of conflict with humans were less likely to return to their capture site if translocated as younger bears, over greater distances, or across geographic barriers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2341https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2341Thu, 21 May 2020 16:10:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Scare or otherwise deter mammals from human-occupied areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict Ten studies evaluated the effects of scaring or otherwise deterring mammals from residential areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA, three were in Canada and one was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (10 studies): Two of four studies (including one randomized and controlled study) in the USA, found that a range of noise and pain deterrents did not prevent black bears from returning to urban areas or other human-occupied sites. The other two studies found that such actions did deter them from seeking food at human-occupied sites. Two of three studies, in the USA and Canada, found that chasing nuisance black bears with dogs and chasing elk with people or dogs caused them to stay away longer or remain further from human occupied areas. The other study found that attempts to scare coyotes did not cause them to avoid human occupied areas. A before-and-after study in Canada found that an electric fence prevented polar bear entry to a compound. A study in Canada found that chemical and acoustic repellents did not deter polar bears from baits in most cases. A replicated study in Tanzania found that drones caused African savanna elephants to quickly leave residential areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2347Fri, 22 May 2020 14:14:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Temporarily hold females and offspring in fenced area to increase survival of young We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of temporarily holding females and offspring in a fenced area to increase survival of young. '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%2F2351https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2351Tue, 26 May 2020 08:45:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain wildlife corridors in residential areas One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining wildlife corridors in residential areas. This study was in Botswana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated study in Botswana found that retained wildlife corridors in residential areas were used by 19 mammal species, including African elephants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2354https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2354Tue, 26 May 2020 11:35:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train and support local staff to help reduce persecution of mammals One study evaluated the effects of training and supporting local staff to help reduce persecution of mammals. This study was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in Kenya found that employing local tribesmen to dissuade pastoralists from killing lions and to assist with livestock protection measures, alongside compensating for livestock killed by lions, reduced lion killings by pastoralists. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2425https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2425Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:45:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate mammals to reduce overpopulation Three studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals to reduce overpopulation. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that adult elk numbers approximately halved after the translocation of wolves to the reserve. Reproductive success (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that elk calf:cow ratios approximately halved after the translocation of wolves to the reserve. Survival (2 studies): A study in Australia found that koalas translocated to reduce overpopulation had lower survival than individuals in the source population. A study in the USA found that following translocation to reduce over-abundance, white-tailed deer had lower survival rates compared to non-translocated deer at the recipient site. Occupancy/range (1 study): A study in the USA found that following translocation to reduce over-abundance at the source site, white-tailed deer had similar home range sizes compared to non-translocated deer at the recipient site. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2430https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2430Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:46:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate predators for ecosystem restoration Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating predators for ecosystem restoration. These studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)                                POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A before-and-after study in the USA found that following reintroduction of wolves, populations of beavers and bison increased. A before-and-after study in the USA found that after the translocation of wolves to the reserve, adult elk numbers approximately halved. Reproductive success (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that after the translocation of wolves to the reserve, elk calf:cow ratios approximately halved. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2431https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2431Mon, 01 Jun 2020 16:12:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of translocating predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in the USA two were in Botswana, one each was in Canada, Zimbabwe and Namibia, one was in Venezuela and Brazil and one covered multiple locations in North and Central America and Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): Two studies, in Zimbabwe and Namibia, found that predators translocated away from livestock bred in the wild after release. Survival (8 studies): Four of eight studies (including three replicated studies and a systematic review), in the USA, Canada, Zimbabwe, South America, Botswana and Namibia, found that translocating predators reduced their survival or that most did not survive more than 6–12 months after release. Three studies found that translocated predators had similar survival to that of established animals or persisted in the wild and one study could not determine the effect of translocation on survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Four of six studies (including a review and a systematic review), in the USA, South America and in North and Central America and Africa, found that some translocated predators continued to predate livestock or returned to their capture sites. One study found that translocated predators were not subsequently involved in livestock predation and one study could not determine the effect of translocation on livestock predation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2436https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2436Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:18:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees to reduce wildfire risk Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of thinning trees to reduce wildfire risk. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that reducing tree density increased abundances of two of four small mammal species. A systematic review in the USA found that, in thinned forests, two mammal species were recorded in higher densities compared to in unmanaged forests, while three species showed no effect. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that thinning followed by prescribed burning did not increase use of forest areas by North American elk in most season, stand age and sex comparisons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2477https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2477Thu, 04 Jun 2020 10:46:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate crop raiders away from crops (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of translocating crop-raiding animals away from crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Kenya and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled study in Kenya found that translocated crop-raiding African elephants had a lower survival rate after release than did non-translocated elephants at the same site. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A study in the USA found that most American black bears translocated from sites of crop damage were not subsequently recaptured at sites of crop damage. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2485https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2485Thu, 04 Jun 2020 12:51:08 +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: 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: Translocate mammals away from site contaminated by oil spill One study evaluated the effects of translocating mammals away from a site contaminated by oil spill. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in the USA found that after being translocated in a trial of responses to a hypothetical pollution incident, most sea-otters survived for the duration of monitoring. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A study in the USA found that after being translocated in a trial of responses to a hypothetical pollution incident, most sea-otters did not return to their capture location. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2542https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2542Mon, 08 Jun 2020 20:32:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/provide migration corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining or providing migration corridors. ‘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%2F2551https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2551Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:34:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate animals from source populations subject to similar climatic conditions One study evaluated the effects of translocating mammals from source populations subject to similar climatic conditions. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): A study in the USA found that bighorn sheep translocated from populations subject to a similar climate to the recipient site reared more offspring than did those translocated from milder climatic areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2553https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2553Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:38:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize predators One study evaluated the effects on potential prey mammals of sterilizing predators. This study was in the USA and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA and Canada found that sterilising some wolves (combined with trapping and removing others) did not increase caribou survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2573https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2573Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:59:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize non-native domestic or feral species (e.g. cats and dogs) We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of sterilizing non-native domestic or feral species (e.g. cats and dogs). '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%2F2579https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2579Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:30:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train mammals to avoid problematic species Two studies evaluated the effects of training mammals to avoid problematic species. Both studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled study in Australia found that training greater bilbies to avoid introduced predators did not increase their post-release survival. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One of two controlled studies in Australia found that greater bilbies trained to avoid introduced predators showed more predator avoidance behaviour, the second study found no difference in behaviour between trained and untrained bilbies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2580Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:32:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/maintain road verges as small mammal habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining or maintaining road verges as small mammal 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%2F2604https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2604Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:49:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Site management for target mammal species carried out by field sport practitioners One study evaluated the effects of site management for a target mammal species being carried out by field sport practitioners. This study was in Ireland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the Republic of Ireland found that sites managed for the sport of coursing Irish hares held more of this species than did the wider countryside. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2605https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2605Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:49:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set hunting quotas based on target species population trends Three studies evaluated the effects of setting hunting quotas for mammals based on target species population trends. One study each was in Canada, Spain and Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies, in Spain and Norway, found that restricting hunting and basing quotas on population targets enabled population increases for Pyrenean chamois and Eurasian lynx. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Canada found that setting harvest quotas based on population trends, and lengthening the hunting season, did not decrease the number of cougars killed by hunters. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2607https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2607Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:07:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forest Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of thinning trees within forests. Six studies were in Canada and six were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Species richness (2 studies): A replicated, site comparison study the USA found that in thinned tree forest stands, there was similar mammal species richness compared to in unthinned stands. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that thinning of regenerating lodgepole pine did not increase small mammal species richness 12–14 years later. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled and replicated, site comparison studies, in the USA and Canada, found that thinning trees within forests lead to higher numbers of small mammals. Two studies showed increases for some, but not all, small mammal species with a further study showing an increase for one of two squirrel species in response to at least some forest thinning treatments. The other two studies showed no increases in abundances of small mammals or northern flying squirrels between 12 and 14 years after thinning. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three of four controlled and comparison studies (three also replicated, one randomized) in Canada found that thinning trees within forests did not lead to greater use of areas by mule deer, moose or snowshoe hares. The other study found that a thinned area was used more by white-tailed deer than was unthinned forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2650https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2650Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:09:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain wildlife corridors in logged areas Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining wildlife corridors in logged areas. One study was in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated study in Australia found that corridors of trees, retained after harvesting, supported seven species of arboreal marsupial. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that lines of woody debris through clearcut areas that were connected to adjacent forest were not used more by red-backed voles than were isolated lines of woody debris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2651Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:33:04 +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