Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or limit number of visitors to reserves or protected areas Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of excluding or limiting the number of visitors to reserves or protected areas. Three studies were in the USA, one was in Ecuador and one was in Thailand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Ecuador found that a road with restricted access had a higher population of medium-sized and large mammals compared to a road with unrestricted access. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that temporarily restricting visitor access resulted in fewer bears being killed to protect humans. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Three studies (one a before-and-after study), in the USA and Thailand, found that restricting human access to protected areas resulted in increased use of these areas by grizzly bears and leopards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2330https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2330Thu, 21 May 2020 10:43:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish wild flower areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects of establishing wild flower areas on farmland on small mammals. Two studies were in Switzerland, one in the UK and one in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four site comparison studies (including three replicated studies), in Switzerland, the UK and Germany, found that sown wildflower areas contained more wood mice, small mammals and common hamsters compared to grass and clover set-aside, grasslands, crop and uncultivated margins, agricultural areas and crop fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2359Tue, 26 May 2020 14:55:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Nine studies evaluated the effect of creating uncultivated margins around intensive arable, cropped grass or pasture fields on mammals. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Switzerland and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found more small mammal species in uncultivated field margins than in blocks of set-aside. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found more small mammals in uncultivated and unmown field margins than in frequently mown margins. Three of seven replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized), in the UK and Switzerland, found that uncultivated field margins had higher numbers of small mammals, bank voles and brown hares relative to crops (including grassland) and set-aside. The other four studies reported mixed or no effects on bank voles, wood mice and common shrews, small mammals and brown hares. One site comparison study in the UK found that brown hares used grassy field margins more than expected based on their availability. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2365https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2365Tue, 26 May 2020 15:55:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage community-based participation in land management Two studies evaluated the effects of encouraging community-based participation in management of mammals to reduce mammal persecution. One study was in Pakistan and one was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A study in Pakistan found that involving local communities with park management was associated with an increasing population of Himalayan brown bears. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A study in Namibia found that fewer farmers who engaged in community-based management of land, through membership of a conservancy, removed large carnivores from their land than did non-conservancy members. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2395Thu, 28 May 2020 10:25:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Graze herbivores on pasture, instead of sustaining with artificial foods One study evaluated the effects of grazing mammalian herbivores on pasture, instead of sustaining with artificial foods. This study was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): A site comparison study in South Africa found that a population of roan antelope grazed on pasture had a higher population growth rate than populations provided solely with imported feed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2398https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2398Thu, 28 May 2020 10:46:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish long-term cover on erodible cropland One study evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA, found that establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland did not increase the abundance of eastern cottontails. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2402https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2402Thu, 28 May 2020 11:16:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland) Nine studies evaluated the effects of excluding livestock from semi-natural habitat on mammals. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Spain and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found more small mammal species on areas from which livestock were excluded. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Four out of eight studies (including four site comparisons and four controlled studies), in the USA and Spain, found that excluding grazing livestock led to higher abundances of mule deer, small mammals and, when combined with provision of water, of European rabbits. One study found higher densities of some but not all small mammals species when livestock were excluded and the other three studies found that grazing exclusion did not lead to higher abundances of black-tailed hares, California ground squirrel burrows or of five small mammal species. A site comparison study in Australia found more small mammals where cattle were excluded compared to high intensity cattle-grazing but not compared to medium or low cattle-grazing intensities.  BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2407Thu, 28 May 2020 13:13:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of excluding wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Cameroon and Benin and one was in Cameroon. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study and one site comparison), in Cameroon and Benin and in Cameroon, found that fewer livestock were predated when they were kept in enclosures, especially when these were reinforced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2420https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2420Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:39:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Dispose of livestock carcasses to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of disposing of livestock carcasses to deter predation of livestock by mammals 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): One site comparison study in the USA found that burying or removing sheep carcasses reduced predation on livestock by coyotes, but burning carcasses did not alter livestock predation rates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2432https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2432Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:05:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter predation of livestock by mammals by having people close by to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of deterring predation of livestock by mammals by having people close by to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in Kenya recorded fewer attacks by predators on livestock in bomas when people were also present but the presence of people did not reduce predator attacks on grazing herds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2444https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2444Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:28:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter predation of livestock by herding livestock using adults instead of children to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on predatory mammal activities of herding livestock using adults instead of children to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Cameroon. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A site comparison study in Cameroon found that using adults to herd livestock reduced losses through predation relative to that of livestock herded solely by children. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2445https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2445Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:32:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter predation of livestock by using shock/electronic dog-training collars to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects of using shock/electronic dog-training collars to deter predation of livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All five studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Three of four replicated studies (including two controlled studies), in the USA, found that electric shock collars reduced livestock predation or bait consumption by wolves, whilst one found that they did not reduce wolf bait consumption. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock collars reduced the frequency of attacks by captive coyotes on lambs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2446https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2446Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:37:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit livestock with protective collars to reduce risk of predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of fitting livestock with protective collars to reduce human-wildlife conflict on rates of livestock killings by predators. 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, before-and-after study in South Africa found that livestock protection collars reduced predation on livestock by carnivores. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2448https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2448Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:46:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish deviation ponds in fish farms to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing deviation ponds in fish farms to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. '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%2F2455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2455Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:13:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Grow unattractive crop in buffer zone around crops (e.g. chili peppers) to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of growing unattractive crops (such as chili peppers) in buffer zones around crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘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%2F2491https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2491Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:20:22 +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: 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: Establish riparian buffers We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing riparian buffers. ‘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%2F2541https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2541Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:51:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage habitat protection of privately-owned land We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of encouraging habitat protection of privately-owned land. ‘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%2F2560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2560Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:36:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Eliminate highly virulent diseases early in an epidemic by culling all individuals (healthy and infected) in a defined area We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of eliminating highly virulent diseases early in an epidemic by culling all individuals (healthy and infected) in a defined area. '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%2F2585https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2585Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:54:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cull disease-infected animals One study evaluated the effects on mammals of culling disease-infected animals. This study was in Tasmania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in Tasmania found that culling disease-infected Tasmanian devils resulted in fewer animals with large tumours associated with late stages of the disease. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2586https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2586Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:02:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish populations isolated from disease One study evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing populations isolated from disease. The study was in sub-Saharan Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A site comparison study throughout sub-Saharan Africa found that fencing reduced prevalence of canine distemper but not of rabies, coronavirus or canine parvovirus in African wild dogs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2588Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:12:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit vehicles with ultrasonic warning devices Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of fitting vehicles with ultrasonic warning devices. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that Shu Roo warning whistles did not reduce animal-vehicle collisions for eastern grey kangaroos or red kangaroos BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated), in the USA and Australia, found that ultrasonic warning devices did not deter mule deer, eastern grey kangaroos, red kangaroos or white-tailed deer from roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2606https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2606Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:50:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fell trees in groups, leaving surrounding forest unharvested Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of felling trees in groups, leaving surrounding forest unharvested. Two studies were in Canada and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study and one site comparison study), in Canada, found that felling groups of trees within otherwise undisturbed stands increased the abundance of one of four small mammal species relative to clearcutting. The other study found that none of four small mammal species monitored showed abundance increases. Survival (1 study): A study in the UK found that when trees were felled in large groups with surrounding forest unaffected, there was less damage to artificial hazel dormouse nests than when trees were felled in small groups or thinned throughout. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2648https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2648Sat, 13 Jun 2020 17:59:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Gather coarse woody debris into piles after felling Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of gathering coarse woody debris into piles after felling. Both studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in Canada found higher mammal species richness where coarse woody debris was gathered into piles. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in Canada found higher counts of San Bernardino long-tailed voles where coarse woody debris was gathered into piles. The other study found higher small mammal abundance at one of three plots where debris was gathered into piles. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2653https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2653Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:38:30 +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