Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide diversionary feeding for mammals to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of providing diversionary feeding for mammals to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Slovenia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Uptake (1 study): A site comparison study in Slovenia found that 22-63% of the estimated annual energy content of the diet of brown bears comprised provided diversionary food. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one also a site comparison) in the USA found that diversionary feeding reduced nuisance behaviour by black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2323https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2323Wed, 20 May 2020 10:24:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect mammals close to development areas (e.g. by fencing) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting mammals close to development areas (e.g. by fencing). '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%2F2324https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2324Wed, 20 May 2020 11:54:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paths to limit extent of disturbance to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing paths to limit the extent of disturbance to 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%2F2337https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2337Thu, 21 May 2020 15:21:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing or retaining set-aside areas on farmland. Three studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including two site comparison studies), in the UK and Switzerland, found that set-aside did not enhance small mammal numbers relative to cropland or to uncultivated field margins and farm woodland, or brown hare numbers relative to numbers on farms without set-aside areas. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A before-and-after study in the UK found that use of uncut set-aside areas by wood mice increased after crop harvesting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2377Wed, 27 May 2020 08:48:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges during crop harvesting or mowing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing refuges during crop harvesting or mowing. ‘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%2F2389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2389Thu, 28 May 2020 09:02:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide shelter structures after fire We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing shelter structures after fire. ‘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%2F2418https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2418Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:03:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats Two studies evaluated the effects of providing education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. One study was in South Africa and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that educating ranchers on ways of reducing livestock losses, along with stricter hunting policies, increased leopard density. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that educating ranchers on ways of reducing livestock losses, along with stricter hunting policies, reduced leopard mortalities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that visiting households to educate about the danger of garbage to black bears did not increase use of wildlife-resistant dumpsters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2423https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2423Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:28:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide science-based films, radio programmes, or books about mammals to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing science-based films, radio programmes, or books about mammals to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. ‘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%2F2424https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2424Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide diversionary feeding to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of providing diversionary feeding to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that diversionary feeding of predators did not increase overall nest success rates for ducks. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): One of two studies (one controlled, one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that diversionary feeding reduced striped skunk predation on duck nests. The other study found that diversionary feeding of grizzly bears did not reduce predation on livestock. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2437https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2437Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:36:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Six studies evaluated the effects of providing diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Canada and one was in each of France, Spain and Austria. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Three of six studies (including four controlled and one before-and-after study) in Canada, France, Spain and Austria found that diversionary feeding reduced damage by red squirrels to pine trees and European rabbits to grape vines, and resulted in fewer red deer using vulnerable forest stands. Two studies found that diversionary feeding did not reduce damage by voles to apple trees or wild boar to grape vines. One study found mixed results on damage by voles to crabapple trees depending on the food provided. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2457https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2457Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:18:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial waterholes in dry season Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial waterholes in the dry season. One study was in South Africa, one was in Tanzania and one was in Jordan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that artificial waterholes were used by a similar number of large mammal species as was a natural waterhole. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A study in South Africa found that areas around artificial waterholes were used more by eight out of 13 mammalian herbivore species than was the wider landscape. A study in Jordan found that artificial waterholes were used by striped hyenas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2484https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2484Thu, 04 Jun 2020 12:15:59 +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: Provide artificial refuges for prey to evade/escape non-native predators We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial refuges for prey to evade/escape non-native predators. '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%2F2533https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2533Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:24:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat along elevational gradients We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of protecting habitat along elevational gradients. ‘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%2F2552https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2552Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:36:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide dams/water holes during drought We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing dams or water holes during drought. ‘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%2F2554https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2554Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:44:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide diversionary feeding for predators One study evaluated the effects on potential prey mammals of providing diversionary feeding for predators. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that diversionary feeding of predators appeared to increase woodland caribou calf survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2578https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2578Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:20:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial refuges/breeding sites Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial refuges/breeding sites. Two studies were in each of the USA, Spain and Portugal and one was in each of Argentina and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled), in Spain and Portugal, found that artificial warrens increased European rabbit abundance. A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Argentina found that artificial refuges did not increase abundances of small vesper mice or Azara's grass mice. Survival (1 study): A study in USA found that artificial escape dens increased swift fox survival rates. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (two replicated), in Australia, Spain, Portugal and the USA, found that artificial refuges, warrens or nest structures were used by fat-tailed dunnarts, European rabbits, and Key Largo woodrats and Key Largo cotton mice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2583Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial dens or nest boxes on trees Thirty studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial dens or nest boxes on trees. Fourteen studies were in Australia, nine were in the USA, three were in the UK, one was in each of Canada, Lithuania, South Africa and Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Three of five controlled studies (three also replicated) in the USA, the UK, Canada and Lithuania, found that provision of artificial dens or nest boxes increased abundances of gray squirrels and common dormice. The other two studies found that northern flying squirrel and Douglas squirrel abundances did not increase. Condition (1 study): A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that nest boxes provision did not increase body masses of northern flying squirrel or Douglas squirrel. BEHAVIOUR (27 STUDIES) Use (27 studies): Twenty-seven studies, in Australia, the USA, the UK, Canada, South Africa and Japan found that artificial dens or nest boxes were used by a range of mammal species for roosting and breeding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2584https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2584Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:48:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide more small artificial breeding sites rather than fewer large sites One study evaluated the effects on mammals of providing more small artificial breeding sites rather than fewer larger sites. This study was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Spain found that smaller artificial warrens supported higher rabbit densities than did larger artificial warrens. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2595https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2595Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:54:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit or restrict hunting of a species Five studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of a mammal species. One study each was in Norway, the USA, South Africa, Poland and Zimbabwe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study), in the USA and Poland, found that prohibiting hunting led to population increases of tule elk and wolves. Survival (3 studies): A before-and-after study in Norway found that restricting or prohibiting hunting did not alter the number of brown bears killed. A study in Zimbabwe reported that banning the hunting, possession and trade of Temminck’s ground pangolins did not eliminate hunting of the species. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that increasing legal protection of leopards, along with reducing human-leopard conflict by promoting improved animal husbandry, was associated with increased survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2597https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2597Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:05:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit or restrict hunting of particular sex/ breeding status/age animals Two studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of particular sex, breeding status or age animals. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproduction (2 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that limiting hunting of male deer did not increase the numbers of young deer/adult female. Population structure (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that limiting hunting of older male elk resulted in an increased ratio of male:female elk. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2609https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2609Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:29:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide food/salt lick to divert mammals from roads or railways Three studies evaluated the effects of providing food or salt licks to divert mammals from roads. One study was in the USA, one was in Norway and one was a review of studies from across North America and Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that intercept feeding reduced mule deer road deaths along two of three highways in one of two years. A replicated, site comparison study in Norway found that intercept feeding reduced moose collisions with trains. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A review of feeding wild ungulates in North America, and Europe found that feeding diverted ungulates away from roads in one of three studies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2617https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2617Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:14:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote sustainable alternative livelihoods We found no studies that evaluated the effects of promoting sustainable alternative livelihoods on 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%2F2623https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2623Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:50:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote mammal-related ecotourism We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of promoting mammal-related ecotourism. ‘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%2F2624https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2624Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:52:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide mammals with escape routes from canals Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing mammals with escape routes from canals. Two studies were in Germany and one each was in the USA, the Netherlands and Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one before-and-after), in Germany and the USA, found that ramps and ladders reduced mule deer drownings whilst the other study found that ramps and shallow-water inlets did not reduce mammal drownings. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in Germany, the Netherlands and Argentina, found that ramps and other access or escape routes out of water were used by a range of medium-sized and large mammals species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2638https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2638Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:06:54 +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