Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove mid-storey vegetation in forest One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing mid-storey vegetation in forest. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after removing mid-storey vegetation, mammal species richness increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after removing mid-storey vegetation, mammal abundance increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2480https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2480Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:15:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use drones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using drones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Tanzania. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Tanzania found that drones repelled African savanna elephants from crops within one minute. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2481https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2481Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:25:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove understorey vegetation in forest Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing understorey vegetation in forest. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two also before-and-after), in the USA, found that compared to prescribed burning, mechanically removing understorey vegetation growth in forests did not increase abundances of white-footed mice, shrews or four rodent species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2482https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2482Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:27:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that where Ashe juniper trees were removed, there were higher abundances of three rodent species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that removing trees increased use of areas by Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2483https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2483Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:42:33 +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: 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: Use negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the 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 white-tailed deer presence at cattle feeders was usually reduced by a device that produced a negative stimulus. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2486https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2486Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:03:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Play predator calls to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of playing predator calls to deter crop damage 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%2F2487https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2487Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:12:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use target species distress calls or signals to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects of using target species distress calls or signals to deter crop damage by these species to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one each was in Namibia, Australia and Sri Lanka. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Two of five replicated studies (including four controlled studies), in the USA, Namibia, Australia and Sri Lanka, found that white-tailed deer and Asian elephants were deterred or repelled from areas by playing their respective distress calls. Two studies found that, in most cases, elephants and white-tailed deer were not deterred from entering or remaining at sites when distress calls were played. The fifth study found mixed results but, overall, eastern grey kangaroo foot-thumping noises did not increase numbers leaving a site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2488https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2488Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:14:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use bees to deter crop damage by mammals (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects on elephants of using bees to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All three studies were in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including one controlled study), in Kenya, found that beehive fences reduced crop raiding by African elephants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2489https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2489Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:04:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore former mining sites Twelve studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining sites on mammals. Eleven studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Species richness (8 studies): A review in Australia found that seven of 11 studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had lower mammal species richness compared to unmined areas. Four of five replicated, site comparison studies, in Australia, found that mammal species richness was similar in restored mine areas compared to unmined areas or higher in restored areas (but similar when considering only native species). One study found that species richness was lower in restored compared to in unmined areas. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal species richness. A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that restored mine areas were recolonized by a range of mammal species within 10 years. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): A review of rehabilitated mine sites in Australia found that only two of eight studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had equal or higher mammal densities compared to those in unmined areas. One of three replicated, site comparison studies, in the USA and Australia, found that small mammal density was similar on restored mines compared to on unmined land. One study found that for three of four species (including all three native species studied) abundance was lower in restored compared to unmined sites and one study found mixed results, including that abundances of two out of three focal native species were lower in restored compared to unmined sites. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal abundance. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that most restored former mine areas were not used by koalas while another replicated site comparison study in Australia found quokka activity to be similar in revegetated mined sites compared to in unmined forest. OTHER (1 STUDY) Genetic diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in forest on restored mine areas, genetic diversity of yellow-footed antechinus was similar to that in unmined forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:08:11 +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: Use chili to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Seven studies evaluated the effects on elephants of using chili to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in Zimbabwe, two were in Kenya and one was in India. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (7 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (7 studies): Five of seven studies (including four replicated and two before-and-after studies), in Zimbabwe, Kenya and India, found that chill-based deterrents (chili-spray, chili smoke, chili fences and chili extract in a projectile, in some cases along with other deterrents) repelled elephants at least initially, whist two studies found that chili smoke (and in one case chili fences) did not reduce crop raiding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2492https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2492Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:22:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to protect water sources for use by wild mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fencing to protect water sources for use by wild 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%2F2493https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2493Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:02:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food after fire One study evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary food after fire. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary feeding did not increase survival of hispid cotton rats following prescribed fire. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2494https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2494Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:06:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to exclude grazers or other problematic species Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fencing to exclude grazers or other problematic species. One study was in each of the USA, Australia and Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that after fencing to exclude introduced herbivores, native mammal species richness increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated, paired sites study) in Spain and Australia found that using fences to exclude large or introduced herbivores increased the abundance of Algerian mice and native mammals. A replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that in areas fenced to exclude livestock grazing and off-road vehicles, abundance of black-tailed hares was lower compared to in unfenced areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2495https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2495Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:18:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use light/lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of using light or lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that red lasers did not disperse white-tailed deer from fields at night whilst a study in India found that spotlights directed at the eyes of Asian elephants did reduce the probability of crop damage. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2496https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2496Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:25:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species Ten studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species. Four studies were in Australia, four were in the USA and two were in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that fencing which excluded feral cats, foxes and rabbits increased small mammal species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated, controlled studies), in Spain, Australia and the USA, found that abundances of European rabbits and small mammals were higher within areas fenced to exclude predators or other problematic species, compared to in unfenced areas. The third study found that hispid cotton rat abundance was not higher with predator fencing. A replicated, controlled study in Spain found that translocated European rabbit abundance was higher in fenced areas that excluded both terrestrial carnivores and raptors than in areas only accessible to raptors. Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that predator exclosures increased the number of white-tailed deer fawns relative to the number of adult females. Survival (7 studies): Four of six studies (including four replicated, controlled studies) in Spain, Australia and the USA, found that fencing to exclude predators did not increase survival of translocated European rabbits, hispid cotton rats, southern flying squirrels or western barred bandicoots. The other two studies found that persistence of populations of eastern barred bandicoots and long-haired rats was greater inside than outside fences. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that electric fencing reduced coyote incursions into sites frequented by black-footed ferrets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2497https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2497Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:36:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native amphibians (e.g. cane toads) We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native amphibians. '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%2F2498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2498Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:38:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Zimbabwe and one was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated study in Zimbabwe found that a combination of large fires and people with drums and dogs repelled African elephants from crops faster than did a combination of people with dogs and slingshots, drums and burning sticks. A study in India found that fire reduced the chance of Asian elephants damaging crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2499https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2499Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:39:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use electric fencing to deter mammals from energy installations or mines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using electric fencing to deter mammals from energy installations or mines. ‘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%2F2500https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2500Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:40:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native invertebrates One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invertebrates. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study the USA found that after the control of red imported fire ants, capture rates of northern pygmy mice increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2501https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2501Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:42:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellents to reduce cable gnawing One study evaluated the effects of using repellents to reduce cable gnawing. 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 randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that repellents only deterred cable gnawing by northern pocket gophers when encased in shrink-tubing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2502https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2502Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:42:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using pheromones to deter crop damage 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%2F2503https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2503Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:47:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native mammals Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals. Twenty-one studies were in Australia, and one was in each of France, the UK, Equador and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (24 STUDIES) Abundance (21 studies): Ten of 18 controlled, before-and-after or site comparison studies, in Australia, found that after controlling red foxes, abundances, densities or trapping frequencies increased for rock-wallaby spp., eastern grey kangaroo, woylie,, brush-tail possum, tammar wallaby, chuditch and quenda. Seven studies found mixed results with increases in some species but not others, increases followed by declines or increases only where cats as well as foxes were controlled. The other study found no increase in bush rat numbers with fox control. One of three replicated, before-and-after studies (including two controlled studies), in Australia, France and Ecuador, found that control of invasive rodents increased numbers of lesser white-toothed shrews and greater white-toothed shrews. One study found that Santiago rice rat abundance declined less with rodent control and one found mixed results, with increased numbers of short-tailed mice at one out of four study sites. Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that controlling red foxes increased survival of juvenile eastern grey kangaroos. Occupancy/range (3 studies): Three studies (two before-and-after, one controlled), in the UK and Australia, found that after controlling non-native American mink, red foxes and European rabbits, there were increases in ranges or proportions of sites occupied by water vole, common brushtail possum, long-nosed potoroo and southern brown bandicoot and four native small mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that following removal of feral cats, vertebrate prey increased as a proportion of the diet of island foxes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:58:03 +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