Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place orphaned or abandoned wild young with wild foster parents Three studies evaluated the effects of placing orphaned or abandoned wild young with wild foster parents. One study was in the USA, one was in South Africa and one was in Botswana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled) in the USA and Botswana, found that orphaned young black bears and African wild dogs had greater or equal survival compared to animals released alone or young of wild mammals with their biological parents. A study in South Africa found that an orphaned cheetah cub was not accepted by a family of cheetahs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2343https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2343Fri, 22 May 2020 09:18:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Hand-rear orphaned or abandoned young in captivity Six studies evaluated the effects of hand-rearing orphaned mammals. Two were in the USA, one each was in Australia, South Africa and India and one was in six countries across North America, Europe and Asia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One study in India found that three hand-reared orphaned or abandoned greater one-horned rhinoceroses gave birth in the wild. Survival (5 studies): Five studies (including one controlled and one replicated) in Australia, the USA, India and in six countries across North America, Europe and Asia, found that some hand-reared orphaned or abandoned ringtail possums, white-tailed deer, sea otters, bears and greater one-horned rhinoceroses survived for periods of time after release. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A study in South Africa found that a hand-reared, orphaned serval established a home range upon release. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2358https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2358Tue, 26 May 2020 14:14:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary water to increase reproduction/survival Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary water to increase reproduction/survival. Two studies were in Australia and one each was in Oman, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and the USA and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A replicated study in the USA and Mexico found that providing supplementary water was associated with increases in desert bighorn sheep population size. A study in Oman found that a released captive-bred Arabian oryx population initially provided with supplementary water and food increased over 14 years. Reproduction (2 studies): A study in Saudi Arabia found that released captive-bred Arabian gazelles initially provided with supplementary water and food after release into a fenced area started breeding in the first year. A study in Australia found that most female released captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies provided with supplementary water after release into a large predator-free fenced area reproduced in the first two years. Survival (2 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that most released captive-bred hare-wallabies provided with supplementary water, along with supplementary food and predator control, survived at least two months after release into a fenced peninsula. A study in Australia found that over half of released captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies provided with supplementary water after release into a large predator-free fenced area survived for at least two years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated study in Portugal found that artificial waterholes were used by European rabbits and stone martens. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2396https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2396Thu, 28 May 2020 10:44:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release translocated/captive-bred mammals at a specific time (e.g. season, day/night) Seven studies evaluated the effects of releasing translocated or captive-bred mammals at a specific time (season or day/night). Three studies were in the USA and one each was in the UK, Canada, Ireland and Hungary. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Survival (7 studies): Four of five studies in the UK, Canada and the USA found that translocated common dormice, black bears and Canadian lynx and captive-bred swift foxes released in a specific season had higher survival rates than those released during another season. The other study found that red squirrels translocated in autumn and winter had similar survival rates. A randomised, replicated, controlled study in Hungary found that translocated European ground squirrels released during the morning had higher recapture rates than those released during the afternoon. A study in the USA found that most translocated kangaroo rats released at dusk in artificial burrows supplied with food died within five days of release. Condition (1 study): A study in the UK found that common dormice translocated during summer lost less weight than those translocated during spring. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): Two studies in the UK and USA found that common dormice translocated during spring and black bears translocated during winter travelled shorter distances or settled closer to the release site than those translocated during summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2447https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2447Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:40:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use scent to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of using scent to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Botswana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Two of three studies (including one replicated, before-and-after study), in the USA and Botswana, found that applying scent marks from unfamiliar African wild dogs and grey wolves restricted movements of these species. The other study found that applying scent marks from coyotes did not restrict their movements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2450https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2450Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:54:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive rear in large enclosures prior to release Four studies evaluated the effects of captive rearing mammals in large enclosures prior to release. Two studies were in the USA, one was in Mexico and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): A study in Mexico found that peninsular pronghorn taken from the wild and kept in a large enclosure bred successfully and the population increased, providing stock suitable for reintroductions. Survival (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that black-footed ferrets reared in outdoor pens had higher post-release survival rates than did ferrets raised indoors. A controlled study in Australia found that Tasmanian devils reared free-range in large enclosures did not have greater post-release survival rates than animals from intensively managed captive-rearing facilities. Condition (1 study): A controlled study in Australia found that Tasmanian devils reared free-range in large enclosures did not gain more body weight post-release compared to animals from intensively managed captive-rearing facilities. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in USA found that captive-bred black-footed ferrets raised in large enclosures dispersed shorter distances post-release than did ferrets raised in small enclosures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2507https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2507Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:36:49 +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: Legally protect habitat for mammals Seven studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting habitat for mammals. One study each was in Zambia, the USA, Tanzania, Brazil, Nepal and India and one was a systematic review of sites with a wide geographic spread. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): A systematic review of protected areas across the globe found that 24 of 31 studies reported an increase in mammal populations in protected areas relative to unprotected areas. Three studies (including two site comparison studies), in Zambia, the USA and Nepal, found that populations of red lechwe, black bears and one-horned rhinoceros grew following site protection or were higher than in adjacent non-protected sites. One of three site comparison studies, in Tanzania, Brazil and India, found that populations of more mammal species increased inside protected areas than in adjacent unprotected areas. One study found that populations of only three of 11 species were higher on protected than on unprotected land whilst the third study found that 13 of 16 species were less abundant in a protected area than in a nearby unprotected area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2559https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2559Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:56:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation using herbicides Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing vegetation using herbicides. All six studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the USA found that applying herbicide did not increase numbers of translocated Utah prairie dogs or alter mule deer densities in areas of tree clearance. Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that applying herbicide, along with mechanical disturbance and seeding, increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns. Condition (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that applying herbicide did not reduce bot fly infestation rates of rodents and cottontail rabbits. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that applying herbicide increased forest use by female, but not male, white-tailed deer and increased pasture use by cottontail rabbits in some, but not all, sampling seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2565https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2565Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:27:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create shrubland Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating shrubland. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies, in the USA and Mexico, found that following desert scrub or shrubland restoration, mammal species richness was similar to that in undisturbed areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that restored desert scrub hosted similar small mammal abundance compared to undisturbed desert scrub. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that restoring shrubland following tree clearance did not increase usage of areas by mule deer compared to tree clearance alone. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2569https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2569Tue, 09 Jun 2020 16:19:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forest Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating forest. Two studies were in the USA and one each were in Colombia, Italy and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the USA and Colombia found that mammal species richness in restored forest was similar to that in established forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (one a site comparison) in Australia and Italy found that replanted or regrowing forest supported a higher abundance of hazel dormice than did coppiced forest. The other study found only low numbers of common brushtail possums or common ringtail possums by 7–30 years after planting. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Usage (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that restored riparian forest areas were visited more by carnivores than were remnant forests when restored areas were newly established, but not subsequently, whilst restored areas were not visited more frequently by black-tailed deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2570https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2570Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:06:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or maintain corridors between habitat patches Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of creating or maintaining corridors between habitat patches. One study was in each of Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated) in Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic found that corridors between habitat patches were used by small mammals. Additionally, North American deermice moved further through corridors with increased corridor width and connectivity and root voles moved further in corridors of intermediate width. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2576https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2576Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:20:07 +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: 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: Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts Two studies evaluated the effects on mammal species of using wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts. One study was in Canada and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated site comparison studies in Canada and Mexico found more moose in areas with limited hunting than in more heavily hunted areas. The other study found mixed results with only one of five species being more numerous in a non-hunted refuge. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2612Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:07:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide/increase anti-poaching patrols Seven studies evaluated the effects of providing or increasing anti-poaching patrols on mammals. Two studies were in Thailand and one each was in Brazil, Iran, Lao People's Democratic Republic, South Africa and Tajikistan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Two studies, in Thailand and Iran, found more deer and small mammals and more urial sheep and Persian leopards close to ranger stations (from which anti-poaching patrols were carried out) than further from them. One of three before-and-after studies, in Brazil, Thailand and Lao People's Democratic Republic, found that ranger patrols increased mammal abundance. The other two studies found that patrols did not increase tiger abundance. A site comparison study in Tajikistan found more snow leopard, argali, and ibex where anti-poaching patrols were conducted. Survival (1 study): A study in South Africa found that anti-poaching patrols did not deter African rhinoceros poaching. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2618https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2618Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:16:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting. Two studies were in Canada and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies and a replicated, site comparison study in Canada and Australia found that retaining patches of unharvested trees instead of clearcutting whole forest stands increased or maintained numbers of some but not all small mammals. Higher abundances where tree patches were retained were found for southern red-backed voles, bush rat and for female agile antechinus. No benefit of retaining forest patches was found on abundances of deer mouse, meadow vole and male agile antechinus. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:25:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain undisturbed patches during thinning operations Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining undisturbed patches during thinning operations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies (one also before-and-after) in the USA found that snowshoe hares and tassel-eared squirrels used retained undisturbed forest patches more than thinned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:37:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clear or open patches in forests Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of clearing or opening patches in forests. Two studies were in the USA, one was in Bolivia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated studies (including three controlled studies and a site comparison study), in Bolivia, the USA and Canada, found that creating gaps or open patches within forests did not increase small mammal abundance relative to uncut forest. One study found that it did increase small mammal abundance and one found increased abundance for one of four small mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2641https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2641Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:46:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas. Two studies were in Canada and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One of three studies (including two controlled studies and one site comparison study), in the USA and Canada, found that where competing vegetation was removed to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas, American martens used the areas more. One study found mixed results for moose and one found no increase in site use by snowshoe hares. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2644https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2644Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:14:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave coarse woody debris in forests Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving coarse woody debris in forests. One study was in Canada, one was in the USA and one was in Malaysia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study, in Malaysia found more small mammal species groups in felled forest areas with woody debris than without. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One out of three replicated studies (two controlled, one site comparison, one before-and-after) in Canada, the USA and Malaysia found that retaining or adding coarse woody debris did not increase numbers or frequency of records of small mammals. The other study found that two of three shrew species were more numerous in areas with increased volumes of coarse woody debris than areas without coarse woody debris. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2647Fri, 12 Jun 2020 17:38:11 +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: Apply fertilizer to trees Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of applying fertilizer to trees. All three studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One of three replicated studies (including one controlled study and two site comparison studies), in Canada, found that thinned forest stands to which fertilizer was applied were used more by snowshoe hares in winter but not in summer over the short-term. The other studies found that forest stands to which fertilizer was applied were not more used by snowshoe hares in the longer term or by mule deer or moose. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2649https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2649Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:06:25 +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 +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