Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rehabilitate injured, sick or weak mammals Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of rehabilitating injured, sick or weak mammals. Four studies were in the UK, three were in Spain, two were in Argentina and one each was in Uganda, Australia, the USA and Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Survival (11 studies): Five studies, in the UK and Spain, found that varying proportions of European hedgehogs released after being rehabilitated in captivity survived during post-release monitoring periods, which ranged from two weeks to 136 days. Five studies, in Australia, Spain, the USA and Brazil, found that four koalas, an Iberian lynx, a gray wolf, a puma and two brown bears released following rehabilitation in captivity survived for varying durations during monitoring periods, which ranged in length from three months to up to seven years. A study in Argentina found that over half of released rehabilitated and captive-reared giant anteaters survived for at least six months. Condition (2 studies): A study in Uganda found that a snare wound in a white rhinoceros healed after treatment and rehabilitation. A study in the UK found that two of three rehabilitated European hedgehogs lost 12-36% of their body weight after release into the wild. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that released wild-born rehabilitated giant anteaters were more nocturnal in their activity patterns than captive-bred individuals.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2352https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2352Tue, 26 May 2020 08:46:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of translocated mammals. Ten studies were in the USA, seven were in South Africa, four were in the UK, three studies were in France, two studies were in each of Canada, Australia and Spain and one was in each of Kenya, Zimbabwe, Italy, Ireland and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (31 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four studies (two replicated, one before-and-after study) in South Africa, Canada, France and Spain found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), populations of roe deer, European rabbits and lions increased in size. The other study found that elk numbers increased at two of four sites. Reproductive success (10 studies): A replicated study in the USA found that translocated gray wolves had similar breeding success in the first two years after release when adult family groups were released together from holding pens or when young adults were released directly into the wild. Seven of nine studies (including two replicated and one controlled study) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, Italy, Ireland, Australia and the UK found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations of roan, California ground squirrels, black-tailed prairie dogs, lions, four of four mammal populations, most female red squirrels and some pine martens reproduced successfully. Two studies found that one of two groups of Cape buffalo and one pair out of 18 Eurasian badgers reproduced. Survival (26 studies): Two of seven studies (five controlled, three replicated studies) in Canada, the USA, France, the UK found that releasing animals from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with associated actions) resulted in higher survival for water voles and female European rabbits compared to those released directly into the wild. Four studies found that translocated swift foxes, gray wolves, Eurasian lynx and Gunnison's prairie dogs released from holding pens had similar survival rates to those released directly into the wild. One study found that translocated American martens released from holding pens had lower survival than those released directly into the wild. Two of four studies (three controlled) in South Africa, Spain, and the USA found that translocated African wild dogs and European rabbits that spent longer in holding pens at release sites had a higher survival rate after release. One study found mixed effects for swift foxes and one found no effect of time in holding pens for San Joaquin kit foxes. Eleven studies (one replicated) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, France, Italy, Ireland, India, Australia and the UK found that after release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations or individuals survived between one month and six years, and four of four mammal populations survived. Two studies in the UK and South Africa found that no released red squirrels or rock hyraxes survived over five months or 18 days respectively. One of two controlled studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in South Africa and the USA found that following release from holding pens, survival of translocated lions was higher than that of resident animals, whilst that of translocated San Joaquin kit foxes was lower than that of resident animals. A study in Australia found that translocated bridled nailtail wallabies kept in holding pens prior to release into areas where predators had been controlled had similar annual survival to that of captive-bred animals. Condition (1 study): A controlled study in the UK found that translocated common dormice held in pens before release gained weight after release whereas those released directly lost weight. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in the USA and Canada found that following release from holding pens, fewer translocated sea otters and gray wolves returned to the capture site compared to those released immediately after translocation, and elk remained at all release sites. Two studies in Zimbabwe and South Africa found that following release from holding pens, translocated lions formed new prides. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:44:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food during/after release of translocated mammals Sixteen studies evaluated the effects of providing supplementary food during/after release of translocated mammals. Four studies were in the UK, two were in each of the USA, France, Australia and Argentina, and one was in each of Italy, Spain, Ireland and South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A controlled study in Spain found that providing supplementary food during translocation did not increase European rabbit abundance. A study in France found that following supplementary feeding in a holding pen prior to release, a translocated deer population increased over six years. Reproductive success (4 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in the USA, Italy and Ireland found that having been provided with supplementary food in holding pens prior to release, translocated black-tailed prairie dogs, a pair of Eurasian badgers and most female red squirrels reproduced in the wild. A study in the UK found that some translocated pine martens released from holding pens and then provided with supplementary food and nest boxes bred in the first year after release. Survival (10 studies): Six of 10 studies (including one replicated and one controlled study) in the UK, France, Italy, Ireland, South Africa, USA, Argentina and Australia found that at sites with supplementary food in holding pens before (and in two cases after) release, translocated populations of black-tailed prairie dogs, approximately half of female roe deer and over half of red squirrels, Eurasian badgers, pine martens and released rehabilitated or captive reared giant anteaters survived for between one month and at least two years. Four studies found that at translocation release sites with provision of supplementary food, in most cases artificial refuges and in one case water, no red squirrels, rock hyraxes or burrowing bettongs survived over 2-5 months and most translocated Tipton and Heermann’s kangaroo rat spp. died within five days. A controlled study in France found that translocated European rabbits provided with supplementary food in holding pens for three days prior to release had higher female (but not male) survival rates immediately following release compared to those released directly. A controlled study in the UK found that survival of translocated and rehabilitated European hedgehogs that were provided with supplementary food after release varied with release method. Condition (2 studies): One of three studies (including one replicated, one controlled and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Australia found that translocated common dormice gained weight after being provided with supplementary food. One found that translocated eastern bettongs did not have increased body weights after provision of supplementary food in fenced enclosures prior to release. The other found that translocated and rehabilitated European hedgehogs provided with food after release all lost body mass, with effects varying with release method. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): A controlled study in Australia found that supplementary feeding stations were visited by translocated burrowing bettongs. Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being provided with supplementary food and kept in holding pens, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal than wild-born rehabilitated and released individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2470https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2470Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:59:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under roads Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under roads. Eight studies were in the USA, four were in Australia, four were in Canada, two were in Spain, one each was in Germany, the Netherlands and South Korea and three were reviews with wide geographic coverage. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): A study in South Korea found that road sections with higher underpass density did not have fewer wildlife-vehicle collisions. A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation of mammals using crossings under roads. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that overwinter survival of mountain pygmy-possums increased after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed. BEHAVIOUR (23 STUDIES) Use (23 studies): Seventeen of 20 studies (including seven replicated studies and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, and across multiple continents, found that crossing structures beneath roads were used by mammals whilst two studies found mixed results depending on species and one study found that culverts were rarely used as crossings by mammals. One of the studies found that crossing structures were used by two of four species more than expected compared to their movements through adjacent habitats. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was used by mountain pygmy-possums. A replicated study in Germany found that use of tunnels by fallow deer was affected by tunnel colour and design. A study in the USA found that a range of mammals used culverts, including those with shelves fastened to the sides. Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed, dispersal of mountain pygmy-possums increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514Fri, 05 Jun 2020 10:17:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under railways Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under railways. Two studies were in Spain, one was in each of Australia, Canada and the Netherlands and one reviewed literature from a range of countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation in or around passages under railways or roads of mammals using those passages. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Five studies, in Spain, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands, found that tunnels, culverts and underpasses beneath railways were used by a range of mammals including rodents, rabbits and hares, carnivores, marsupials, deer and bears. One of these studies found that existing culverts were used more than were specifically designed wildlife tunnels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2519https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2519Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:27:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify culverts to make them more accessible to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying culverts to make them more accessible to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that modified culverts (with a dry walkway, open-air central section and enlarged entrances) were used more by bobcats to make crossings than were unmodified culverts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install ledges in culverts under roads/railways Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing ledges in culverts under roads or railways. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Portugal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): A replicated, controlled study in Portugal found that under-road culverts with ledges were used more than culverts without ledges by two of five mammal species. A before-and-after study in the USA found that installing ledges within under-road culverts did not increase the number or diversity of small mammal species crossing through them, and only one of six species used ledges. A study in the USA found that ledges in under-road culverts were used by nine of 12 small mammal species and ledges with access ramps were used more often than those without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2523https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2523Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:50:11 +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: Install fences around existing culverts or underpasses under roads/railways Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing fences around existing culverts under roads/railways. Two studies were in the USA one was in Portugal and one was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two out of three before-and-after studies (including a controlled and a site comparison study), in the USA, Portugal and South Africa, found that installing or enhancing roadside fencing alongside existing culverts reduced mammal road mortality whilst one study found that such fences did not alter mammal road mortality. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that fences installed to funnel animals to existing culverts did not increase culvert use by bobcats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2525https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2525Mon, 08 Jun 2020 11:56:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses over roads/railways Twenty-two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing overpasses over roads or railways. Seven studies were in Canada, three were in Spain, three were in Australia, two were in Sweden, one each was in the Netherlands, Germany, Croatia and the USA, and three (including two reviews) were conducted across multiple countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Survival (4 studies): Four studies (including three before-and-after studies), in Canada, Sweden and Australia, found that overpasses (in combination with roadside fencing) reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. In two of these studies, data from overpasses and underpasses were combined for analysis. BEHAVIOUR (21 STUDIES) Use (21 studies): Nineteen studies, in North America, Europe and Australia, found that overpasses were used by mammals. A wide range of mammals was reported using overpasses, including rodents and shrews, rabbits and hares, carnivores, ungulates, bears, marsupials and short-beaked echidna. A review of crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America found that overpasses were used by a range of mammals, particularly larger mammal species. A global review of crossing structures (including overpasses) found that all studies reported that the majority of crossings were used by wildlife. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2526https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2526Mon, 08 Jun 2020 13:33:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install pole crossings for gliders/flying squirrels Seven studies evaluated the effects on gliders/flying squirrels of installing pole crossings. Six studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in Australia found that arboreal marsupials using artificial road crossing structures did not suffer high predation rates when doing so. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (6 studies): Six studies (five replicated), in Australia and the USA, found that poles were used for crossing roads by squirrel gliders, sugar gliders and Carolina northern flying squirrels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2546https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2546Tue, 09 Jun 2020 09:20:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install rope bridges between canopies Ten studies evaluated the effects on mammals of install rope bridges between canopies. Eight studies were in Australia, one was in Brazil and one in Peru. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in Australia found that arboreal marsupials using rope bridges did not suffer high predation rates when doing so. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (9 studies): Nine studies (including three replicated studies and a site comparison), in Australia, Brazil and Peru found that rope bridges were used by a range of mammals. Seven of these studies found between three and 25 species using rope bridges, one found that that they were used by squirrel gliders and one that they were used by mountain brushtail possums and common ringtail possums but not by koalas and squirrel gliders. One of the studies found that crossing rates were higher over the canopy bridges than at ground level. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2556https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2556Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:50:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways Seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways. All seven studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated), in the USA, found that barrier fencing with one-way gates reduced deer-vehicle collisions. One of two studies (one before-and-after and one replicated, controlled), in the USA, found that barrier fencing with escape gates along roads with one or more underpasses reduced moose-vehicle collisions, whilst the other found no reduction in total mammal road casualty rates. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in USA found that earth escape ramps reduced mammal road mortalities. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One of two studies (one replicated) in the USA, found that one-way gates allowed mule deer to escape when trapped along highways with barrier fencing, whilst the other found that a small proportion used one-way gates. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that earth escape ramps were used more often than were one-way escape gates to enable deer to escape highways with barrier fencing. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that barrier fencing with escape gates and underpasses facilitated road crossings by a range of mammals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2558https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2558Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:28:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along roads Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along roads. Eight studies were in the USA, one each was in Canada, Germany and Brazil and one spanned the USA, Canada and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Survival (9 studies): Three controlled studies, in the USA, Germany and Brazil, found that roadside fencing or equivalent barrier systems reduced the numbers of mammals, including wildcats and coypu, killed by vehicles on roads. Two before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that roadside fencing with one-way gates to allow escape from the road, reduced the number of collisions between vehicles and deer. A study in the USA found that a 2.7-m-high fence did not reduce road-kills of white-tailed deer compared to a 2.2-m-high fence. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that barrier fencing with designated crossing points did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences, (along with an underpass beneath one highway), reduced moose-vehicle collisions. A review of fencing studies from USA, Canada and Sweden, found that longer fencing along roadsides led to a greater reduction of collisions between large mammals and cars than did shorter fence sections. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that 2.3-m-high fencing in good condition prevented most white-tailed deer accessing a highway. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences reduced moose access to highways. Three studies (two replicated), in the USA, found that higher fences (2.4–2.7 m) prevented more white-tailed deer from entering highways than did fences that were 2.2 m high, 1.2 m high with outriggers or 1.2–1.8 m high. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:55:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads Fifty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing and underpasses along roads. Twenty-seven were in the USA, nine were in Canada, seven were in Australia, two each were in Spain, Portugal, the UK and Sweden, one each was in Denmark, Germany and Croatia and one was a review covering Australia, Europe and North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Survival (15 studies): Eleven of 15 studies (including 12 before-and-after studies and two site comparisons), in the USA, Australia, Sweden and Canada, found that installing underpasses and associated roadside barrier fencing reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. Three studies found that the roadkill rate was not reduced and one study found that vehicle-mammal collisions continued to occur after installation. BEHAVIOUR (52 STUDIES) Use (52 studies): Seventeen of 18 studies (including 10 before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada and Sweden, which reported exclusively on ungulates, found that underpasses installed along with roadside barrier fencing were used by a range of ungulate species. These were mule deer, mountain goat, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, elk, moose and Florida Key deer. The other study found that underpasses were not used by moose whilst one of the studies that did report use by ungulates further reported that they were not used by white-tailed deer. Further observations from these studies included that elk preferred more open, shorter underpasses to those that were enclosed or longer, underpass use was not affected by traffic levels and that mule deer used underpasses less than they used overpasses. Thirty-four studies (including four before-and-after studies, seven replicated studies, three site comparisons and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Croatia and across multiple continents, that either studied mammals other than ungulates or multiple species including ungulates, found that underpasses in areas with roadside fencing were used by mammals. Among these studies, one found that small culverts were used by mice and voles more than were larger underpasses, one found that bandicoots used underpasses less after they were lengthened and one found that culverts were used by grizzly bears less often than were overpasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:35:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install wildlife warning reflectors along roads Fifteen studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing wildlife warning reflectors along roads. Nine studies were in the USA, three were in Austalia, two were in Germany and one was in Denmark. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that when warning reflectors were installed (along with speed restrictions, reflective wildlife signs, rumble strips, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet) a small population of eastern quoll re-established in the area. Survival (10 studies): Five of eight controlled or before-and-after studies in the USA and Germany found that wildlife warning reflectors did not reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. Two studies found that vehicle-deer collisions were reduced by reflectors and one found that collisions were reduced in rural areas but increased in suburban areas. A before-and-after study in Australia found that when warning reflectors were installed (along with speed restrictions, reflective wildlife signs, rumble strips, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet) vehicle collisions with Tasmanian devils, but not eastern quolls, decreased. A review of two studies in Australia found mixed responses of mammal road deaths to wildlife warning reflectors. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Three of four studies (including three controlled studies), in the USA, Denmark and Germany, found that wildlife warning reflectors did not cause deer to behave in ways that made collisions with vehicles less likely (such as by avoiding crossing roads). The other study found that deer initially responded to wildlife reflectors with alarm and flight but then became habituated. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that one of four reflector model/colour combinations increased fleeing behaviour of bush wallabies when lights approached. The other combinations had no effect and none of the combinations affected red kangaroos. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2591https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2591Thu, 11 Jun 2020 09:30:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install acoustic wildlife warnings along roads Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing acoustic wildlife warnings along roads. One study was in Demark and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A before-and-after study in Denmark found that sound from acoustic road markings did not alter fallow deer behaviour. A controlled study in Australia found that Roo-Guard® sound emitters did not deter tammar wallabies from food and so were not considered suitable for keeping them off roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:09:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install wildlife crosswalks One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing wildlife crosswalks. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that designated crossing points with barrier fencing did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2593https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2593Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:27:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Canada found that draining roadside salt pools and filling them with rocks reduced the number and duration of moose visits. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:19:07 +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: Install signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence. Four studies were in the USA one was in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that when wildlife signs were installed along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, a small population of eastern quoll re-established in the area. Survival (6 studies): Three of five studies (including four controlled and three before-and-after studies), in the USA and Canada, found that warning signs did not reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. The other two studies found that warning signs did reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. A before-and-after study in Australia found that wildlife signs along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, reduced collisions between vehicles and Tasmanian devils but not eastern quolls. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, before-and-after), in the USA, found that signs warning of animals on the road reduced vehicles speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2608https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2608Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:22:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one controlled and one before-and-after), in the USA, found that road lighting reduced vehicle collisions with moose. The other study found that road lighting did not reduce vehicle collisions with mule deer. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2614https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2614Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:16:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use chemical repellents along roads or railways Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using chemical repellents along roads or railways. Two studies were in Canada and one each was in Germany, Norway and Denmark. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison), in Germany and Norway, found that chemical-based repellents did not reduce collisions between ungulates and road vehicles or trains. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Two of four studies (including three replicated, controlled studies), in Germany, Canada, and Denmark, found that chemical repellents, trialled for potential to deter animals from roads, did not deter ungulates. The other two studies found mixed results with repellents temporarily deterring some ungulate species in one study and one of three deterrents deterring caribou in the other. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:24:14 +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: Close roads in defined seasons One study evaluated the effects on mammals of closing roads in defined seasons. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that closing roads to traffic during the hunting season increased use of those areas by mule deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2626https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2626Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:07:53 +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