Study

To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates

  • Published source details Milner J.M., Van Beest F.M., Schmidt K.T., Brook R.K. & Storaas T. (2014) To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78, 1322-1334

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Provide food/salt lick to divert mammals from roads or railways

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Provide supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Provide food/salt lick to divert mammals from roads or railways

    A review of evidence within studies looking at effects of feeding wild ungulates in North America, Fennoscandia and elsewhere in Europe (Milner et al. 2014) found that diversionary feeding diverted ungulates away from roads in one of three studies. No such effect was found in the other two studies. The review also assessed evidence for supplementary feeding affecting survival and morphological characteristics. In total, the review reported evidence from 101 studies that met predefined criteria from an initial list of 232 papers and reports. Three of these studies investigated the effectiveness of feeding for diverting ungulates away from roads.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

  2. Provide supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival

    A review of evidence within studies looking at effects of feeding wild ungulates in North America (48 studies), Fennoscandia (25 studies) and elsewhere in Europe (28 studies) (Milner et al. 2014) found that supplementary feeding increased ungulate survival, reproductive rates or condition in varying proportions of studies. Ungulate survival rates increased in four out of seven relevant studies. The reproductive rate increased in five of eight relevant studies. Birth mass increased in one of three relevant studies. Loss of mass in winter was reduced or winter condition improved in five of seven relevant studies. Autumn mass increased in three of 11 relevant studies. Autumn mass or condition of offspring was improved in four of six relevant studies. Carrying capacity was increased in all three relevant studies. The review reported evidence from 101 studies that met predefined criteria from an initial list of 232 papers and reports.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 18

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust