Study

Evaluation of a deer-activated bioacoustic frightening device for reducing deer damage in cornfields

  • Published source details Gilsdorf J.M., Hygnstrom S.E., VerCauteren K.C., Clements G.M., Blankenship E.E. & Engeman R.M. (2004) Evaluation of a deer-activated bioacoustic frightening device for reducing deer damage in cornfields. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32, 515-523

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use target species distress calls or signals to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Use target species distress calls or signals to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 2001 on arable fields alongside woodland at a site in Nebraska, USA (Gilsdorf et al. 2004) found that playing white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus distress calls did not affect deer intrusions into corn crops or subsequent corn yields. The rate of deer entries into fields was similar at fields protected by frightening devices (48–57 entried/km boundary/day) and unprotected fields (48–52 entries/km boundary/day). Similarly, there was no difference between fields before devices operated (device fields: 69 entries/km/day; unprotected: 56 entries/km/day) or after devices were turned off (device fields: 23–46 entries/km/day; unprotected: 20–47 entries/km/day). Average corn yields did not differ between fields with frightening devices (6,381 kg/ha) and unprotected fields (5,614 kg/ha). Six pairs of fields (6–20 ha, ≥0.5 km apart, matched for size, shape and location) were studied. Frightening devices played deer distress noises for 30 s when activated by deer breaking 50–200-m-long infrared beams. Two devices at each protected field covered 21–48% of the perimeter. Devices operated from 6–24 July 2001, when corn was most vulnerable to deer-damage. Deer activity was assessed by counting tracks twice during the device operating period, once five days before this and three times during 18 days after this time.

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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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