Use lights and sound to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Overall effectiveness category Unlikely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

20%
Certainty

40%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This intervention specifically refers to use of light and sound in combination, typically delivered via a commercially-produced product designed to deter visits by wild mammals. If successful, such an intervention could reduce crop damage and, thus, reduce motivation for carrying out lethal control of herbivores.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects of using both lights and sound 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): Two replicated paired sites, controlled studies (one also randomized), in the USA, found that frightening devices, emitting lights and sound, did not reduce crop intrusions by white-tailed deer or food consumption by elk and mule deer.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in 1999 of corn fields at two sites in Nebraska, USA (Gilsdorf et al. 2004) found that a device emitting lights and sound (Electronic Guard) did not reduce crop visits by white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus. The number of deer visits/km of field boundary did not differ between treatment fields protected by Electronic Guards (38–46/day) and unprotected control fields (40–56/day). Similarly, there was no difference between fields before devices operated (treatment fields: 24 visits/km/day; control fields: 21 visits/km/day) or after operations ceased (treatment fields: 47 visits/km/day; control field: 53 visits/km/day). Four groups of fields were studied at each of two sites. Fields were 0.5–2.5 km apart and separated by woodland. In each group, one field was protected by two Electronic Guard devices and one field was unguarded. Electronic Guards comprised a strobe light (60 flashes/minute) and siren (116 dB at 1 m). They operated at night, from when corn crops became susceptible to damage (13 July 1999 at one site and 25 July 1999 at the second site), for 18 days. Deer activity was assessed by counting tracks twice while devices operated, once during the two weeks before devices operated and once during the week after they operated.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Gilsdorf J.M., Hygnstrom S.E., VerCauteren K.C., Blankenship E.E. & Engeman R.M. (2004) Propane exploders and Electronic Guards were ineffective at reducing deer damage in cornfields. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32, 524-531.
A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in 2001 of pastures on a ranch in Colorado, USA (VerCauteren et al. 2005) found that a device emitting lights and sound (Critter Gitter™) did not reduce combined elk Cervus canadensis and mule deer Odocoileus hemionus food consumption. Daily alfalfa consumption at bales protected by Critter Gitters™ (3.1–6.0 kg/day) did not differ from that at unprotected bales (2.8–7.3 kg/day). The Critter Gitter™ activated when infrared sensors detected movement and heat. When activated, an alarm (approaching 120 decibels) sounded for five seconds and a pair of red LEDs flashed. Five sites (>300 m apart) on private ranchland, adjacent to residential areas, were studied. Each site had two alfalfa bales, 60 m apart. One or two devices were positioned by one bale (selected randomly). The other bale was unprotected. Devices detected animals ≤2 m away. Alfalfa consumption was estimated visually, every two or three days, on 10 occasions.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
VerCauteren K.C., Shivik J.A. & Lavelle M.J. (2005) Efficacy of an animal-activated frightening device on urban elk and mule deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33, 1282-1287.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Dispose of livestock carcasses to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Use pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Use bees to deter crop damage by mammals (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link