• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 16146 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 16146 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Open Book Publishers
  • ›
  • OBP collection
  • ›
  • What Works in Conservation 2021
  • ›
  • 15. Terrestrial mammal conservation
  • ›
  • 15.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture
  • Open Book Publishers
  • Open Book Publishers
    Open Book Publishers
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral 15.2.1 All farming systems15.2.2 Annual and perennial non-timber crops15.2.3 Livestock farming and ranching15.2.4 Reduce human-wildlife conflict

    What Works in Conservation 2021

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    15.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture

    p. 808-843

    Texte intégral 15.2.1 All farming systemsBeneficialCreate uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fieldsLikely to be beneficialEstablish wild flower areas on farmlandPay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measuresPlant new or maintain existing hedgerows on farmlandPlant trees on farmlandProvide or retain set-aside areas on farmlandUnknown effectivenessUse repellent on slug pellets to reduce non-target poisoningNo evidence found (no assessment)15.2.2 Annual and perennial non-timber cropsBeneficialPlant crops to provide supplementary food for mammalsUnknown effectivenessCreate beetle banks on farmlandEstablish long-term cover on erodible croplandLeave cut vegetation in field to provide coverNo evidence found (no assessment)15.2.3 Livestock farming and ranchingBeneficialReduce intensity of grazing by domestic livestockLikely to be beneficialChange type of livestockExclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland)Install mammal crossing points along fences on farmlandUse livestock fences that are permeable to wildlifeUnknown effectivenessUse traditional breeds of livestock15.2.4 Reduce human-wildlife conflictBeneficialDeter predation of livestock by using shock/electronic dog-training collars to reduce human-wildlife conflictInstall electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictInstall electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictInstall non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflictUse guardian animals (e.g. dogs, llamas, donkeys) bonded to livestock to deter predators to reduce human-wildlife conflictLikely to be beneficialExclude wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflictInstall metal grids at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflictKeep livestock in enclosures to reduce predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictPay farmers to compensate for losses due to predators/ wild herbivores to reduce human-wildlife conflictProvide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse bees to deter crop damage by mammals (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse chili to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse flags to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse lights and sound to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse loud noises to deter crop damage (e.g. banger sticks, drums, tins, iron sheets) by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse loud noises to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse scent to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse target species distress calls or signals to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse taste-aversion to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to deter human-wildlife conflictTrade-off between benefit and harmsTranslocate crop raiders away from crops (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflictTranslocate predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflictUnknown effectivenessDeter predation of livestock by herding livestock using adults instead of children to reduce human-wildlife conflictDeter predation of livestock by mammals by having people close by to reduce human-wildlife conflictDispose of livestock carcasses to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictDrive wild animals away using domestic animals of the same species to reduce human-wildlife conflictFit livestock with protective collars to reduce risk of predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictInstall automatically closing gates at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflictProvide diversionary feeding to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictRelocate local pastoralist communities to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse drones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse light/lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse noise aversive conditioning to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse repellents that smell bad (‘area repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse target species scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse ultrasonic noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse visual deterrents (e.g. scarecrows) to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUse ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictUnlikely to be beneficialUse lights and sound to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflictNo evidence found (no assessment)

    Texte intégral

    15.2.1 All farming systems

    Image 10000000000002BE0000029079952F5947A08C54.jpg

    Beneficial

    Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

    1Nine studies evaluated the effect of creating uncultivated margins around intensive arable, cropped grass or pasture fields on mammals. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Switzerland and one was in the USA.

    2COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

    3Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found more small mammal species in uncultivated field margins than in blocks of set-aside.

    4POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES)

    5Abundance (9 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found more small mammals in uncultivated and unmown field margins than in frequently mown margins. Three of seven replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized), in the UK and Switzerland, found that uncultivated field margins had higher numbers of small mammals, bank voles and brown hares relative to crops (including grassland) and set-aside. The other four studies reported mixed or no effects on bank voles, wood mice and common shrews, small mammals and brown hares. One site comparison study in the UK found that brown hares used grassy field margins more than expected based on their availability.

    6BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    7Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 65 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2365

    Likely to be beneficial

    Establish wild flower areas on farmland

    8Four studies evaluated the effects of establishing wild flower areas on farmland on small mammals. Two studies were in Switzerland, one in the UK and one in Germany.

    9COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    10POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES)

    11Abundance (4 studies): Three of four site comparison studies (including three replicated studies), in Switzerland, the UK and Germany, found that sown wildflower areas contained more wood mice, small mammals and common hamsters compared to grass and clover set-aside, grasslands, crop and uncultivated margins, agricultural areas and crop fields.

    12BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    13Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 60 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2359

    Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures

    14Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures. The three studies were in the UK.

    15COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    16POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

    17Abundance (3 studies): A replicated, controlled study, in the UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment was associated with increased brown hare density in one of two regions studied. A replicated, site comparison study in Northern Ireland, UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment did not increase numbers of Irish hares. A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that in field margins created through enrolment in an agri-environment scheme, small mammal abundance in spring increased, whereas it remained stable in conventionally managed margins.

    18BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    19Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 57 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2387

    Plant new or maintain existing hedgerows on farmland

    20Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting new or maintaining existing hedgerows on farmland. Two studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland.

    21COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    22POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

    23Abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies, in the UK and Switzerland, found that retaining and enhancing hedgerows along with other field boundary features was associated with higher brown hare density in arable sites but not in grassland sites while the other study found that Irish hare numbers did not increase. A replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that establishing hedgerows alongside arable land increased small mammal abundance.

    24BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    25Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 45 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2383

    Plant trees on farmland

    26Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting trees on farmland. Two studies were in the UK, one was in Italy and one was in Australia.

    27COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    28POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

    29Abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies (including one controlled, and one site comparison study), in the UK, found that farm woodland supported a higher small mammal abundance than on arable land or similar abundance compared to uncultivated field margins and set-aside.

    30BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

    31Use (2 studies): A study in Italy found that tree stands were used more by European hares compared to the wider farmed landscape. A replicated study in Australia found that trees planted on farmland were used by koalas.

    32Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 60 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2386

    Provide or retain set-aside areas on farmland

    33Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing or retaining set-aside areas on farmland. Three studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland.

    34COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    35POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

    36Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including two site comparison studies), in the UK and Switzerland, found that set-aside did not enhance small mammal numbers relative to cropland or to uncultivated field margins and farm woodland, or brown hare numbers relative to numbers on farms without set-aside areas.

    37BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

    38Use (1 study): A before-and-after study in the UK found that use of uncut set-aside areas by wood mice increased after crop harvesting.

    39Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2377

    Unknown effectiveness

    Use repellent on slug pellets to reduce non-target poisoning

    40One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using repellent on slug pellets to reduce non-target poisoning. This study was in the UK.

    41KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    42POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    43BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

    44Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that, at some concentrations, food treated with a bitter substance was consumed less by wood mice but not by bank voles or common shrews.

    45Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 31 %; certainty 22 %; harms 10 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2390

    No evidence found (no assessment)

    46We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

    • Maintain/restore/create habitat connectivity on farmland

    • Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife on farmland

    • Provide refuges during crop harvesting or mowing

    • Restrict use of rodent poisons on farmland with high secondary poisoning risk.

    15.2.2 Annual and perennial non-timber crops

    Image 10000000000002C0000001909D07CE33CA1E99E6.jpg

    Beneficial

    Plant crops to provide supplementary food for mammals

    47Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting crops to provide supplementary food. Two studies were in the USA, one was in the UK and one was in Spain.

    48COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    49POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

    50Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study), in the UK and Spain, found that crops grown to provide food for wildlife resulted in a higher abundance of small mammals in winter, but not in summer and increased European rabbit abundance. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) held higher overwintering mule deer abundance relative to barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye.

    51BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

    52Use (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that mule deer consumed triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) more than they did barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary food provided for game species was also consumed by lagomorphs and rodents. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 62 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2394

    Unknown effectiveness

    Create beetle banks on farmland

    53One study evaluated the effects on mammals of creating beetle banks on farmland. This study was in the UK.

    54KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    55POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

    56Abundance (1 study): One replicated study in the UK found that beetle banks had higher densities of harvest mouse nests than did field margins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    57Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2393

    Establish long-term cover on erodible cropland

    58One study evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland. This study was in the USA.

    59COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    60POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

    61Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA, found that establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland did not increase the abundance of eastern cottontails.

    62BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    63Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 7 %; certainty 27 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2402

    Leave cut vegetation in field to provide cover

    64One study evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving cut vegetation in field to provide cover. This study was in the USA

    65KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    66POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

    67Abundance (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that increasing cover, by adding cut vegetation (hay), did not increase rodent abundance.

    68BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    69Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 3 %; certainty 30 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2401

    No evidence found (no assessment)

    70We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

    • Change mowing regime (e.g. timing, frequency, height)

    • Increase crop diversity for mammals

    • Leave areas of uncut ryegrass in silage field.

    15.2.3 Livestock farming and ranching

    Image 10000000000002BE0000018C82CEAFEC4243030A.jpg

    Beneficial

    Reduce intensity of grazing by domestic livestock

    71Thirteen studies evaluated the effects on mammals of reducing the intensity of grazing by domestic livestock. Six studies were in the USA, six were in Europe and one was in China.

    72COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

    73Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison or controlled studies, in the USA and Norway, found that reduced livestock grazing intensity was associated with increased species richness of small mammals whilst one study did not find an increase in species richness.

    74POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES)

    75Abundance (13 studies): Six of nine site comparison or controlled studies (including seven replicated studies), in the USA, Denmark, the UK, China, Netherlands and Norway, found that reductions in livestock grazing intensity were associated with increases in abundances (or proxies of abundances) of small mammals, whilst two studies showed no significant impact of reducing grazing intensity and one study showed mixed results for different species. Two replicated studies (including one controlled and one site comparison study), in the UK and in a range of European countries, found that reducing grazing intensity did not increase numbers of Irish hares or European hares. A controlled, before-and-after study, in the USA found that exclusion of cattle grazing was associated with higher numbers of elk and mule deer. A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that an absence of cattle grazing was associated with higher numbers of North American beavers. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    76Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 65 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2408

    Likely to be beneficial

    Change type of livestock

    77Two studies evaluated the effect of changing type of livestock on mammals. One study was in the UK and one was in the Netherlands.

    78COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    79POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

    80Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that sheep and cattle grazing increased field vole abundance relative to sheep-only grazing. One replicated, randomized, paired sites study in the Netherlands found that cattle grazing increased vole abundance relative to horse grazing.

    81BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    82Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 62 %; certainty 41 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2412

    Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland)

    83Nine studies evaluated the effects of excluding livestock from semi-natural habitat on mammals. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Spain and one was in Australia.

    84COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

    85Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found more small mammal species on areas from which livestock were excluded.

    86POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES)

    87Abundance (9 studies): Four out of eight studies (including four site comparisons and four controlled studies), in the USA and Spain, found that excluding grazing livestock led to higher abundances of mule deer, small mammals and, when combined with provision of water, of European rabbits. One study found higher densities of some but not all small mammals species when livestock were excluded and the other three studies found that grazing exclusion did not lead to higher abundances of black-tailed hares, California ground squirrel burrows or of five small mammal species. A site comparison study in Australia found more small mammals where cattle were excluded compared to high intensity cattle-grazing but not compared to medium or low cattle-grazing intensities.

    88BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    89Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 67 %; certainty 60 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2407

    Install mammal crossing points along fences on farmland

    90Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing mammal crossing points along fences on farmland. Two studies were in Namibia and one each was in the USA and the UK.

    91KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    92POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    93BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)

    94Use (4 studies): A study in the USA found that pronghorn antelopes crossed a modified cattle grid which prevented escape of domestic sheep and cows. A controlled, before-and-after study in Namibia found installing swing gates through game fencing reduced the digging of holes by animals under the fence, whilst preventing large predator entry. A study in the UK found that a vertical-sided ditch under an electric fence allowed access by otters. A before-and-after study in Namibia found that tyres installed as crossings through fences were used by wild mammals and reduced fence maintenance requirements.

    95Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2410

    Use livestock fences that are permeable to wildlife

    96Two studies evaluated the effects on target mammals of using livestock fences that are permeable to wildlife. Both studies were in the USA.

    97COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    98POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    99BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

    100Use (2 studies): A study in the USA found that wild ungulates crossed a triangular cross-section fence with varying success rates. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that fences with a lowered top wire were crossed more by elk than were conventional fences.

    101Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2409

    Unknown effectiveness

    Use traditional breeds of livestock

    102One study evaluated the effects of using traditional breeds of livestock on wild mammals. This study was carried out in four European countries.

    103COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    104POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    105BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

    106Use (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in Europe found that European hares did not use areas grazed by traditional livestock breeds more than they used areas grazed by commercial breeds.

    107Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0 %; certainty 10 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2411

    15.2.4 Reduce human-wildlife conflict

    Image 10000000000002CC000001C03A65ED0692C1E47B.jpg
    Image 10000000000002CA0000044A19F9E067F30E1F1A.jpg
    Image 10000000000002C8000004C316BFAED1454655D4.jpg
    Image 10000000000002C8000004B0E2D2C439EE9D7286.jpg

    Beneficial

    Deter predation of livestock by using shock/electronic dog-training collars to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    108Five studies evaluated the effects of using shock/electronic dog-training collars to deter predation of livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All five studies were in the USA.

    109COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    110POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    111BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    112OTHER (5 STUDIES)

    113Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Three of four replicated studies (including two controlled studies), in the USA, found that electric shock collars reduced livestock predation or bait consumption by wolves, whilst one found that they did not reduce wolf bait consumption. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock collars reduced the frequency of attacks by captive coyotes on lambs.

    114Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 67 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2446

    Install electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    115Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Japan, three were in the USA, two were in the UK and one each was in Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau.

    116KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    117POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    118BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    119OTHER (11 studies)

    120Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Nine of 11 studies (including three before-and-after studies and three controlled studies), in the USA, the UK, Japan, Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau, found that electric fences deterred crossings by mammals, ranging in size from European rabbits to elephants. Two studies had mixed results, with some fence designs deterring elephants and black bears.

    121Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80 %; certainty 70 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2439

    Install electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    122Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA (and a further one was presumed to be in the USA) and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Brazil and Spain.

    123COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    124POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    125BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    126OTHER (11 STUDIES)

    127Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Six out of 10 randomized and/or controlled or before-and-after studies (including eight replicated studies), in the USA (and a further one presumed to be in the USA), Canada, Brazil and Spain, found that electric fences reduced or prevented entry to livestock enclosures or predation of livestock by carnivores. Two studies found that some designs of electric fencing prevented coyotes from entering enclosures and killing or wounding lambs. The other two studies found electric fencing did not reduce livestock predation or prevent fence crossings by carnivores. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that electrifying a fence reduced digging of burrows under the fence that black-backed jackals could pass through.

    128Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 65 %; harms 5 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2417

    Install non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict

    129Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one each was in Germany, the UK, Spain, China, Tanzania and Kenya.

    130COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    131POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    132BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    133OTHER (8 STUDIES)

    134Human-wildlife conflict (8 studies): Four replicated studies (including three before-and-after studies), in USA, China, Tanzania and Kenya, found that non-electric fencing reduced livestock predation by coyotes, Tibetan brown bears, and a range of mammalian predators. A replicated, controlled study in USA found that a high woven wire fence with small mesh, an overhang and an apron (to deter burrowing) was the most effective design at deterring crossings by coyotes. A replicated, controlled study in Germany found that fencing with phosphorescent tape was more effective than fencing with normal yellow tape for deterring red deer and roe deer, but had no effect on crossings by wild boar or brown hare. Two studies (one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison and one controlled study) in the UK and Spain found that fences reduced European rabbit numbers on or damage to crops. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 75 %; certainty 70 %; harms 2 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2415

    Use guardian animals (e.g. dogs, llamas, donkeys) bonded to livestock to deter predators to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    135Twelve studies evaluated the effects of using guardian animals (e.g. dogs, llamas, donkeys) bonded to livestock to deter mammals from predating these livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in the USA, two were in Kenya and one each was in Solvakia, Argentina, Australia, Cameroon, South Africa, and Namibia.

    136COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    137POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    138BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    139OTHER (12 STUDIES)

    140Human-wildlife conflict (12 studies): Four of seven studies, (including four site comparison studies), in the USA, Kenya, Solvakia, Australia and Cameroon, found that guardian animals reduced attacks on livestock by predators. The other three studies reported mixed results with reductions in attacks on some but not all age groups or livestock species and reductions for nomadic but not resident pastoralists. Two studies, (including one site comparison study and one before-and-after study), in Argentina and Namibia, found that using dogs to guard livestock reduced the killing of predators by farmers but the number of black-backed jackals killed by farmers and dogs combined increased. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that fewer sheep guarded by llamas were predated by carnivores in one of two summers whilst a replicated, before-and-after study in South Africa found that using dogs or alpacas to guard livestock reduced attacks by predators. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in USA found that dogs bonded with livestock reduced contact between white-tailed deer and domestic cattle. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 67 %; harms 10 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2433

    Likely to be beneficial

    Exclude wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    141Two studies evaluated the effects of excluding wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Cameroon and Benin and one was in Cameroon.

    142COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    143POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    144BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    145OTHER (2 STUDIES)

    146Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study and one site comparison), in Cameroon and Benin and in Cameroon, found that fewer livestock were predated when they were kept in enclosures, especially when these were reinforced.

    147Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2420

    Install metal grids at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    148Two studies evaluated the effects on mammal incursions of installing metal grids at field entrances to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Both of these studies were in the USA.

    149COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    150POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    151BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    152OTHER (2 STUDIES)

    153Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study), in the USA, found that deer guards (horizontal, ground-level metal grids) reduced entry into enclosures by white-tailed deer whilst the other found that they did not prevent crossings by mule deer or elk.

    154Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 45 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2440

    Keep livestock in enclosures to reduce predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    155One study evaluated the effects of keeping livestock in enclosures to reduce predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Portugal.

    156COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    157POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    158BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    159OTHER (1 STUDY)

    160Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Portugal found fewer wolf attacks on cattle on farms where cattle were confined for at least some of the time compared to those with free-ranging cattle.

    161Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2438

    Pay farmers to compensate for losses due to predators/ wild herbivores to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    162Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of paying farmers compensation for losses due to predators or wild herbivores to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Kenya and one each was in Italy and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    163POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES)

    164Abundance (2 studies): Two studies, in Italy and Sweden, found that compensating livestock owners for losses to predators led to increasing populations of wolves and wolverines.

    165Survival (3 studies): Three before-and-after studies (including two replicated studies), in Kenya, found that when pastoralists were compensated for livestock killings by predators, fewer lions were killed.

    166BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    167Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80 %; certainty 60 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2414

    Provide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    168Six studies evaluated the effects of providing diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Canada and one was in each of France, Spain and Austria.

    169COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    170POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    171BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    172OTHER (6 STUDIES)

    173Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Three of six studies (including four controlled and one before-and-after study) in Canada, France, Spain and Austria found that diversionary feeding reduced damage by red squirrels to pine trees and European rabbits to grape vines, and resulted in fewer red deer using vulnerable forest stands. Two studies found that diversionary feeding did not reduce damage by voles to apple trees or wild boar to grape vines. One study found mixed results on damage by voles to crabapple trees depending on the food provided.

    174Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2457

    Use bees to deter crop damage by mammals (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    175Three studies evaluated the effects on elephants of using bees to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All three studies were in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    176POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    177BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    178OTHER (3 STUDIES)

    179Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including one controlled study), in Kenya, found that beehive fences reduced crop raiding by African elephants.

    180Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 60 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2489

    Use chili to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    181Seven studies evaluated the effects on elephants of using chili to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in Zimbabwe, two were in Kenya and one was in India.

    182KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    183POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    184BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    185OTHER (7 STUDIES)

    186Human-wildlife conflict (7 studies): Five of seven studies (including four replicated and two before-and-after studies), in Zimbabwe, Kenya and India, found that chill-based deterrents (chili-spray, chili smoke, chili fences and chili extract in a projectile, in some cases along with other deterrents) repelled elephants at least initially, whist two studies found that chili smoke (and in one case chili fences) did not reduce crop raiding.

    187Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 55 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2492

    Use fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    188Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Zimbabwe and one was in India.

    189COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    190POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    191BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    192OTHER (2 STUDIES)

    193Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated study in Zimbabwe found that a combination of large fires and people with drums and dogs repelled African elephants from crops faster than did a combination of people with dogs and slingshots, drums and burning sticks. A study in India found that fire reduced the chance of Asian elephants damaging crops.

    194Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55 %; certainty 40 %; harms 4 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2499

    Use flags to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    195Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using flags to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in the USA, one was in Italy and one was in Canada.

    196COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    197POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    198BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    199OTHER (5 STUDIES)

    200Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Three studies (including two before-and-after studies and a controlled study), in Italy, Canada and the USA, found that flags hanging from fence lines (fladry) deterred crossings by wolves but not by coyotes. A further replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric fences with fladry were not crossed by wolves. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that fladry did not reduce total deer carcass consumption by a range of carnivores.

    201Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2421

    Use lights and sound to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    202Three studies evaluated the effects of using lights and sound to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All three studies were in the USA.

    203COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    204POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    205BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    206OTHER (3 STUDIES)

    207Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including one controlled study), in the USA, found that devices emitting sounds and lights deterred predators from predating sheep or consuming bait.

    208Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 46 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2449

    Use loud noises to deter crop damage (e.g. banger sticks, drums, tins, iron sheets) by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    209Ten studies evaluated the effects of using loud noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Zimbabwe and Kenya and one each was in the UK, Namibia, and India.

    210COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    211POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    212BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    213OTHER (10 STUDIES)

    214Human-wildlife conflict (10 studies): Five of six studies (including two controlled, one replicated and two before-and-after studies), in the USA, Namibia, Kenya and India, found that loud noises activated when an animal was in the vicinity reduced or partially reduced crop damage or crop visits by white-tailed deer, black-tailed deer (when combined with using electric shock collars) and elephants. The other study found that using loud noises (along with chili fences and chili smoke) did not reduce crop-raiding by African elephants. Three studies (including two controlled studies), in the UK and the USA, found that regularly sounding loud noises did not repel European rabbits or white-tailed deer. Two replicated studies, in Zimbabwe, found that, from among a range of deterrents, African elephants were repelled faster from crop fields when scared by firecrackers or by a combination of deterrents that included drums.

    215Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 55 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2460

    Use loud noises to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    216Three studies evaluated the effects of using loud noises to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Mexico.

    217COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    218POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    219BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    220OTHER (3 STUDIES)

    221Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including two controlled studies), in the USA and Mexico, found that loud noises at least temporarily deterred sheep predation or food consumption by coyotes and (combined with visual deterrents) deterred livestock predation by large predators.

    222Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2435

    Use predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    223Three studies evaluated the effects of using predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All three studies were in the USA.

    224COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    225POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    226BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    227OTHER (3 STUDIES)

    228Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including two before-and-after studies), in the USA, found that coyote scent reduced food consumption by mountain beavers and white-tailed deer. The third study found that it did not reduce trail use by white-tailed deer.

    229Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 47 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2505

    Use repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    230Twelve studies evaluated the effects of using repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Nine studies were in the USA, two were in the UK and one was in Italy.

    231COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    232POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    233BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    234OTHER (12 STUDIES)

    235Human-wildlife conflict (12 studies): Five of 11 controlled studies (including 10 replicated studies), in the USA, Italy and the UK, of a range of contact repellents, found that they reduced herbivory or consumption of baits. The other six studies reported mixed results with at least some repellents at some concentrations deterring herbivory, sometimes for limited periods. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that a repellent did not prevent chewing damage by coyotes.

    236Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 55 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2509

    Use scent to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    237Three 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.

    238COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    239POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    240BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    241OTHER (3 STUDIES)

    242Human-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.

    243Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 40 %; harms 5 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2450

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

    244Five studies evaluated the effects of using target species distress calls or signals to deter crop damage by these species to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one each was in Namibia, Australia and Sri Lanka.

    245COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    246POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    247BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    248OTHER (5 STUDIES)

    249Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Two of five replicated studies (including four controlled studies), in the USA, Namibia, Australia and Sri Lanka, found that white-tailed deer and Asian elephants were deterred or repelled from areas by playing their respective distress calls. Two studies found that, in most cases, elephants and white-tailed deer were not deterred from entering or remaining at sites when distress calls were played. The fifth study found mixed results but, overall, eastern grey kangaroo foot-thumping noises did not increase numbers leaving a site.

    250Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2488

    Use taste-aversion to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to deter human-wildlife conflict

    251Nine studies evaluated the effects of using taste-aversion to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to deter human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Canada and one was at an unnamed location.

    252COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    253POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    254BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    255OTHER (9 STUDIES)

    256Human-wildlife conflict (9 studies): Three of seven replicated studies (including three controlled studies), in the USA, Canada and at an unnamed location, found that coyotes killed fewer sheep, rabbits or turkeys after taste-aversion treatment. The other four studies found that taste-aversion treatment did not reduce killing by coyotes of chickens, sheep or rabbits. A replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that taste-aversion treatment reduced egg predation by mammalian predators whilst a replicated, controlled, paired sites study in the USA found no such effect.

    257Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2429

    Trade-off between benefit and harms

    Translocate crop raiders away from crops (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    258Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of translocating crop-raiding animals away from crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Kenya and one was in the USA.

    259COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    260POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

    261Survival (1 study): A controlled study in Kenya found that translocated crop-raiding African elephants had a lower survival rate after release than did non-translocated elephants at the same site.

    262BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    263OTHER (1 STUDY)

    264Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A study in the USA found that most American black bears translocated from sites of crop damage were not subsequently recaptured at sites of crop damage.

    265Assessment: trade-off between benefit and harms (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 40 %; harms 37 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2485

    Translocate predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    266Eleven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of translocating predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in the USA two were in Botswana, one each was in Canada, Zimbabwe and Namibia, one was in Venezuela and Brazil and one covered multiple locations in North and Central America and Africa.

    267COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    268POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES)

    269Reproductive success (2 studies): Two studies, in Zimbabwe and Namibia, found that predators translocated away from livestock bred in the wild after release.

    270Survival (8 studies): Four of eight studies (including three replicated studies and a systematic review), in the USA, Canada, Zimbabwe, South America, Botswana and Namibia, found that translocating predators reduced their survival or that most did not survive more than 6–12 months after release. Three studies found that translocated predators had similar survival to that of established animals or persisted in the wild and one study could not determine the effect of translocation on survival.

    271BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    272OTHER (6 STUDIES)

    273Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Four of six studies (including a review and a systematic review), in the USA, South America and in North and Central America and Africa, found that some translocated predators continued to predate livestock or returned to their capture sites. One study found that translocated predators were not subsequently involved in livestock predation and one study could not determine the effect of translocation on livestock predation.

    274Assessment: trade-off between benefit and harms (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 56 %; harms 30 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2436

    Unknown effectiveness

    Deter predation of livestock by herding livestock using adults instead of children to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    275One study evaluated the effects on predatory mammal activities of herding livestock using adults instead of children to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Cameroon.

    276COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    277POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    278BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    279OTHER (1 STUDY)

    280Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A site comparison study in Cameroon found that using adults to herd livestock reduced losses through predation relative to that of livestock herded solely by children.

    281Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 30 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2445

    Deter predation of livestock by mammals by having people close by to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    282One study evaluated the effects of deterring predation of livestock by mammals by having people close by to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Kenya.

    283COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    284POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    285BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    286OTHER (1 STUDY)

    287Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in Kenya recorded fewer attacks by predators on livestock in bomas when people were also present but the presence of people did not reduce predator attacks on grazing herds.

    288Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 30 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2444

    Dispose of livestock carcasses to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    289One study evaluated the effects of disposing of livestock carcasses to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA.

    290COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    291POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    292BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    293OTHER (1 STUDY)

    294Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that burying or removing sheep carcasses reduced predation on livestock by coyotes, but burning carcasses did not alter livestock predation rates.

    295Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 35 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2432

    Drive wild animals away using domestic animals of the same species to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    296One study evaluated the effects of using domestic animals to drive away wild mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    297POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    298BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    299OTHER (1 STUDY)

    300Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in India found that using domestic elephants to drive wild Asian elephants away from villages did not reduce the probability of elephants damaging crops.

    301Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2513

    Fit livestock with protective collars to reduce risk of predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    302One study evaluated the effects of fitting livestock with protective collars to reduce human-wildlife conflict on rates of livestock killings by predators. This study was in South Africa.

    303COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    304POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    305BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    306OTHER (1 STUDY)

    307Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in South Africa found that livestock protection collars reduced predation on livestock by carnivores.

    308Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 30 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2448

    Install automatically closing gates at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    309One study evaluated the effects on mammal movements of installing automatically closing gates at field entrances to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in USA.

    310KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    311POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    312BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    313OTHER (1 STUDY)

    314Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study, in the USA found that vehicle-activated bump gates prevented white-tailed deer from entering enclosures.

    315Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 38 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2441

    Provide diversionary feeding to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    316Two studies evaluated the effects of providing diversionary feeding to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in the USA and one was in Canada.

    317COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    318POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

    319Reproductive success (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that diversionary feeding of predators did not increase overall nest success rates for ducks.

    320BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    321OTHER (2 STUDIES)

    322Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): One of two studies (one controlled, one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that diversionary feeding reduced striped skunk predation on duck nests. The other study found that diversionary feeding of grizzly bears did not reduce predation on livestock.

    323Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 21 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2437

    Relocate local pastoralist communities to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    324One study evaluated the effects on mammals of relocating local pastoralists to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in India.

    325COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    326POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

    327Abundance (1 study): A study in India found that after most pastoralists were relocated outside of an area, Asiatic lion numbers increased.

    328BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    329Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 10 %; harms 10 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2413

    Use dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    330One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Zimbabwe.

    331COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    332POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    333BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    334OTHER (1 STUDY)

    335Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Zimbabwe found that people with dogs took longer to repel African elephants from crops compared to scaring them by using combinations of people, dogs, slingshots, drums, burning sticks, large fires and spraying with capsicum.

    336Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 27 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2512

    Use drones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    337One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using drones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Tanzania.

    338KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    339POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    340BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    341OTHER (1 STUDY)

    342Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Tanzania found that drones repelled African savanna elephants from crops within one minute. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 72 %; certainty 35 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2481

    Use light/lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    343Two studies evaluated the effects of using light or lasers to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    344POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    345BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    346OTHER (2 STUDIES)

    347Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that red lasers did not disperse white-tailed deer from fields at night whilst a study in India found that spotlights directed at the eyes of Asian elephants did reduce the probability of crop damage. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 23 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2496

    Use negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    348One study evaluated the effects of using negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA.

    349KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    350POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    351BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    352OTHER (1 STUDY)

    353Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that white-tailed deer presence at cattle feeders was usually reduced by a device that produced a negative stimulus.

    354Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2486

    Use noise aversive conditioning to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    355One study evaluated the effects of using noise aversive conditioning to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA.

    356COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    357POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    358BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    359OTHER (1 STUDY)

    360Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that noise aversive conditioning reduced bait consumption by white-tailed deer.

    361Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 55 %; certainty 30 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2461

    Use repellents that smell bad (‘area repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    362One study evaluated the effects of using repellents that smell bad (‘area repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the UK.

    363KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    364POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    365BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    366OTHER (1 STUDY)

    367Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that a repellent reduced use of treated areas by moles. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 21 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2511

    Use target species scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    368One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using target species scent to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in South Africa.

    369COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    370POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    371BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    372OTHER (1 STUDY)

    373Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that African elephants were not deterred from feeding by the presence of secretions from elephant temporal glands.

    374Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2506

    Use ultrasonic noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    375One study evaluated the effects of using ultrasonic noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    376POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    377BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    378OTHER (1 STUDY)

    379Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled, paired sites study in Australia found that ultrasonic devices did not repel eastern gray kangaroos. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2479

    Use visual deterrents (e.g. scarecrows) to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    380Two studies evaluated the effects of using visual deterrents, such as scarecrows, to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Kenya and one was in Mexico.

    381COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    382POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    383BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    384OTHER (2 STUDIES)

    385Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A study in Kenya recorded more livestock predation at bomas with scarecrows than those without scarecrows whereas a replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that a combination of visual and sound deterrents reduced livestock predation.

    386Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30 %; certainty 30 %; harms 10 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2427

    Use ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    387One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    388POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    389BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    390OTHER (1 STUDY)

    391Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock collars (combined with loud noise) reduced damage caused by black-tailed deer to tree seedlings.

    392Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2508

    Unlikely to be beneficial

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

    393Two 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.

    394COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    395POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

    396BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

    397OTHER (2 STUDIES)

    398Human-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.

    399Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 20 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).

    https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2456

    No evidence found (no assessment)

    400We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

    • Establish deviation ponds in fish farms to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    • Grow unattractive crop in buffer zone around crops (e.g. chili peppers) to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    • Play predator calls to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    • Use fencing/netting to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    • Use mobile phone communications to warn farmers of problematic mammals (e.g. elephants)

    • Use pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    • Use pheromones to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    • Use scarecrows to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    • Use tree nets to deter wild mammals from fruit crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    • Use watchmen to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict.

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Altering Eye

    Altering Eye

    Contemporary International Cinema

    Robert Phillip Kolker

    2009

    Les Bienveillantes de Jonathan Littell

    Les Bienveillantes de Jonathan Littell

    Murielle Lucie Clément (dir.)

    2010

    The End of the World

    The End of the World

    Apocalypse and its Aftermath in Western Culture

    Maria Manuel Lisboa

    2011

    Economic Fables

    Economic Fables

    Ariel Rubinstein

    2012

    Coleridge’s Laws

    Coleridge’s Laws

    A Study of Coleridge in Malta

    Barry Hough et Howard Davis

    2010

    Brownshirt Princess

    Brownshirt Princess

    A Study of the “Nazy Conscience”

    Lionel Gossman

    2009

    The End and the Beginning

    The End and the Beginning

    The Book of My Life

    Hermynia Zur Mühlen

    2010

    Bourdieu and Literature

    Bourdieu and Literature

    John R. W. Speller

    2011

    Telling Tales

    Telling Tales

    The Impact of Germany on English Children’s Books 1780-1918

    David Blamires

    2009

    That Greece Might Still Be Free

    That Greece Might Still Be Free

    The Philhellenes in the War of Independence

    William St Clair

    2008

    The Theatre of Shelley

    The Theatre of Shelley

    Jacqueline Mulhallen

    2010

    Henry James's Europe

    Henry James's Europe

    Heritage and Transfer

    Dennis Tredy, Annick Duperray et Adrian Harding

    2011

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    Altering Eye

    Altering Eye

    Contemporary International Cinema

    Robert Phillip Kolker

    2009

    Les Bienveillantes de Jonathan Littell

    Les Bienveillantes de Jonathan Littell

    Murielle Lucie Clément (dir.)

    2010

    The End of the World

    The End of the World

    Apocalypse and its Aftermath in Western Culture

    Maria Manuel Lisboa

    2011

    Economic Fables

    Economic Fables

    Ariel Rubinstein

    2012

    Coleridge’s Laws

    Coleridge’s Laws

    A Study of Coleridge in Malta

    Barry Hough et Howard Davis

    2010

    Brownshirt Princess

    Brownshirt Princess

    A Study of the “Nazy Conscience”

    Lionel Gossman

    2009

    The End and the Beginning

    The End and the Beginning

    The Book of My Life

    Hermynia Zur Mühlen

    2010

    Bourdieu and Literature

    Bourdieu and Literature

    John R. W. Speller

    2011

    Telling Tales

    Telling Tales

    The Impact of Germany on English Children’s Books 1780-1918

    David Blamires

    2009

    That Greece Might Still Be Free

    That Greece Might Still Be Free

    The Philhellenes in the War of Independence

    William St Clair

    2008

    The Theatre of Shelley

    The Theatre of Shelley

    Jacqueline Mulhallen

    2010

    Henry James's Europe

    Henry James's Europe

    Heritage and Transfer

    Dennis Tredy, Annick Duperray et Adrian Harding

    2011

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Open Book Publishers
    • amazon.fr

    What Works in Conservation 2021

    X Facebook Email

    What Works in Conservation 2021

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    What Works in Conservation 2021

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Petrovan, S. O., & Smith, R. K. (éds.). (2021). 15.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture. In What Works in Conservation 2021. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. Consulté à l’adresse https://books.openedition.org/obp/25410
    Sutherland, William Junior, Lynn V. Dicks, Silviu O. Petrovan, et Rebecca K. Smith, éd. « 15.2 Threat: Agriculture and Aquaculture ». In What Works in Conservation 2021. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2021. https://books.openedition.org/obp/25410.
    Sutherland, William Junior, et al., éditeurs. « 15.2 Threat: Agriculture and Aquaculture ». What Works in Conservation 2021, Open Book Publishers, 2021, https://books.openedition.org/obp/25410.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Petrovan, S. O., & Smith, R. K. (éds.). (2021). What Works in Conservation 2021. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. Consulté à l’adresse https://books.openedition.org/obp/24435
    Sutherland, William Junior, Lynn V. Dicks, Silviu O. Petrovan, et Rebecca K. Smith, éd. What Works in Conservation 2021. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2021. https://books.openedition.org/obp/24435.
    Sutherland, William Junior, et al., éditeurs. What Works in Conservation 2021. Open Book Publishers, 2021, https://books.openedition.org/obp/24435.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Open Book Publishers

    Open Book Publishers

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Facebook
    • X
    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://www.openbookpublishers.com

    Email : a.tosi@openbookpublishers.com

    Adresse :

    40 Devonshire Road

    CB1 2BL

    Cambridge

    United Kingdom

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement