Version classiqueVersion mobile

What Works in Conservation 2021

 | 
William Junior Sutherland
, 
Lynn V. Dicks
, 
Silviu O. Petrovan
, 
et al.

15. Terrestrial mammal conservation

15.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture

Texte intégral

15.2.1 All farming systems

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

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

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

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.

CC-BY-4.0

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

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search