Desktop versionMobile Version

What Works in Conservation 2021

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

15. Terrestrial mammal conservation

15.7 Threat: Natural system modifications

Volltext

Likely to be beneficial

Burn at specific time of year

1Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of burning at a specific time of year. One study was in Australia, and one was in the USA.

2COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

3POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

4Abundance (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that carrying out prescribed burns in autumn did not increase small mammal abundances or biomass relative to burning in summer.

5Survival (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in Australia found that in forest burned early in the dry season, northern brown bandicoot survival rate declined less than in forests burned late in the dry season.

6BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

7Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2416

Provide artificial waterholes in dry season

8Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial waterholes in the dry season. One study was in South Africa, one was in Tanzania and one was in Jordan.

9COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

10Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that artificial waterholes were used by a similar number of large mammal species as was a natural waterhole.

11POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

12BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

13Use (2 studies): A study in South Africa found that areas around artificial waterholes were used more by eight out of 13 mammalian herbivore species than was the wider landscape. A study in Jordan found that artificial waterholes were used by striped hyenas.

14Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 40 %; harms 10 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2484

Remove mid-storey vegetation in forest

15One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing mid-storey vegetation in forest. This study was in the USA.

16COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

17Richness/diversity (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after removing mid-storey vegetation, mammal species richness increased.

18POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

19Abundance (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after removing mid-storey vegetation, mammal abundance increased.

20BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

21Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2480

Remove trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land

22Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land. Both studies were in the USA.

23COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

24POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

25Abundance (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that where Ashe juniper trees were removed, there were higher abundances of three rodent species.

26BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

27Use (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that removing trees increased use of areas by Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 45 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2483

Thin trees to reduce wildfire risk

28Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of thinning trees to reduce wildfire risk. All three studies were in the USA.

29COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

30POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

31Abundance (2 studies): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that reducing tree density increased abundances of two of four small mammal species. A systematic review in the USA found that, in thinned forests, two mammal species were recorded in higher densities compared to in unmanaged forests, while three species showed no effect. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

32(1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that thinning followed by prescribed burning did not increase use of forest areas by North American elk in most season, stand age and sex comparisons.

33Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2477

Unknown effectiveness

Provide supplementary food after fire

34One study evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary food after fire. This study was in the USA.

35COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

36POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

37Survival (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary feeding did not increase survival of hispid cotton rats following prescribed fire.

38BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

39Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0 %; certainty 21 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2494

Unlikely to be beneficial

Remove burnt trees and branches after wildfire

40One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing burnt trees and branches after wildfire. This study was in Spain.

41COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

42POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

43Abundance (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in Spain found that removing burned trees and branches after wildfire did not increase European wild rabbit numbers compared to removing burned trees but leaving branches in place.

44BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

45Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 0 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2478

Remove understorey vegetation in forest

46Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing understorey vegetation in forest. All three studies were in the USA.

47COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

48POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

49Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two also before-and-after), in the USA, found that compared to prescribed burning, mechanically removing understorey vegetation growth in forests did not increase abundances of white-footed mice, shrews or four rodent species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

50Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 10 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2482

No evidence found (no assessment)

51We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

  • Provide shelter structures after fire

  • Use fencing to protect water sources for use by wild mammals.

Abbildungsverzeichnis

URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/25435/img-1.jpg
Datei image/jpeg, 54k

CC-BY-4.0

Nur der Text ist unter der Lizenz CC BY 4.0 nutzbar. Alle anderen Elemente (Abbildungen, importierte Anhänge) sind „Alle Rechte vorbehalten“, sofern nicht anders angegeben.

Kaufen

Suche in OpenEdition Search

Sie werden weitergeleitet zur OpenEdition Search