Reduce conflict by deterring birds from taking crops using repellents

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

29%
Certainty

27%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

In some parts of the world, the persecution of birds that take crops can be a serious threat to the survival of populations. Methods to reduce the damage done by birds can therefore be important in reducing the pressure on populations.

Key messages

A replicated, randomised and controlled ex situ study in the USA found that dickcissels Spiza americana consumed less rice if it was treated with two repellents, compared to controls. Two other repellents did not reduce consumption as effectively.

About key messages

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

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

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, randomised and controlled ex situ study in the USA (Avery et al. 2001) found that dickcissels Spiza americana captured in Venezuela consumed 70% less rice if it was treated with methiocarb (at 0.05 g/g rice) or anthraquinone (0.5 g/g), compared to control (untreated) rice offered previously. Methyl anthranilate and lower doses of anthraquinone did not reduce consumption of rice when treated rice was offered after untreated rice. However, when a choice of rice treated with 0.05% or 0.1% anthraquinone or untreated millet was offered at the same time, birds significantly reduced their consumption of rice, with the preference growing over eight days of testing. Rice was offered over five days (control rice on the first, followed by treated rice), with rice and millet being offered over eight days. The number of birds tested is not provided.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Avery M.L., Tillman E.A. & Laukert C.C. (2001) Evaluation of chemical repellents for reducing crop damage by dickcissels in Venezuela. International Journal of Pest Management (formerly PANS Pest Articles & News Summaries 1969 - 1975, PANS 1976-1979 & Tropical Pest Management 1980-1992), 47, 311-314.

Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Maintain rush pastures Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Increase the proportion of natural/semi-natural vegetation in the farmed landscape Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	5	Synopsis Link
Reduce conflict by deterring birds from taking crops using repellents Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link