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

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

21%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Mammalian predators can cause unacceptable losses to farmers, through predation on livestock. If diversionary feeding can reduce the extent to which animals exhibit nuisance behaviour, this may reduce motivations for carrying out lethal control or other intensive management.See also: Provide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict and Residential and commercial development - Provide diversionary feeding for mammals to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict.

Study locations

Key messages

Two 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.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

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

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

Human-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.

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 controlled study in 1993–1994 of 24 upland prairie areas in North Dakota, USA (Greenwood et al. 1998) found that diversionary feeding of predators reduced striped skunk Mephitis mephitis predation on duck Anas spp. nests, but overall nest success rates did not increase significantly. The proportion of predation events on large-clutch duck nests by striped skunks was lower in areas with diversionary feeding (11%) than in areas without feeding (24%). However, the proportion of duck nests in which at least one egg hatched did not differ significantly between feeding areas (41%) and areas without food provision (29%). In April–July 1993 and 1994, supplementary food (90–100 kg of fish offal and sunflower seeds) was distributed within 1–2 plots (50 x 200–300 m) in each of 12 areas every 3–4 days. Twelve control areas had no supplementary food. Each area contained 33–83 ha of upland nesting cover and was managed for duck production. In May–July 1993 and 1994, three searches for duck nests were conducted in each of the 24 areas using a vehicle-towedchain drag. A total of 1,008 nests (609 in feeding areas; 399 in areas without supplementary food) were marked and checked every 6–21 days or until abandoned/destroyed.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Greenwood R.J., Pietruszewski D.G. & Crawford R.D. (1998) Effects of food supplementation on depredation of duck nests in upland habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26, 219-226.
A before-and-after study in 1982–2013 in a forested and agricultural area of southwestern Alberta, Canada (Morehouse & Boyce 2017) found that diversionary feeding of grizzly bears Ursus arctos did not reduce predation on livestock. The frequency of grizzly bear-livestock incidents during the spring did not differ significantly during 14 years before (average 0.8 incidents/year) and 15 years after (average 3.3 incidents/year) diversionary feeding commenced. Road-killed ungulate carcasses were dropped by helicopter at sites close to grizzly bear dens each spring during 1998–2013. In 2012 and 2013, 149–160 carcasses were dropped at 14–15 sites in March–April (details for earlier years are not reported). All sites were within a 3,600-km² area comprising forested mountains adjacent to agricultural land. Remote trail cameras at feeding sites recorded grizzly bears. Complaint data (reports of grizzly bears harassing, mauling or killing livestock) were analysed for March–June in each year before (1982–1995) and after (1998–2013) diversionary feeding commenced.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Morehouse A.T. & Boyce M.S. (2017) Evaluation of intercept feeding to reduce livestock depredation by grizzly bears. Ursus, 28, 66-80.

Please cite as:

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

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Install automatically closing gates at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Use watchmen to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Use bees to deter crop damage by mammals (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link