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

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

45%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Wild herbivores can compete with domestic herbivores for food and can damage crops. Fencing can exclude wild herbivores from fields but entranceways remain vulnerable to incursions, especially were regular vehicle access is required. Metal grids (sometimes known as cattle grids) fitted across field entrances may be used to exclude wild herbivores. If successful, this could reduce incentives for carrying out lethal control of such species.

See also Install wildlife exclusion grate/cattle grids for studies where the intention is to exclude herbivore access to roads rather than into fields.

Study locations

Key messages

Two 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.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

Human-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.

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 study in 1972–1973 of two fences in Colorado, USA (Reed et al. 1974) found that steel rail deer guards did not prevent crossings through vehicle openings by mule deer Odocoileus hemionus hemionus or elk Cervus canadensis. In test conditions, 16 of 18 mule deer released adjacent to 12, 18 or 24-foot-wide guards, crossed the guards, in an average time of 173 s. During natural encounters, 11 mule deer and one elk crossed a 24-ft-long guard and four mule deer crossed a 12-ft-long guard. There were at least 11 approaches by mule deer and three by elk in which animals did not then cross. Guards, at vehicle openings in 8-ft-high fences, comprised flat steel rails, 0.5 inch wide, 4 inches high and 120 inches long, set 4 inches apart. Rails were perpendicular to the traffic direction. Eighteen deer were released in situations where guard crossing providing the only exit. Deer and elk tracks, from natural encounters with two guards, were examined periodically, between 29 June 1972 and 19 April 1973.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Reed D.F., Pojar T.M. & Woodard T.N. (1974) Mule deer responses to deer guards. Journal of Range Management, 27, 111-113.
A replicated, controlled study in 2006–2007, in three forest and grassland sites in Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, USA (VerCauteren et al. 2009) found that deer guards (ground-level roller grids) reduced white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus entry into enclosures. Deer guards at two sites excluded more deer than did open enclosures (data not presented). At the third site, deer did not cross one deer guard but there were 2.5 incursions/day at the other compared to 0.4 incursions/day in open enclosures at that site. Deer-resistant enclosures (6 m × 6 m, baited with alfalfa cubes) were constructed at three sites. At each site, two enclosures (one each in forest and grassland) had a deer guard (a grid of rollers over a 1.5 × 3 m pit) and two (one each in forest and grassland) had open gateways. Deer incursions into enclosures were monitored using camera traps from December 2006 to April 2007.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
VerCauteren K.C., Seward N.W., Lavelle M.J., Fischer J.W. & Phillips G.E. (2009) Deer guards and bump gates for excluding white-tailed deer from fenced resources. Human Wildlife Interactions, 3, 145-153.

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
Drive wild animals away using domestic animals of the same species to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Translocate crop raiders away from crops (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Trade-off between benefit and harms	2	Synopsis Link
Use taste-aversion to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to deter human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	9	Synopsis Link