Remove/control non-native mammals within a fenced area

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

65%
Certainty

40%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Control of non-native mammals may be carried out to reverse detrimental impacts of such species on native plants and animals. Total elimination of non-native mammals may be difficult or impossible to carry out on a large scale, with control programmes often being confined to small islands, where elimination may be achievable. However, away from islands, a similar benefit might be realised if non-native mammals can be removed from within an area that is fenced to prevent their recolonization.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on native mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals within a fenced area. This study was in Australia.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammal species richness was higher than outside the fenced area.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammals overall and two out of four small mammal species were more abundant than outside the fenced area.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

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 site comparison study in 1997–2005 in a dune and shrubland site in South Australia, Australia (Moseby et al. 2009) found that in a fenced area where invasive cats Felis catus, red foxes Vulpes vulpes and European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus were removed, native mammal species richness and abundance, and abundance of two out of four small mammal species, were greater than outside the fenced area. Two to six years after the removal of cats, foxes and rabbits began, native mammal species richness and overall abundance was higher inside than outside the fenced removal area (data presented on log scales). Also, more spinifex hopping mice Notomys alexis and Bolam’s mice Pseudomys bolami were caught in removal areas (spinifex: 13-51; Bolam’s: 5-38) than in non-removal areas (spinifex: 3-4; Bolam’s: 1-2). Numbers caught did not significantly differ in removal vs non-removal areas for fat-tailed dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata (0.3 vs 0.8) and stripe-faced dunnart Sminthopsis macroura (0.3-2.8 vs 1.1). Between 1997 and 2005, a 78-km² exclosure was established in five stages, inside which rabbits, cats and foxes were removed from 1999. Locally extinct mammals were reintroduced into the first area (14-km²) in 1999-2001. Twelve locations inside the exclosure and 12 outside (60-7,000-km apart) were sampled over four nights annually, in 1998–2005, using a line of six pitfall traps and 15 Elliott live traps.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Moseby K.E., Hill B.M. & Read J.L. (2009) Arid recovery - a comparison of reptile and small mammal populations inside and outside a large rabbit, cat and fox-proof exclosure in arid south Australia. Austral Ecology, 34, 156-169.

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
Remove/control non-native plants Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Use conditioned taste aversion to prevent non-target species from entering traps Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link
Reintroduce top predators to suppress and reduce the impacts of smaller non-native predator and prey species Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link