Remove or control competitors

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

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

70%
Certainty

33%
Harms

12%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

The range occupied by a species may be limited by the presence of competitors. In many cases, removing native competitors may be a controversial management strategy. However, abundance increases or range expansion of a competitor species, due to habitat or land management changes, may motivate removal or control of this species if its presence negatively impacts on another species that is deemed to be a higher conservation priority.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling competitors. One study was across Norway and Sweden and one was in Norway.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Norway and Sweden found that red fox control, along with supplementary feeding, was associated with an increase in arctic fox litters.

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): A controlled study in Norway found that where red foxes had been controlled arctic foxes were more likely to colonize.

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, controlled study in 1999–2011 at 10 tundra sites in Norway and Sweden (Angerbjörn et al. 2013) found that the number of arctic fox Vulpes lagopus litters increased after control of red foxes Vulpes vulpes, along with supplementary winter feeding at arctic fox dens. Where red foxes were intensively controlled, the number of active artic fox dens in winter increased more than at sites where no control or a low level of control was undertaken (data reported as statistical model results). The same response was found in the number of arctic fox litters produced, and with more litters produced when food was provided at den sites (data reported as statistical model results). Three sites were intensive control sites, with an average of 19–92 red foxes culled, and supplementary feeding provided for an average of 11–13.5 arctic fox dens at two of those sites. Three sites had low levels of control, with 1.5–7 red foxes culled and 1–3 dens fed at each of those sites. Four sites had no fox control and only one den was fed at one site. Red foxes were controlled during winter from 1999. The number of arctic fox litters was counted in known arctic fox dens during July and August 1999–2011.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Angerbjorn A., Eide N.E., Dalén L., Elmhagen B., Hellström P., Ims R.A., Killengreen S., Landa A., Meijer T., Mela M., Niemimaa J., Norén K., Tannerfeldt M., Yoccoz N.G. & Henttonen H. (2013) Carnivore conservation in practice: replicated management actions on a large spatial scale. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 59-67.
A controlled study in 2005–2010 in 25 tundra sites in Finnmark, Norway (Hamel et al. 2013) found that the probability of colonization by arctic fox Vulpes lagopus was higher in sites where red foxes Vulpes vulpes had been controlled. Arctic foxes colonized some sites where red foxes were controlled but their probability of colonizing sites without fox control was zero (reported as statistical model results). Between 2005 and 2010, intensive culling removed 885 red foxes from the Varanger peninsula. Foxes were monitored annually, over a 2-month period in late winter, using automatic digital cameras in front of a frozen block of reindeer remains. Fifteen camera sites were located across the area where red foxes were controlled and 10 areas without control (Nordkynn peninsula and Ifjordfjellet). Each camera took photographs of the carcass and its close surroundings every 10 min.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Hamel S., Killengreen S.T., Henden J.A., Yoccoz N.G. & Ims R.A. (2013) Disentangling the importance of interspecific competition, food availability, and habitat in species occupancy: recolonization of the endangered Fennoscandian arctic fox. Biological Conservation, 160, 114-120.

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
Treat disease in wild mammals Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link
Eliminate highly virulent diseases early in an epidemic by culling all individuals (healthy and infected) in a defined area Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Cull disease-infected animals Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link