Cull disease-infected animals

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

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

60%
Certainty

40%
Harms

15%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

When mammal populations are threatened by disease, one potential action is to remove contact between diseased and disease-free animals. However, it is rarely attempted, possibly due to ethical and ecological concerns (Woodroffe 1999).

Woodroffe R. (1999) Managing disease threats to wild mammals. Animal Conservation, 2, 185–193.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of culling disease-infected animals. This study was in Tasmania.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Condition (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in Tasmania found that culling disease-infected Tasmanian devils resulted in fewer animals with large tumours associated with late stages of the disease.

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 before-and-after and site comparison study in 2004–2007 on two peninsulas in Tasmania (Jones et al. 2007) found that culling disease-infected Tasmanian devils Sarcophilus harrisi resulted in fewer animals with large tumours associated with late stages of the disease. One year after intensive culling commenced, the proportion of trapped Tasmanian devils with large tumours (22%) was lower than during the first month of intensive culling (67%; numbers not reported). Tasmanian devil density remained constant during this time (1.6 devils/km²) compared to a similar site without culling where density declined (from 0.9 to 0.6 devils/km²), although statistical tests were not carried out. Tasmanian devils infected with Devil Facial Tumour Disease were culled during an 18-month pilot study commencing in June 2004, and an intensive 12-month trapping program commencing in January 2006. Tasmanian devils were trapped within a 160-km² area on the peninsula during 4–5 x 10-day trips/year. Infected individuals or those with signs of the disease were euthanized. Numbers with large tumours (>4 cm) were counted in February 2006 and January 2007. Tasmanian devil density was recorded in the study area and at a similar 160-km² peninsula on the same coast (methods not reported).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Jones M.E., Jarman P.J., Lees C.M., Hesterman H., Hamede R.K., Mooney N.J., Mann D., Pukk C.E., Bergfield J. & McCallum H. (2007) Conservation management of Tasmanian devils in the context of an emerging, extinction-threatening disease: devil facial tumor disease. EcoHealth, 4, 326-337.

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
Provide diversionary feeding for predators Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Train mammals to avoid problematic species Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Sterilize predators Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link