Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of bird conservation measures Three reviews from the UK of three studies captured reported population increases of three species after the introduction of specially-designed agri-environment schemes. These species were cirl buntings, corncrakes and Eurasian thick-knees. One of these found that many other species continued to decline. Twenty-two of 25 studies all from Europe, including a systematic review,  examining local population levels or densities found that at least some birds studied were at higher densities, had higher population levels or more positive population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared to non-agri-environment scheme sites. Some studies found that differences were present in all seasons, others in either summer or winter. Fifteen studies from Europe, including a systematic review, found that some or all species were not found at higher densities, had similar or lower population levels, showed similar population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared with non-agri-environment scheme sites, or showed negative population trends. A study from the Netherlands found that many agri-environment scheme farms were sited in areas where they were unlikely to be effective. One small study from the UK found no differences between winter densities of seed-eating birds on UK Higher Levels Stewardship sites, compared with those under Entry Level Stewardship. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge survival was higher on agri-environment scheme sites than non-scheme sites. This difference was not significant every year. Two of three studies investigating reproductive productivity, including one replicated study, found that productivity was higher on farms under agri-environment schemes. One replicated study from the UK found no effect of agri-environment schemes on productivity. A review (Vickery et al. 2010) found that the amount of land entering an agri-environment scheme was on target, but that some options were not being used at high enough rates to help many species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F172https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F172Sun, 20 May 2012 14:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland Three replicated studies and a review of five studies from Europe and North America examining species richness or diversity found that more species were found on set-aside than on crops. One found fewer species on set-aside than other agricultural habitats. All 21 studies, including a systematic review, 12 replicated experiments and two reviews, from Europe and North America that investigated population trends or habitat associations found that some species were found at higher densities or used set-aside more than other habitats, or were found on set-aside. Four studies (three replicated) from the UK found that some species were found at lower densities on set-aside compared to other habitats. Three of four replicated studies from the UK found that waders and Eurasian skylarks had higher productivities on set-aside, compared to other habitats. One study found that skylarks nesting on set-aside had lower productivity compared to those on cereal crops, and similar productivities to those on other crops. One replicated paired study from the UK found that rotational set-aside was used more than non-rotational set-aside, a replicated paired study found no differences between rotational and non-rotational set-aside. A review from Europe and North America found that naturally regenerated set-aside held more birds and more species than sown set-aside. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F175https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F175Sun, 27 May 2012 15:10:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture All seven studies (based on five replicated experiments and a review) that investigated species richness or diversity were from the UK and found that fields or farms with wild bird cover had higher bird diversity than those without, or that more species were found in wild bird cover than in surrounding habitats. Thirty-two studies out of 33 from the UK and North America that examined abundance and population data, found that bird densities, abundances, nesting densities or use of wild bird cover was higher than in other habitats or management regimes, or that sites with wild bird cover had higher populations than those without. These studies included a systematic review and seven randomised, replicated and controlled studies. Some studies found that this was the case across all species or all species studied, while others found that only a subset showed a preference. Four studies investigated other interventions at the same time. Thirteen of the 33 studies (all replicated and from Europe and the USA), found that bird populations or densities were similar on wild bird cover and other habitats, that some species were not associated with wild bird cover or that birds rarely used wild bird cover. Three studies from the UK and Canada, two replicated, found higher productivities for some or all species monitored on wild bird cover, compared to other habitats. Two replicated and controlled studies from Canada and France found no differences in reproductive success between wild bird cover and other habitats for some or all species studied. Three studies from Europe and the USA investigated survival, with two finding higher survival of grey partridge Perdix perdix released on wild bird cover or of artificial nests in some cover crops. The third found that survival of grey partridge was lower on farms with wild bird cover, possibly due to high predation. Five studies from the UK, three replicated, found that some wild bird cover crops were preferred to others. A randomised, replicated and controlled study and a review from the UK found that the landscape surrounding wild bird cover and their configuration within it affected use by birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F187https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F187Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:10:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control avian predators on islands Out of 10 studies, six before-and-after studies from North America, Australia and Europe found that controlling avian predators led to increased population sizes, reduced mortality or increased reproductive success in seabirds on islands. The North American studies had several interventions, so increases could not be linked directly to predator control, and one found that increases were only at one of two sites studied. Two controlled studies in Europe found little evidence that crow control led to increased reproductive success in gamebirds or raptors on islands. A North American study found that, despite higher reproductive success, very few birds returned to the study site after predator removal. A study from North America found that an Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica translocation programme, combined with the culling of predatory gulls, appeared to be successful. A study from the UK found that the number of common terns Sterna hirundo and black-headed gulls Larus ridibundus declined on gravel islands despite the attempted control of large gulls.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F372https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F372Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:43:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nesting sites for burrow-nesting seabirds Four studies from across the world found evidence for population increases or new populations being established in petrel species following the provision of nest boxes. In two cases nest boxes were combined with the translocation of chicks or other interventions. Six studies from across the world found high occupancy rates for artificial burrows by seabirds, with three finding that occupancy increased over time, taking years to build up. Three studies from across the world found very low occupancy rates for artificial burrows used by petrel species. Eight studies from across the world found that the productivity of birds using artificial burrows was high, in many cases as high or higher than in natural burrows. One replicated study from the USA and a small study from the Galapagos found low productivity of petrels using artificial burrows.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F481https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F481Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:21:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nesting sites for songbirds Only three studies out of 66 from across the world found low rates of nest box occupancy, although this may be partially the result of publishing biases. Thrushes, crows, swallows and New World warblers were the target species with low rates of use. Thrushes, crows, finches, swallows, wrens, tits, Old World and tyrant flycatchers, New World blackbirds, sparrows, waxbills, starlings and ovenbirds all used nest boxes. One study from the USA found that wrens used nest boxes more frequently than natural cavities. Five studies from across the world found higher population densities or population growth rates in areas with nest boxes, whilst one study from the USA found higher species richness in areas with nest boxes. One study from Chile found that breeding populations (but not non-breeding populations) were higher for two species when next boxes were provided. Twelve studies from across the world found that productivity of birds in nest boxes was higher or similar to those in natural nests. One study found there were more nesting attempts in areas with more nest boxes, although a study from Canada found no differences in behaviour or productivity between areas with high or low densities of nest boxes. Two studies from Europe found lower predation of some species using nest boxes. However, three studies from the USA found low production in nest boxes, either in absolute terms or relative to natural nests. Thirteen studies from across the world founds that use, productivity or usurpation varied with nest box design, whilst seven found no difference in occupation rates or success with different designs. Similarly, fourteen studies found different occupation or success rates depending on the position or orientation of artificial nest sites. Two studies found no difference in success with different positions.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F498https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F498Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:52:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for raptors to increase reproductive success A single small before-and-after study in Italy found evidence for a small increase in local kite Milvus spp. populations following the installation of a feeding station. Four European studies found that kestrels Falco spp. and Eurasian sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus laid earlier when supplied with supplementary food than control birds. One study found that the earlier feeding began, the earlier average laying date was. Three studies from the USA and Europe found evidence for higher chick survival or condition when parents were supplied with food, whilst three from Europe found fed birds were more likely to lay or laid larger clutches and another found that fed male hen harriers Circus cyaneus bred with more females than control birds. Four studies from across the world found no evidence that feeding increased breeding frequency, clutch size, laying date, eggs size or hatching or fledging success. A study from Mauritius found uncertain effects of feeding on Mauritius kestrel Falco punctatus reproduction. There was some evidence that the impact of feeding was lower in years with peak numbers of prey species.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F532https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F532Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:23:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for songbirds to increase reproductive success Two studies from the USA found evidence for higher population densities of magpies and American blackbirds in areas provided with supplementary food, whilst two studies from the UK and Canada found that population densities did not appear to be affected by feeding. Twelve studies from across the world found that breeding productivity was higher for fed birds than controls. The increases were through higher hatching or fledging rates, or higher chick survival or recruitment rates. One study from the USA found that these increases were only found in dry years. Eleven studies from Europe and the USA found that fed birds had no higher, or even lower breeding productivity or chick survival than control birds. Nine studies from Europe and North America found that the eggs of fed birds were larger or heavier, or that the chicks of fed birds were in better physical condition: being larger, heavier, faster growing, more symmetrical or having a better immune response. In one study this was only true in a heavily polluted site. However, eight studies from across the world found no evidence for better condition or increased size in the eggs or chicks of fed birds. Six studies from across the world found that food-supplemented pairs laid larger clutches than unfed birds, whilst 14 studies from Europe and North America found that fed birds did not lay larger clutches, or even laid smaller ones. Fifteen studies from across the world found that birds supplied with supplementary food began nesting or laying earlier than controls, although in two studies this was only true for young females or in one of two habitats. In one study, a high fat, high protein diet had a greater effect on laying date than a high fat, low protein diet.­ One study found that fed birds had shorter incubations than controls whilst another found that fed birds re-nested quicker than controls and had shorter second incubations. Four studies from the USA and Europe found that fed birds did not lay any earlier than controls. Seven studies from across the world found that fed parent birds showed positive behavioural responses to feeding, such as being more likely to re-nest, less likely to be parasitized or  showing better anti-predator responses, spending more time incubating or building larger nests. Three studies from across the world found neutral or negative responses to feeding, including being more likely to be invaded by conspecifics, making no more breeding attempts or showing no preference for fed nest boxes compared to controls.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F537https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F537Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:58:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for songbirds to increase adult survival Seven studies from Europe and the USA found higher densities or larger populations in various songbird species in areas close to supplementary food. Six studies from Europe, Canada and Japan found that population trends or densities in some species were no different between fed and unfed areas. The American study found that populations appeared to follow food, with populations increasing after feeders were erected and decreasing after they were removed. Four studies from Canada, Europe, Japan and the USA found that birds had higher survival when supplied with supplementary food. However, in two studies this was only apparent in females or in one of two species studied. A controlled study in the USA found no evidence that birds were dependent on supplementary food: when food was removed, previously fed birds did not have lower survival than controls. A replicated, controlled study from the USA found that song sparrows Melospiza melodia had lower survival with feeding stations in their territories. Six studies from Europe and the USA found that birds supplied with supplementary food were in better physical condition or had larger fat supplies than unfed birds. However, in one replicated, controlled study this was only the case for females; in another two, only one of three species showed better condition, with one species in one study showing lower condition when fed; a final replicated and controlled study found that differences between treatments were only apparent in the breeding season. Two studies investigated the effect of feeding on behaviours: a randomised, replicated and controlled study in the USA found that male Carolina wrens Thryothorus ludovicianus spent more time singing when supplied with food; a replicated, controlled study in Sweden found no behavioural differences between wood nuthatches Sitta europaea supplied with food, and unfed birds. Thirteen studies from the UK, Canada and the USA investigated use of feeders. Four studies from the USA and the UK found high use of supplementary food by several species, with up to 21% of birds’ daily energy needs coming from feeders. However, another UK study found very low use of food, possibly because the feeder was not positioned close to natural food sources. One UK study found that use of feeders peaked in midwinter, although another found that the exact timing of peak use varied between species. Two replicated trials from the UK finding that the use of feeders increased with distance to houses and decreased with distance to cover, whilst a replicated Candadian study found that American goldfinches Carduelis tristis preferred using bird feeders in high positions. A large-scale replicated study in the UK found that preferences for feeder locations varied between species. Three studies from the UK argue that placing feeders over 1 km apart, and possibly 1.1–1.3 km apart will maximise their use whilst keeping the intervention practical.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F552https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F552Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:27:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for birds or mammals A total of 18 individual studies investigated the effects of providing supplementary food. Nine studies from France, Sweden and the UK (six replicated studies, of which five controlled and one also randomized and paired) found that the provision of supplementary food increased farmland bird abundance, breeding population size, density, body mass, hatching, nestling growth and fledging rates, increased overwinter survival of a declining house sparrow population and that fed male hen harriers bred with more females than control birds. Two studies did not separate the effects of several other interventions carried out on the same study site. Four studies from the UK and Finland (three replicated studies, of which one controlled and one randomized) found that farmland songbirds and field voles (field voles on unmown plots only) used supplementary food when provided, including the majority of targeted species such as tree sparrow, yellowhammer and corn bunting. Five replicated studies from the UK (of which two also controlled) found that the provision of supplementary food had no clear effect on farmland bird breeding abundance, European turtle dove reproductive success, territory size or territory density, overwinter survival of three stable house sparrow populations, tree sparrow nest box use, or the abundance of weed seeds on the soil surface. One replicated, controlled study from Sweden found no effect of supplementary food provision on common starling clutch size or nestling weight, and lower fledging rates in nests which received supplementary food compared to nests without supplementary food in one year. Four studies from the UK (two replicated of which one was also randomized and controlled) found that the use of supplementary food by farmland birds varied between species and region, depended upon the time of year and proximity to other feeding stations and natural feeding areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F648https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F648Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:20:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for a certain period of time only One study in Tanzania found that a chimpanzee population increased after supplementary feeding for two months immediately after reintroduction, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that a golden lion tamarin population declined after one year following supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that an abandoned infant muriqui was retrieved by its mother and rejoined the wild group after supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. Four studies in Brazil, Madagascar, and South Africa found that only a minority of reintroduced primates survived after supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. One study in Guinea found that the majority of introduced chimpanzees survived for at least 27 months following supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions.. Three studies in Gabon, South Africa and Vietnam found that a majority of primates survived reintroduction while being supplimentry fed alongside other interventions. Two studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of lowland gorillas survived for at least nine months to four years after provision of supplementary food, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1528https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1528Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:13:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat sick/injured animals Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins died despite being treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that one out of four reintroduced black lion tamarins died after being release despite receiving treatment, alongside other interventions. One review on reintroduced lar gibbons in Thailand found that their population declined by 6% seventeen months after release despite having medical treatment available when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Malaysia found that 98% of translocated orangutans, some of which received treatment for injuries along with other interventions, survived capture and subsequent release. One controlled study, also in Malaysia, found that a population of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 33 years despite receiving treatment when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. Four studies, including two before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republic of Congo and The Gambia found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived for at least 1-5 years and in one case the population increased. One study in Senegal found that a young chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after being treated for injuries, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that treatment for mange, alongside other interventions, cured some infected mountain gorillas. One study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and one before-and-after, site comparison study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions, survived over 4–41 years. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa and Indonesia found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived over six months. However, two before-and-after studies in Madagascar and Kenya found that most reintroduced or translocated primates did not survived over five years or their population size decreased despite treated when sick, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1550https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1550Thu, 19 Oct 2017 18:35:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conduct veterinary screens of animals before reintroducing/translocating them One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years, despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that most reintroduced black lion tamarins that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over four months. One before-and-after study in Malaysia found that 90% of reintroduced Müller's Bornean gibbons did not survive despite undergoing veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced Bornean agile gibbons that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, behaved similarly to wild gibbons. Two studies, including one controlled, in Malaysia and Indonesia found that most translocated orangutans that underwent veterinary screens, along with other interventions, survived translocation and the first three months post-translocation. Four studies, including three before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republilc of Congo and Guinea found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over 1-5 years. One before and after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in Belize, French Guiana, Madagascar, Congo and Gabon found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived at least four months or increased in population size. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in French Guiana, Madagascar, South Africa and Vietnam found that most reintroduced or translocated primates were assumed to have died post-release despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Kenya found that a population of translocated olive baboons were still surviving 16 years after translocation when veterinary screens were applied alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1553https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1553Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:15:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates in groups Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that populations of introduced primates declined after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions, while one study in Belize recorded an increase in populations. Two studies in Madagascar and India found that primate populations persisted 4-55 years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Seven studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least 15 weeks to seven years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Seven studies in Belize, Brazil, French Guiana, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a majority of primates survived after between two and thirty months. One study in Madagascar found that introduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs Varecia variegata had similar diets to individuals in a wild population after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. One study in The Gambia found that a population of introduced chimpanzees increased 25 years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Four studies in Guinea, Liberia and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of chimpanzees survived for at least two to five years, after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of western gorillas survived for at least nine months to four years, after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that all Sumatran orangutans survived for at least three months after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1567https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1567Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:46:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat where the species is absent One study in The Gambia found that a population of reintroduced chimpanzees increased over 25 years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that all Sumatran orangutans survived for at least three months after reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that a majority of reintroduced gorillas survived for at least four years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. One study in Thailand found that a reintroduced population of lar gibbons declined over three years following reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. One study in India found that a population of reintroduced rhesus monkeys persisted for at least four years after reintroduction. Six studies (including four before-and-after studies) in Belize, Gabon, Madagascar, Malaysia, South Africa, and Vietnam found that a majority of primates survived for two to thirty months after reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. Two studies in Malaysia and Vietnam found that a minority of primates survived after between three months and 12 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1590https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1590Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat where the species is present Four before-and-after studies in Guinea and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of reintroduced chimpanzees survived for at least one to five years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after reintroduction intro habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions, while a study in Senegal found that a reintroduced chimpanzee was reunited with its mother. One study in Malaysia found that a majority of reintroduced orangutans survived reintroduction intro habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Malaysia found that a reintroduced population of orangutans had declined 33 years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Belize found that primate population increased five years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions, while one study in Thailand found that primate population declined post-reintroduction. Six studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Indonesia, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least fifteen weeks to seven years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. Five studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Gabon, and South Africa found that a majority of primates survived for at least two months to one year. Two controlled studies in Madagascar and Indonesia found that reintroduced primates had similar diets to individuals in wild populations after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced primates showed similar behaviour to wild individuals after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that a reintroduced muriqui rejoined a wild group after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1591https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1591Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:46:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat with predators Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most golden lion tamarins reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, did not survive over one to seven years but reproduced succesfully. Three studies, including two before-and-after studies, in the Congo, The Gambia and Guinea, found that most chimpanzees reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over one to five years or increased population numbers. One before-and-after study in Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over nine months. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most black-and-white ruffed lemurs reintroduced into habitat with predators did not survive over five years. One study in Madagascar found that all reintroduced lemurs survived over 30 months after being released into habitat with predators, along with other interventions. One study in Gabon found that most mandrills reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over 30 years. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa found that most vervet monkeys reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over six months. Two studies, including one before-and-after study, in Vietnam and Indonesia found that most lorises reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, were assumed dead within approximately one year after being released. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1593https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1593Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:16:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival Twenty-four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival. Nine studies were in the USA, two were in Canada, two were in South Africa, two were in Poland, and one each was in Sweden, the Netherlands, eSwatini, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Austria, Norway and Sweden and one was across North America and Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (18 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Four of eight studies (incuding four controlled, two site comparisons and five before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Poland and Austria found that supplementary feeding increased the abundance or density of bank voles, red squirrels, striped mice, brown hyena and black-backed jackals. One study found a temporary increased in prairie vole abundance. The other three studies found supplementary feeding not to increase abundance or density of white-footed mice, northern flying squirrels, Douglas squirrels or Eurasian otters. Reproduction (8 studies): Four of five controlled studies (three also replicated) in the USA, South Africa, Norway and Sweden, Sweden and Spain, found that supplementary food increased the proportion of striped mice that were breeding, the number of arctic fox litters and the size of prairie vole litters. However, there was no increase in the number of arctic fox cubs in each litter or the proportion of female Iberian lynx breeding. One of two replicated studies (one site comparison and one controlled), in the Netherlands and the USA, found that supplementary feeding increased the number of young wild boar produced and recruited in to the population. The other study found that the number of mule deer produced/adult female did not increase. A review of studies across North America and Europe found that supplementary feeding increased ungulate reproductive rates in five of eight relevant studies. Survival (9 studies): Four of eight studies (including seven controlled studies and two before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada, Poland and Spain, found that supplementary feeding increased survival of mule deer, bank voles, northern flying squirrels and eastern cottontail rabbits. Five studies found no increase in survival for white-tailed deer, Douglas squirrels, mule deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep lambs or Iberian lynx. A review of studies across North America and Europe found that supplementary feeding increased ungulate survival in four out of seven relevant studies. Condition (4 studies): One of three studies (including two controlled and two before-and-after studies) in Poland, the USA, and Canada, found that supplementary food lead to weight gain or weight recovery in bank voles. One study found no body mass increase with supplementary feeding in northern flying squirrels and Douglas squirrels. The third study found mixed results, with supplementary feeding increasing weight gains in some cotton rats, depending on their sex, weight and the time of year. A review of studies from across North America and Europe found that different proportions of studies found supplementary feeding to improve a range of measures of ungulate condition. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in Sweden found that supplementary food increased occupancy of Arctic fox dens. A replicated study in Portugal found that artificial feeding stations were used by European rabbits. Behaviour (4 studies): Two of three replicated studies (two also controlled), in eSwatini, Slovenia and the USA, found that supplementary feeding led to reduced home range sizes or shorter movements of red deer and elk. The third study found home ranges and movement distances to be similar between fed and unfed multimammate mice. One replicated study in Poland found that supplementary feeding of ungulates altered brown bear behaviour. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2367https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2367Tue, 26 May 2020 16:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of translocated mammals. Ten studies were in the USA, seven were in South Africa, four were in the UK, three studies were in France, two studies were in each of Canada, Australia and Spain and one was in each of Kenya, Zimbabwe, Italy, Ireland and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (31 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four studies (two replicated, one before-and-after study) in South Africa, Canada, France and Spain found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), populations of roe deer, European rabbits and lions increased in size. The other study found that elk numbers increased at two of four sites. Reproductive success (10 studies): A replicated study in the USA found that translocated gray wolves had similar breeding success in the first two years after release when adult family groups were released together from holding pens or when young adults were released directly into the wild. Seven of nine studies (including two replicated and one controlled study) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, Italy, Ireland, Australia and the UK found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations of roan, California ground squirrels, black-tailed prairie dogs, lions, four of four mammal populations, most female red squirrels and some pine martens reproduced successfully. Two studies found that one of two groups of Cape buffalo and one pair out of 18 Eurasian badgers reproduced. Survival (26 studies): Two of seven studies (five controlled, three replicated studies) in Canada, the USA, France, the UK found that releasing animals from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with associated actions) resulted in higher survival for water voles and female European rabbits compared to those released directly into the wild. Four studies found that translocated swift foxes, gray wolves, Eurasian lynx and Gunnison's prairie dogs released from holding pens had similar survival rates to those released directly into the wild. One study found that translocated American martens released from holding pens had lower survival than those released directly into the wild. Two of four studies (three controlled) in South Africa, Spain, and the USA found that translocated African wild dogs and European rabbits that spent longer in holding pens at release sites had a higher survival rate after release. One study found mixed effects for swift foxes and one found no effect of time in holding pens for San Joaquin kit foxes. Eleven studies (one replicated) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, France, Italy, Ireland, India, Australia and the UK found that after release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations or individuals survived between one month and six years, and four of four mammal populations survived. Two studies in the UK and South Africa found that no released red squirrels or rock hyraxes survived over five months or 18 days respectively. One of two controlled studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in South Africa and the USA found that following release from holding pens, survival of translocated lions was higher than that of resident animals, whilst that of translocated San Joaquin kit foxes was lower than that of resident animals. A study in Australia found that translocated bridled nailtail wallabies kept in holding pens prior to release into areas where predators had been controlled had similar annual survival to that of captive-bred animals. Condition (1 study): A controlled study in the UK found that translocated common dormice held in pens before release gained weight after release whereas those released directly lost weight. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in the USA and Canada found that following release from holding pens, fewer translocated sea otters and gray wolves returned to the capture site compared to those released immediately after translocation, and elk remained at all release sites. Two studies in Zimbabwe and South Africa found that following release from holding pens, translocated lions formed new prides. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2434https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2434Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:44:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release translocated/captive-bred mammals in family/social groups Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects of releasing translocated or captive-bred mammals in family or social groups. Eleven were in the USA, seven were in South Africa and one was in each of Poland, Zimbabwe, along the USA–Canada border, Russia, Italy, Canada, China and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (22 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): A study in the USA found that a translocated population of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep released in groups increased at a similar rate to that of a population newly established through natural recolonization. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after translocating black-tailed prairie dogs in social groups to areas with artificial burrows, colonies increased in size over four years. A replicated study in Canada found that following translocation of elk, most of which had been kept in holding pens in groups, numbers increased at two of four sites. A study in the USA found that following the release of captive-reared bighorn sheep in groups, the overall population declined over 14 years. Reproductive success (11 studies): A study in the USA found that captive-reared bighorn sheep released in groups had similar population recruitment rates compared to wild-reared sheep. A replicated, paired study in the USA found that black-tailed prairie dogs translocated as family groups had higher reproductive success than those translocated in non-family groups. A replicated study in the USA found that translocated gray wolves had similar breeding success when adult family groups were released together from holding pens or when young adults were released directly into the wild. Six of eight studies (one replicated) in Poland, Russia, South Africa, the USA and the USA–Canada border found that when translocated and/or captive-bred animals were released in social or family groups, cheetahs, European bison, lions, African wild dogs, most European beavers and some swift foxes reproduced successfully. One study found that one of two translocated Cape buffalo groups released after being held in a holding pen formed a single herd and reproduced, while the other scattered and escaped the reserve. One study found that no Gunnison's prairie dogs reproduced during the first year. Survival (19 studies): One of three studies (one controlled, before-and-after) in the USA found that when translocated or captive-bred animals were released in family or social groups, captive-reared bighorn sheep had similar survival compared to wild-reared sheep, whereas two found lower survival compared to wild white-tailed deer and San Joaquin kit foxes. Three replicated studies (one controlled, one paired) in the USA found that when translocated as a social or family group, black‐tailed prairie dogs had higher and white-tailed deer and gray wolves had similar survival rates to those translocated as unrelated groups or individuals. Ten studies (one replicated) in Poland, Russia, Italy, South Africa, the USA, USA–Canada border, China and India found that when translocated and/or captive-bred animals were released in social or family groups, a population of Przewalski’s horses and European bison persisted 5-11 years, lions, most swift foxes and European beavers and half or more cheetahs survived for at least one year, and one-horned rhinoceroses and over half of Gunnison's prairie dogs and Eurasian badgers survived at least 1-6 months. Three studies in the USA and South Africa found that when translocated or captive-bred animals were released in family or social groups (some provided with artificial refuges and/or supplementary food), most Mexican wolves did not survive over eight months and all rock hyraxes died within 90 days. A study in South Africa found that translocated and captive-bred African wild dogs released in family groups into fenced reserves had high survival rates. Condition (1 study): A study in China found that following the release of captive-bred Przewalski’s horses in groups, the population had a lower genetic diversity than two captive populations. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled (one before-and-after) studies in the USA found that when translocated as a social or family group, white-tailed deer had similar average dispersal distances and Utah prairie dogs had similar release site fidelity and post-release behaviour compared to those translocated as unrelated groups. One found that deer translocated together did not stay together, whether they had previously been part of the same social group or not. A study in Zimbabwe found that a translocated lion family joined with immigrant lions and formed a new pride. A study in South Africa found that translocated lions that were released in groups that had already been socialised and formed into prides, established stable home ranges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2463https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2463Tue, 02 Jun 2020 12:17:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release translocated/captive-bred mammals in areas with invasive/problematic species eradication/control Twenty-two studies evaluated the effects of releasing translocated or captive-bred mammals in areas with eradication or control of invasive or problematic species. Sixteen studies were in Australia, four were in the USA, and one in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (21 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): A replicated study in Australia found that increasing amounts of regular predator control increased population numbers of released captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots. Two studies in Australia found that following eradication or control of invasive species, a population of translocated and released captive-bred burrowing bettongs increased and a population of translocated western barred bandicoots increased over four years. A study in Australia found that following the release of captive-bred bridled nailtail wallabies and subsequent predator controls, numbers increased over a three years, but remained low compared to the total number released. Reproductive success (2 studies): A study in Australia found that four of five captive-bred mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one population released into a predator-reduced enclosure produced a second generation, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not survive to reproduce. A study in Australia found that most female captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies released into a large predator-free fenced area reproduced. Survival (18 studies): Ten studies (one controlled, three replicated, two before-and-after studies) in Australia, and the UK found that following the eradication/control of invasive species (and in some cases release into a fenced area), a translocated population of woylies, western barred bandicoots and red-tailed phascogales survived over four years, released captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots survived up to three years at five of seven sites, offspring of translocated golden bandicoots survived three years, over half of released captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies survived over two years, captive-bred water voles survived for at least 20 months or over 11 months at over half of release sites, most released captive-bred hare-wallabies survived at least two months, most captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots survived for over three weeks. A replicated study in Australia found that after the control of invasive species, four translocated populations of burrowing bettongs died out within four months. A review of studies in Australia found that in seven studies where red fox control was carried out before or after the release of captive-bred eastern-barred bandicoots, survival varied. A study in Australia found that four of five captive-bred mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one population released into a predator-reduced enclosure survived, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not. A study in Australia found that captive-bred bridled nailtail wallabies released from holding pens in areas where predators had been controlled had similar annual survival rates to that of wild-born translocated animals. Two studies (one replicated) in the USA found that where predators were managed, at least half of released captive-bred black-footed ferrets survived more than two weeks, but that post-release mortality was higher than resident wild ferrets. A before-and-after study in the USA found following the onset of translocations of black bears away from an elk calving site, survival of the offspring of translocated elk increased. Condition (2 studies): A study Australia found that wild-born golden bandicoots, descended from a translocated population released into a predator-free enclosure, maintained genetic diversity relative to the founder and source populations. A replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that one to two years after release into predator-free fenced reserves, translocated eastern bettongs weighed more and had improved nutritional status compared to before release. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that translocated Utah prairie dogs released after the control of native predators into an area with artificial burrows showed low site fidelity and different pre- and post-release behaviour. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2469https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2469Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:51:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food during/after release of translocated mammals Sixteen studies evaluated the effects of providing supplementary food during/after release of translocated mammals. Four studies were in the UK, two were in each of the USA, France, Australia and Argentina, and one was in each of Italy, Spain, Ireland and South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A controlled study in Spain found that providing supplementary food during translocation did not increase European rabbit abundance. A study in France found that following supplementary feeding in a holding pen prior to release, a translocated deer population increased over six years. Reproductive success (4 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in the USA, Italy and Ireland found that having been provided with supplementary food in holding pens prior to release, translocated black-tailed prairie dogs, a pair of Eurasian badgers and most female red squirrels reproduced in the wild. A study in the UK found that some translocated pine martens released from holding pens and then provided with supplementary food and nest boxes bred in the first year after release. Survival (10 studies): Six of 10 studies (including one replicated and one controlled study) in the UK, France, Italy, Ireland, South Africa, USA, Argentina and Australia found that at sites with supplementary food in holding pens before (and in two cases after) release, translocated populations of black-tailed prairie dogs, approximately half of female roe deer and over half of red squirrels, Eurasian badgers, pine martens and released rehabilitated or captive reared giant anteaters survived for between one month and at least two years. Four studies found that at translocation release sites with provision of supplementary food, in most cases artificial refuges and in one case water, no red squirrels, rock hyraxes or burrowing bettongs survived over 2-5 months and most translocated Tipton and Heermann’s kangaroo rat spp. died within five days. A controlled study in France found that translocated European rabbits provided with supplementary food in holding pens for three days prior to release had higher female (but not male) survival rates immediately following release compared to those released directly. A controlled study in the UK found that survival of translocated and rehabilitated European hedgehogs that were provided with supplementary food after release varied with release method. Condition (2 studies): One of three studies (including one replicated, one controlled and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Australia found that translocated common dormice gained weight after being provided with supplementary food. One found that translocated eastern bettongs did not have increased body weights after provision of supplementary food in fenced enclosures prior to release. The other found that translocated and rehabilitated European hedgehogs provided with food after release all lost body mass, with effects varying with release method. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): A controlled study in Australia found that supplementary feeding stations were visited by translocated burrowing bettongs. Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being provided with supplementary food and kept in holding pens, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal than wild-born rehabilitated and released individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2470https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2470Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:59:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals Thirty-one studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals. Seven studies were in Australia, and in the USA, four were in the UK, three in Argentina, two in each of Israel, Saudi Arabia and China and one in each of Canada, Namibia, South Africa and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (30 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A study in Saudi Arabia found that a population of captive-bred Arabian sand gazelles kept in holding pens prior to release nearly doubled in size over four years. A before-and-after study in China found that following release of captive-bred animals from a pre-release enclosure into the semi-wild (free-roaming in summer, enclosed in winter and provided with food), Przewalski’s horses increased in number. Reproductive success (10 studies): Eight studies (one replicated) and one review in the UK, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Israel and Australia found that following the use of holding pens prior to release (and in some cases provision of supplementary food), captive-bred Eurasian otters, Arabian sand gazelles, eastern-barred bandicoots, some swift foxes, some red wolves and over 33% of Persian fallow deer reproduced, Arabian gazelles started breeding in the first year and the reproductive success of female Asiatic wild ass increased over 10 years. A study in Australia found that after being kept in a holding pen, all four mammal populations released into an invasive-species-free fenced enclosure reproduced. Survival (23 studies): One of three studies (two controlled, one replicated) in the UK, Canada and Australia found that using holding pens prior to release of captive-bred (and some translocated) animals resulted in greater post-release survival for water voles compared to animals released directly into the wild. The other two studies found similar survival rates for eastern barred bandicoots and swift foxes compared to animals released directly into the wild. A replicated study in the USA found that captive-bred Allegheny woodrats kept in holding pens prior to release, had higher early survival rates than those not kept in holding pens, but overall survival rates tended to be lower than wild resident woodrats. Three studies in South Africa, USA and Argentina found that released captive-bred (and some translocated) African wild dogs, riparian brush rabbits and guanacos that spent longer in, and in one case in larger, holding pens had a higher survival rate. Three studies (one controlled) in Australia and the USA found that captive-bred animals kept in holding pens prior to release had similar (bridled nailtail wallabies) or lower (black-footed ferret kits) annual survival rate after release to that of wild-born translocated animals and lower (black-footed ferrets) survival rates than resident animals. Ten studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study) and one review in Saudi Arabia, the USA, Argentina, China, Israel, Australia and Germany found that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred animals (or in some cases captive-reared/rehabilitated, or with provision of supplementary food), four of four mammal populations, 19% of red wolves, Asiatic wild ass, Persian fallow deer, most Arabian sand gazelles, most swift foxes, eastern-barred bandicoots and European mink survived at least 1-10 years, over half of giant anteaters, hare-wallabies and Père David’s deer survived for at least 1.5-6 months. Three studies in Namibia, the USA and Australia found that that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred or reared animals (some provided with nest boxes and/or supplementary food), red-tailed phascogales, most Mexican wolves and African wild dogs survived less than 6-12 months. Condition (4 studies): A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that eastern barred bandicoots released after time in holding pens lost a similar proportion of body weight and recovered to a similar weight compared to bandicoots released directly. A controlled study in the UK found that common dormice lost weight after being put into holding pens whereas wild translocated dormice gained weight. A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred rufous hare-wallabies placed in holding pens prior to release lost body condition in holding pens. A before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred brush-tailed rock-wallabies placed in a holding pen prior to release maintained good health. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being kept in holding pens and provided with supplementary food, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal in their activity patterns than released wild-born rehabilitated individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2510https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2510Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:17:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred mammals into fenced areas Fourteen studies evaluated the effects of releasing captive-bred mammals into fenced areas. Nine studies were in Australia and one each was in Jordan, South Africa, the USA, Saudi Arabia and Senegal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four studies (one replicated) and a review in Australia, Jordan and Senegal found that after releasing captive-bred animals into fenced areas, a population of burrowing bettongs increased, a population of Arabian oryx increased six-fold in 12 years, a population of dorcas gazelle almost doubled over four years, three populations of eastern barred bandicoot initially increased and abundance of eastern barred bandicoots increased. Reproductive success (6 studies): Four studies and a review in South Africa, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Senegal found that following release of captive-bred animals into fenced areas (in some cases with other associated management), African wild dogs, three populations of eastern barred bandicoot, dorcas gazelle and most female black-footed rock-wallabies reproduced, and Arabian gazelles started breeding in the year following the first releases. A study in Australia found that four of five mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one released into a predator-reduced enclosure reproduced, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not survive to reproduce. Survival (10 studies): A study in Australia found that four of five mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one population released into a predator-reduced enclosure survived, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not. Six studies (one controlled before-and-after study and two replicated studies) in Australia and the USA found that following release of captive-bred animals into fenced areas (in some cases with other associated management), a burrowing bettong population, three eastern barred bandicoot populations and over half of black-footed rock-wallabies survived between one and eight years, most captive-bred hare-wallabies survived at least two months, at least half of black-footed ferrets survived more than two weeks, and bandicoots survived at five of seven sites up to three years after the last release. One study in Australia found that following release into fenced areas, a captive-bred population of red-tailed phascogales survived for less than a year. A study in South Africa found that captive-bred African wild dogs released into fenced reserves in family groups had high survival rates. A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots released into a fenced reserve after time in holding pens had similar post-release survival compared to bandicoots released directly from captivity. Condition (1 study): A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots released into a fenced reserve after time in holding pens had similar post-release body weight compared to those released directly from captivity. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2521https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2521Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:55:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food during/after release of captive-bred mammals Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of providing supplementary food during/after release of captive-bred mammals. Four studies were in Australia, two were in each of the USA, China and Argentina, and one was in each of Poland, the UK, Oman and Saudi Arabia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four studies (one replicated, one before-and-after study) and one review in Poland, Oman, China and Australia found that following provision of supplementary food (and in one case water) to released captive-bred animals, populations of European bison increased more than six-fold over 20 years, Arabian oryx increased over 14 years, eastern-barred bandicoots increased for the first five years before declining, Père David's deer increased more than six-fold over 12 years and Przewalski’s horses (enclosed in winter) increased over 11 years. Reproductive success (9 studies): Eight studies (including two replicated and one before-and-after study) and one review in Poland, the UK, China, the USA, Australia and Saudi Arabia found that following the provision of supplementary food (and in one case water or artificial nests) after release of captive-bred animals, some from holding pens, European bison, European otters, Père David's deer, eastern-barred bandicoots, Przewalski’s horses and some captive-bred red wolves successfully reproduced, Arabian gazelles started breeding in the year following releases and sugar gliders established a breeding population. Survival (6 studies): Four of six studies (one controlled, before-and-after study) in the UK, USA, Argentina and Australia found that following the provision of supplementary food (and in one case water or nest boxes) after release of captive-bred animals, many from holding pens, 19% of red wolves survived for at least seven years, Eurasian otters survived for at least two years, over half the giant anteaters (some rehabilitated) survived for at least six months and hare-wallabies survived at least two months. Two of the studies found that red-tailed phascogales survived for less than a year and most Mexican wolves survived less than eight months. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being provided with supplementary food and kept in holding pens, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal in their activity patterns than released wild-born rehabilitated individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2527https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2527Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:23:58 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue