Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food to increase parental presence and so reduce brood parasitism We found no evidence on providing supplementary food to increase parental presence and so reduce boord parasitims on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F445https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F445Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:04:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary foodA replicated, controlled study from Europe found that overall, gardens with supplementary food did not contain more species than those without. However, there was some evidence that gardens with supplementary food in five countries did contain more species than unfed ones, when countries were analysed separately. For specific interventions see: provide supplementary foodCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F521https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F521Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:18:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for gulls, terns and skuas to increase reproductive success Four studies of three experiments from Europe and Alaska found that providing supplementary food increased fledging success or chick survival in two gull species, although a study from the UK found that this was only true for one island, with abnormally low breeding success. A second island with higher success was not affected by feeding. Two of the experiments fed parent birds and one fed the chicks directly. One study from the Antarctic found no effect of feeding parent skuas on productivity. One study from Alaska found increased chick growth when parents were fed; one study from the Antarctic found no increase in chick growth. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F525https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F525Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:37:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for vultures to increase reproductive success Two before-and-after studies from the USA and Greece found that there were population increases in local populations of two vultures (one New World, one Old World) following the provision of food in the area. A study from Israel found that a small, regularly supplied feeding station could provide sufficient food for breeding Egyptian vultures Neophron percnopterus. A before-and-after study from Italy found that a small population of Egyptian vultures Neophron percnopterus declined following the provision of food at a feeding station, and only a single vulture was seen at the feeding station. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F531https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F531Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:08:42 +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 parrots to increase reproductive success Two studies from New Zealand found some evidence that providing supplementary food for kakapos Strigopus habroptilus increased the number of breeding attempts made, whilst a third study found that birds provided with specially-formulated pellets appeared to have larger clutches than those fed on nuts. One study found no evidence that providing food increased the number of nesting attempts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F536https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F536Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:43:26 +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 wildfowl to increase adult survival Two studies from Canada and Northern Ireland found that five species of wildfowl readily consumed supplementary food (grains and seeds). Only the Canadian study assessed the physiological effects of feeding, and found that fed birds were heavier and had larger hearts or flight muscles or had more body fat than controls Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F542https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F542Sun, 16 Sep 2012 08:47:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for waders to increase adult survivalA study in Northern Ireland found that waders fed on millet seed when provided, but were dominated by mallards Anas platyrhynchos when larger seeds were provided. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F543https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F543Sun, 16 Sep 2012 08:50:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for vultures to increase adult survival A before-and-after study from Spain found a large increase in griffon vulture Gyps fulvus population in the study area following multiple interventions including supplementary feeding. Two studies from the USA and Israel found that Californian condors Gymnogyps californianus and Egyptian vultures Neophron percnopterus fed on many of the carcasses provided for them. The Egyptian vultures were sometimes dominated by larger species at a feeding station supplied twice a month, but not at one supplied every day. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F545https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F545Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:10:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for raptors to increase adult survivalTwo randomised, replicated and controlled studies in the USA found that nesting northern goshawks Accipiter gentilis were significantly heavier in territories supplied with supplementary food, compared with those from unfed territories. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F546https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F546Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:12:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for gulls, terns and skuas to increase adult survivalA randomised, replicated and controlled study in the Antarctic found that female south polar skuas Catharacta maccormicki that were fed lost more weight whilst feeding two chicks than unfed birds. There was no difference for birds with single chicks, or male birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F548https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F548Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:21:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for pigeons to increase adult survival A study of a recently-released pink pigeon Nesoenas mayeri population on Mauritius found that fewer than half the birds used supplementary food, and appeared to survive without it. However, a later study of the population found that almost all birds were recorded using supplementary feeders. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F549https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F549Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:24:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for woodpeckers to increase adult survival One replicated, controlled study from the USA found that 12 female downy woodpeckers Picoides pubescens supplied with supplementary food had higher nutritional statuses than unfed birds. However, two analyses of a replicated, controlled study of 378 downy woodpeckers from the USA found that they did not have higher survival rates or nutritional statuses than unfed birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F551https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F551Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:42:41 +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 after release Three studies from found that malleefowl Leipoa ocellata, Andean condors Vultur gryphus and pink pigeons Nesoenas mayeri used supplementary food when it was provided after release. A replicated, controlled study from Australia found that malleefowl had higher survival when supplied with supplementary food. A study in Peru found that supplementary food could be used to increase the foraging range of condors after release, or to guide them back to suitable feeding areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F639https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F639Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:54:01 +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: Regularly and continuously provide supplementary food to primates Two studies in China and The Gambia found that after regularly providing supplementary food, along with other interventions, primate populations increased. Two studies in Thailand and Malaysia found that populations declined after regular provision of supplementary food, alongside other interventions. Three studies in Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia found that the majority of primates survived after being regularly provided supplementary food, along with other interventions. One study in Liberia found that after regular provision of supplementary food, along with other interventions, the majority of introduced chimpanzees survived for at least one year. One controlled study in Madagascar found that after a year of regular food supplimentation, along with other interventions, introduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs showed different diets compared to a resident wild group of the same species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1526https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1526Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:53:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food to primates through the establishment of prey populations We found no evidence for the effects of providing supplementary food to primates through the establishment of prey populations on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1529https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1529Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:17:33 +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: Plant crops to provide supplementary food for mammals Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting crops to provide supplementary food. Two studies were in the USA, one was in the UK and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study), in the UK and Spain, found that crops grown to provide food for wildlife resulted in a higher abundance of small mammals in winter, but not in summer and increased European rabbit abundance. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) held higher overwintering mule deer abundance relative to barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that mule deer consumed triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) more than they did barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary food provided for game species was also consumed by lagomorphs and rodents. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2394https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2394Thu, 28 May 2020 10:07:10 +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: Provide supplementary food after fire One study evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary food after fire. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary feeding did not increase survival of hispid cotton rats following prescribed fire. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2494https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2494Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:06:37 +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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food or water Four studies evaluated the effects of providing supplementary food or water on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of Indonesia and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that translocated desert tortoises given supplementary water had similar survival over two years compared to those given no supplementary water. Reproduction (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that more Western diamond-backed rattlesnakes provided with supplementary food reproduced compared snakes that were not fed. Condition (2 studies): Two controlled studies (including one randomized and one replicated study) in the USA found that Western diamond-backed rattlesnakes or translocated desert tortoises that were given supplementary food or water grew more than those that were not supplemented. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (1 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in Indonesia found that areas where supplementary food was provided were used more frequently by Komodo dragons than other parts of the island. Behaviour change (3 studies): One of two controlled studies (including one replicated, before-and-after study) in the USA and Australia found that that Pygmy bluetongue lizards translocated into enclosures and given supplementary food showed differences in three behaviour measures compared to lizards given no food. The other study found that fed and unfed Western diamond-backed rattlesnakes showed similar behaviours across four measures. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that translocated desert tortoises given supplementary water moved longer distances than those given no supplementary water. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3786https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3786Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:21:31 +0000