Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change mowing regime (e.g. timing, frequency, height) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing mowing regime (e.g. timing, frequency, height) on mammals. ‘We found no studies'’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2399https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2399Thu, 28 May 2020 10:56:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave areas of uncut ryegrass in silage field We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving areas of uncut ryegrass in silage field. ‘We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2400https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2400Thu, 28 May 2020 10:59:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave cut vegetation in field to provide cover One study evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving cut vegetation in field to provide cover. This study was in the USA KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that increasing cover, by adding cut vegetation (hay), did not increase rodent abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2401https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2401Thu, 28 May 2020 11:01:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish long-term cover on erodible cropland One study evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA, found that establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland did not increase the abundance of eastern cottontails. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2402https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2402Thu, 28 May 2020 11:16:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland) Nine studies evaluated the effects of excluding livestock from semi-natural habitat on mammals. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Spain and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found more small mammal species on areas from which livestock were excluded. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Four out of eight studies (including four site comparisons and four controlled studies), in the USA and Spain, found that excluding grazing livestock led to higher abundances of mule deer, small mammals and, when combined with provision of water, of European rabbits. One study found higher densities of some but not all small mammals species when livestock were excluded and the other three studies found that grazing exclusion did not lead to higher abundances of black-tailed hares, California ground squirrel burrows or of five small mammal species. A site comparison study in Australia found more small mammals where cattle were excluded compared to high intensity cattle-grazing but not compared to medium or low cattle-grazing intensities.  BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2407https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2407Thu, 28 May 2020 13:13:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of grazing by domestic livestock Thirteen studies evaluated the effects on mammals of reducing the intensity of grazing by domestic livestock. Six studies were in the USA, six were in Europe and one was in China. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison or controlled studies, in the USA and Norway, found that reduced livestock grazing intensity was associated with increased species richness of small mammals whilst one study did not find an increase in species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Abundance (13 studies): Six of nine site comparison or controlled studies (including seven replicated studies), in the USA, Denmark, the UK, China, Netherlands and Norway, found that reductions in livestock grazing intensity were associated with increases in abundances (or proxies of abundances) of small mammals, whilst two studies showed no significant impact of reducing grazing intensity and one study showed mixed results for different species. Two replicated studies (including one controlled and one site comparison study), in the UK and in a range of European countries, found that reducing grazing intensity did not increase numbers of Irish hares or European hares. A controlled, before-and-after study, in the USA found that exclusion of cattle grazing was associated with higher numbers of elk and mule deer. A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that an absence of cattle grazing was associated with higher numbers of North American beavers. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2408https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2408Fri, 29 May 2020 08:14:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use livestock fences that are permeable to wildlife Two studies evaluated the effects on target mammals of using livestock fences that are permeable to wildlife. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A study in the USA found that wild ungulates crossed a triangular cross-section fence with varying success rates. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that fences with a lowered top wire were crossed more by elk than were conventional fences. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2409https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2409Fri, 29 May 2020 12:28:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install mammal crossing points along fences on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing mammal crossing points along fences on farmland. Two studies were in Namibia and one each was in the USA and the UK. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): A study in the USA found that pronghorn antelopes crossed a modified cattle grid which prevented escape of domestic sheep and cows. A controlled, before-and-after study in Namibia found installing swing gates through game fencing reduced the digging of holes by animals under the fence, whilst preventing large predator entry. A study in the UK found that a vertical-sided ditch under an electric fence allowed access by otters. A before-and-after study in Namibia found that tyres installed as crossings through fences were used by wild mammals and reduced fence maintenance requirements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2410https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2410Fri, 29 May 2020 12:42:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use traditional breeds of livestock One study evaluated the effects of using traditional breeds of livestock on wild mammals. This study was carried out in four European countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in Europe found that European hares did not use areas grazed by traditional livestock breeds more than they used areas grazed by commercial breeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2411https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2411Fri, 29 May 2020 13:25:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change type of livestock Two studies evaluated the effect of changing type of livestock on mammals. One study was in the UK and one was in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that sheep and cattle grazing increased field vole abundance relative to sheep-only grazing. One replicated, randomized, paired sites study in the Netherlands found that cattle grazing increased vole abundance relative to horse grazing. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2412https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2412Fri, 29 May 2020 13:34:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate local pastoralist communities to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of relocating local pastoralists to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A study in India found that after most pastoralists were relocated outside of an area, Asiatic lion numbers increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2413https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2413Fri, 29 May 2020 15:34:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to compensate for losses due to predators/wild herbivores to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of paying farmers compensation for losses due to predators or wild herbivores to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Kenya and one each was in Italy and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies, in Italy and Sweden, found that compensating livestock owners for losses to predators led to increasing populations of wolves and wolverines. Survival (3 studies): Three before-and-after studies (including two replicated studies), in Kenya, found that when pastoralists were compensated for livestock killings by predators, fewer lions were killed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2414https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2414Fri, 29 May 2020 15:48:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one each was in Germany, the UK, Spain, China, Tanzania and Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (8 studies): Four replicated studies (including three before-and-after studies), in USA, China, Tanzania and Kenya, found that non-electric fencing reduced livestock predation by coyotes, Tibetan brown bears, and a range of mammalian predators. A replicated, controlled study in USA found that a high woven wire fence with small mesh, an overhang and an apron (to deter burrowing) was the most effective design at deterring crossings by coyotes. A replicated, controlled study in Germany found that fencing with phosphorescent tape was more effective than fencing with normal yellow tape for deterring red deer and roe deer, but had no effect on crossings by wild boar or brown hare. Two studies (one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison and one controlled study) in the UK and Spain found that fences reduced European rabbit numbers on or damage to crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2415https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2415Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:22:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn at specific time of year Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of burning at a specific time of year. One study was in Australia, and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that carrying out prescribed burns in autumn did not increase small mammal abundances or biomass relative to burning in summer. Survival (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in Australia found that in forest burned early in the dry season, northern brown bandicoot survival rate declined less than in forests burned late in the dry season. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2416https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2416Mon, 01 Jun 2020 09:39:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA (and a further one was presumed to be in the USA) and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Brazil and Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Six out of 10 randomized and/or controlled or before-and-after studies (including eight replicated studies), in the USA (and a further one presumed to be in the USA), Canada, Brazil and Spain, found that electric fences reduced or prevented entry to livestock enclosures or predation of livestock by carnivores. Two studies found that some designs of electric fencing prevented coyotes from entering enclosures and killing or wounding lambs. The other two studies found electric fencing did not reduce livestock predation or prevent fence crossings by carnivores. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that electrifying a fence reduced digging of burrows under the fence that black-backed jackals could pass through. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2417https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2417Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:09:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide shelter structures after fire We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing shelter structures after fire. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2418https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2418Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:03:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of excluding wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Cameroon and Benin and one was in Cameroon. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study and one site comparison), in Cameroon and Benin and in Cameroon, found that fewer livestock were predated when they were kept in enclosures, especially when these were reinforced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2420https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2420Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:39:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use flags to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using flags to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in the USA, one was in Italy and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Three studies (including two before-and-after studies and a controlled study), in Italy, Canada and the USA, found that flags hanging from fence lines (fladry) deterred crossings by wolves but not by coyotes. A further replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric fences with fladry were not crossed by wolves. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that fladry did not reduce total deer carcass consumption by a range of carnivores. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2421https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2421Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:54:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use campaigns and public information to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats Two studies evaluated the effects of using campaigns and public information to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. One study was in the USA and one was in Lao People's Democratic Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (2 studies): A randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that displaying education signs did not reduce the percentage of garbage containers that were accessible to black bears. A controlled, before-and-after study in Lao People's Democratic Republic found that a social marketing campaign promoting a telephone hotline increased reporting of illegal hunting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2422https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2422Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:02:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats Two studies evaluated the effects of providing education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. One study was in South Africa and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that educating ranchers on ways of reducing livestock losses, along with stricter hunting policies, increased leopard density. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that educating ranchers on ways of reducing livestock losses, along with stricter hunting policies, reduced leopard mortalities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that visiting households to educate about the danger of garbage to black bears did not increase use of wildlife-resistant dumpsters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2423https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2423Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:28:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide science-based films, radio programmes, or books about mammals to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing science-based films, radio programmes, or books about mammals to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2424https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2424Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train and support local staff to help reduce persecution of mammals One study evaluated the effects of training and supporting local staff to help reduce persecution of mammals. This study was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in Kenya found that employing local tribesmen to dissuade pastoralists from killing lions and to assist with livestock protection measures, alongside compensating for livestock killed by lions, reduced lion killings by pastoralists. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2425https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2425Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:45:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Publish data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts One study evaluated the effects on poaching incidents of publishing data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts. This study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Ghana found that when data were publishing on staff performance, poaching incidents decreased on these sites and on sites from which performance data were not published. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Ghana found that publishing data on staff performance lead to an increase in anti-poaching patrols. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2426https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2426Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:50:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use visual deterrents (e.g. scarecrows) to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of using visual deterrents, such as scarecrows, to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Kenya and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A study in Kenya recorded more livestock predation at bomas with scarecrows than those without scarecrows whereas a replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that a combination of visual and sound deterrents reduced livestock predation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2427https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2427Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:13:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pheromones to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using pheromones to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2428https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2428Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:34:38 +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