Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

"Terrestrial Mammal Conservation provides a thorough summary of the available scientific evidence of what is known, or not known, about the effectiveness of all of the conservation actions for wild terrestrial mammals across the world (excluding bats and primates, which are covered in separate synopses). Actions are organized into categories based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature classifications of direct threats and conservation actions. Over the course of fifteen chapters, the authors consider interventions as wide ranging as creating uncultivated margins around fields, prescribed burning, setting hunting quotas and removing non-native mammals. This book is written in an accessible style and is designed to be an invaluable resource for anyone concerned with the practical conservation of terrestrial mammals. The authors consulted an international group of terrestrial mammal experts and conservationists to produce this synopsis. Funding was provided by the MAVA Foundation, Arcadia and National Geographic Big Cats Initiative. Terrestrial Mammal Conservation is the seventeenth publication in the Conservation Evidence Series, linked to the online resource www.ConservationEvidence.com. Conservation Evidence Synopses are designed to promote a more evidence-based approach to biodiversity conservation. Others in the series include Bat Conservation, Primate Conservation, Bird Conservation and Forest Conservation and more are in preparation. Expert assessment of the evidence summarised within synopses is provided online and within the annual publication What Works in Conservation.

3. Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture

All farming systems 3.1. Establish wild flower areas on farmland https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2359 • Four studies evaluated the effects of establishing wild flower areas on farmland on small mammals. Two studies were in Switzerland2,3, one in the UK1 and one in Germany4. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) • Abundance (4 studies): Three of four site comparison studies (including three replicated studies), in Switzerland2,3, the UK1 and Germany4, foun..

9. Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

9.1. Use fencing to exclude grazers or other problematic species https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2495 • Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fencing to exclude grazers or other problematic species. One study was in each of the USA1, Australia2 and Spain3. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) • Richness/diversity (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia2 found that after fencing to exclude introduced herbivores, native mammal species richness increas..

8. Threat: Natural system modifications

8.1. Use prescribed burning https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2388 • Thirty-seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using prescribed burning. Twenty-five studies were in the USA1,3,4,6–10,12–16,18,20–24,26,27,29–31,34, three each were in Canada2,5,25 and South Africa17,19,36, two each were in Spain11,37 and Tanzania28,35 and one each was in France32 and Australia33. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) • Richness/diversity (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study..

2. Threat: Residential and commercial development

2.1. Protect mammals close to development areas (e.g. by fencing) https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2324 • We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting mammals close to development areas (e.g. by fencing). ‘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 har..

12. Habitat protection

12.1. Legally protect habitat for mammals https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2559 • Seven studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting habitat for mammals. One study each was in Zambia1, the USA2, Tanzania3, Brazil4, Nepal6 and India7 and one was a systematic review of sites with a wide geographic spread5. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) • Abundance (7 studies): A systematic review of protected areas across the globe5 found that 24 of 31 studies..

14. Species management

14.1. Cease/reduce payments to cull mammals https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2349 • One study evaluated the effects of ceasing or reducing payments to cull mammals. This study was in Sweden and Norway1. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) • Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Sweden and Norway1 found that fewer brown bears were reported killed after the removal of financial hunting incentives. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) BackgroundFinancial incentive..

7. Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance

7.1. Use signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2325 • One study evaluated the effects of using signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals. This study was in the USA1. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) • Use (1 study): A replicated, paired sites, site comparison study in the USA1 found that removing or closing roads increased use of those areas by black bears..

4. Threat: Energy production and mining

4.1. Restore former mining sites https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2490 • Twelve studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining sites on mammals. Eleven studies were in Australia2–12 and one was in the USA1. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) • Species richness (8 studies): A review in Australia10 found that seven of 11 studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had lower mammal species richness compared to in unmined areas. Four of five replicated, site comparison studies, i..

6. Threat: Biological resource use

Hunting & Collecting Terrestrial Animals 6.1. Prohibit or restrict hunting of a species https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2597 • Five studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of a mammal species. One study each was in Norway1, the USA2, South Africa3, Poland4 and Zimbabwe5. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) • Abundance (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study), in the USA2 and Poland4, found that prohibit..