W.J. S Terrestrial Mammal Conservation Terrestrial Mammal Eff ects of interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates UTHERLAND Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., and Sutherland W.J. Conservation Global evidence for the eff ects of interventions for Terrestrial Mammal Conserva� on is the seventeenth publica� on in the Conserva� on Evidence Series Synopses, linked to the online resource www.Conserva� onEvidence.com. ET terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates Conserva� on Evidence Synopses are designed to promote a more evidence-based approach AL to biodiversity conserva� on. Others in the series include Bat Conserva� on, Primate . Conserva� on, Bird Conserva� on and Forest Conserva� on and more are in prepara� on. Expert assessment of the evidence summarized within synopses is provided online and within the annual publica� on What Works in Conservati on. This synopsis brings together and provides a thorough summary of the available scien� fi c evidence of what is known, or not known, about the eff ec� veness of conserva� on ac� ons for Terrestrial Mammal wild terrestrial mammals across the world (excluding bats and primates, which are covered in separate synopses). Ac� ons are organized into categories based on the Interna� onal Union for Conserva� on of Nature classifi ca� ons of direct threats and conserva� on ac� ons. Conservation This book is designed to be a useful resource for those concerned with the prac� cal conserva� on of terrestrial mammals. The authors consulted an interna� onal group of terrestrial mammal experts and conserva� onists to produce this synopsis. Funding was provided by the MAVA Founda� on, Arcadia and Na� onal Geographic Big Cats Ini� a� ve. As with all Open Book publica� ons, this en� re book is available to read for free on the publisher’s website. Printed and digital edi� ons, together with supplementary digital material, can also be found at www.openbookpublishers.com Cover Image: Cape mountain zebra Equus zebra zebra, by Rebecca K. Smith Cover Design by Anna Ga� . book eebook and OA edi� ons also available Nick A. Littlewood, Ricardo Rocha, Rebecca K. Smith, Philip A. Martin, OPEN ACCESS Sarah L. Lockhart, Rebecca F. Schoonover, Elspeth Wilman, Andrew J. Bladon, Katie A. Sainsbury, Stuart Pimm & William J. Sutherland OBP CONSERVATION EVIDENCE SERIES SYNOPSES https://www.openbookpublishers.com © 2020 Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Sutherland W.J. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information: N.A. Littlewood, R. Rocha, R.K. Smith, W.J. Sutherland et al., Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series, University of Cambridge (Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2020), https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0234 In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit, https:// doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0234#copyright Further details about CC BY licenses are available at https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/ All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have been archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web Updated digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0234#resources Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher. ISBN Paperback: 9781800640832 ISBN Hardback: 9781800640849 ISBN Digital (PDF): 9781800640856 ISBN Digital ebook (epub): 9781800640863 ISBN Digital ebook (mobi): 9781800640870 ISBN XML: 9781800640887 DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0234 Cover image: Cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra), De Hoop Nature Reserve, South Africa. Photograph by Rebecca K. Smith, CC-BY. Cover design by Anna Gatti. 14. Species management Background Most of the chapters in this book are aimed at minimizing threats, but there are also some interventions which aim specifically to increase population numbers by increasing reproductive rates and by introducing individuals. This chapter describes interventions that can be used to increase population size by translocating wild mammals from one area to another, by breeding or rearing mammals in captivity (ex-situ conservation) to release back into the wild or by enhancing resources available for mammals in ways that can be used to address multiple threats (such as by providing artificial dens or nest boxes). 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) © Book Authors, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0234.14 714 Terrestrial Mammal Conservation Background Financial incentives for hunting particular species of mammal may be awarded for a variety of reasons, including agricultural protection, disease control and human safety. Whilst the intention of making such payments is to increase hunting of focal species, hunter motivations are varied (e.g. Gigliotti & Metcalf 2016) and may include more than financial reward. Hence, removal of payments may or may not have the desired consequence of reducing hunting pressure on species. Gigliotti L.M. & Metcalf E.C. (2016) Motivations of female black hills deer hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 21, 371–378. A before-and-after study in 1888–1898 in Sweden and a before-and- after study in 1925–1935 in Norway (1) found that after the removal of financial hunting incentives fewer brown bears Ursus arctos were reported killed. In both Sweden and Norway, fewer bears were reported killed during the five years after the removal of financialhunting incentives (Sweden: average 14 bears/county/year; Norway: average 1 bear/county/year) than during the five years before the removal of financial hunting incentives (Sweden: average 25 bears/county/ year; Norway: average 3 bears/county/year). Financial incentives to cull bears were eliminated in 1893 in Sweden and in 1930 in Norway. Additionally, in 1930, bear hunting on someone else’s property was banned in Norway. Numbers of bears killed were obtained from national harvesting records. (1) Swenson J.E., Wabakken P., Sandegren F., Bjärvall A., Franzén R. & Söderberg A. (1995) The near extinction and recovery of brown bears in Scandinavia in relation to the bear management policies of Norway and Sweden. Wildlife Biology, 1, 11–25. 14. Species management 715 14.2. Temporarily hold females and offspring in fenced area to increase survival of young https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2351 • We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of temporarily holding females and offspring in a fenced area to increase survival of young. ’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. Background Survival of new-born mammals can be low, due to a variety of factors including predation. Capturing pregnant females and temporarily holding them and their new-born offspring in fenced areas within their native range (short-term or ‘maternal penning’), for the first few weeks of life when young are most vulnerable to predation, may result in increased survival of young. This could help to slow decline, maintain or increase population size. 14.3. Rehabilitate injured, sick or weak mammals https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2352 • Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of rehabilitating injured, sick or weak mammals. Four studies were in the UK3,4,5,8, three were in Spain6,9,13, two were in Argentina10,12 and one each was in Uganda1, Australia2, the USA7 and Brazil11. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) • Survival (11 studies): Five studies, in the UK3,4,5,8 and Spain9, found that varying proportions of European hedgehogs released after being rehabilitated in captivity survived during 716 Terrestrial Mammal Conservation post-release monitoring periods, which ranged from two weeks3 to 136 days9. Five studies, in Australia2, Spain6,13, the USA7 and Brazil11, found that four koalas2, an Iberian lynx6, a gray wolf7, a puma11 and two brown bears13 released following rehabilitation in captivity survived for varying durations during monitoring periods, which ranged in length from three months6 to up to seven years13. A study in Argentina10 found that over half of released rehabilitated and captive-reared giant anteaters survived for at least six months. • Condition (2 studies): A study in Uganda1 found that a snare wound in a white rhinoceros healed after treatment and rehabilitation. A study in the UK3 found that two of three rehabilitated European hedgehogs lost 12–36% of their body weight after release into the wild. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) • Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina12 found that released wild-born rehabilitated giant anteaters were more nocturnal in their activity patterns than captive- bred individuals. Background Mammals that are injured, sick or found in a weak condition are sometimes taken in by wildlife rehabilitators, to be treated and released back into the wild. Often, this is done more for animal welfare reasons than for species conservation though, for rare species, release of such animals may provide opportunities for choosing where to augment populations.