Remove/control non-native mammals within a fenced area

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    65%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects on native mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals within a fenced area. This study was in Australia.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammal species richness was higher than outside the fenced area.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammals overall and two out of four small mammal species were more abundant than outside the fenced area.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A site comparison study in 1997–2005 in a dune and shrubland site in South Australia, Australia (Moseby et al. 2009) found that in a fenced area where invasive cats Felis catus, red foxes Vulpes vulpes and European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus were removed, native mammal species richness and abundance, and abundance of two out of four small mammal species, were greater than outside the fenced area. Two to six years after the removal of cats, foxes and rabbits began, native mammal species richness and overall abundance was higher inside than outside the fenced removal area (data presented on log scales). Also, more spinifex hopping mice Notomys alexis and Bolam’s mice Pseudomys bolami were caught in removal areas (spinifex: 13-51; Bolam’s: 5-38) than in non-removal areas (spinifex: 3-4; Bolam’s: 1-2). Numbers caught did not significantly differ in removal vs non-removal areas for fat-tailed dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata (0.3 vs 0.8) and stripe-faced dunnart Sminthopsis macroura (0.3-2.8 vs 1.1). Between 1997 and 2005, a 78-km2 exclosure was established in five stages, inside which rabbits, cats and foxes were removed from 1999. Locally extinct mammals were reintroduced into the first area (14-km2) in 1999-2001. Twelve locations inside the exclosure and 12 outside (60-7,000-km apart) were sampled over four nights annually, in 1998–2005, using a line of six pitfall traps and 15 Elliott live traps.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) 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.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

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, terrestrial 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 18

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust