Action

Use scaring devices (eg. gas guns) and other deterrents to reduce persecution of native species

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Source countries

Key messages

 

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 replicated, controlled study from May to November 1997 of four grassland fields and one cultivated field with willow Salix spp. stools (coppiced willow stumps) in central Germany (Wölfel 1981) found that phosphorescent tape was more effective than normal yellow tape in deterring deer (Cervidae), but had no effect on wild boar Sus scrofa or brown hare Lepus europaeus. At the four grazing sites, areas surrounded by phosphorescent tape were avoided by red deer Cervus elaphus for four months and roe deer Capreolus capreolus for three weeks. Red deer entered areas fenced with yellow non-phosphorescent tape after one week and roe deer after just one day. All deer species kept out of an area of willow fenced with phosphorescent strips for three weeks, after that roe deer (but no red deer) tracks were found within the area. Soft PVC tape (40 cm-wide) was attached to 1.3 m iron posts at a height of 1 m. Four game grazing fields each had two 300 m2 areas fenced off using phosphorescent strips and two with non-phosphorescent tape. After two months, all four areas were mowed and control and experimental fields swapped. Mammal presence was assessed using droppings and tracks.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Ashpole, J.E., Dänhardt, J., James, K., Jönsson, A., Randall, N., Showler, D.A., Smith, R.K., Turpie, S., Williams D.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (2019) Farmland Conservation Pages 291-330 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Farmland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Farmland 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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