Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 28 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

A global meta‐analysis of non‐lethal mammal browsing control in forests

  • James B.H. Grimsdale1
  • Daniel W.A. Noble2
  • Geoffrey M. While1
  • Dean Williams3
  • Julianne O'Reilly‐Wapstra1
  1. 1School of Natural Sciences University of Tasmania PO Box 805 Sandy Bay TAS 7006 Australia
  2. 2Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology The Australian National University Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
  3. 3Centre for Sustainable Resource and Product Solutions University of Tasmania PO Box 805 Sandy Bay TAS 7006 Australia
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Increasing resource demand, desire to sequester atmospheric carbon, and conservation goals are driving a need for forests to be managed more effectively in the face of numerous challenges. One such challenge is damage perpetrated by browsing mammals, which can cause substantial financial and ecological impacts. Current practices focus on lethal control measures for mitigating mammal browsing damage, however stakeholder pressure is calling for a transition to non‐lethal alternatives. Little is known about the relative efficacy of different non‐lethal control methods for mitigating browsing damage by mammals other than deer. Using a multilevel meta‐analytical framework across 1,908 effect sizes, we investigate the relative efficacy and longevity of different non‐lethal control methods implemented against a broad suite of browsing mammals across different spatial scales. We found that tree guards, repellents and exclusion fencing all significantly reduce mammal browsing damage and retain their effect for long periods. There was, however, substantial variation in efficacy within individual control strategies highlighting the importance to forest managers of selecting the correct method from within the broad strategies we identified. We then discuss other factors to consider when implementing non‐lethal mammal browsing control so that forest managers are well informed when implementing a control strategy.

Related

  1. Broad support for lethal control of wild deer among subscribers of nature organisations in England and Wales
    Elena Cini, Rebecca Spake, Louise McMillan +7
    People and NaturePeer-reviewedCC BYFull text1 citedEcologyDOAJ
  2. Deer browsing alters understorey, nutrient cycling, and soil properties in temperate oak woodland
    Nathalie Korboulewsky, Joel Merlet, Hélène Verheyden +2
    HALPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textEcologyClimate scienceHAL
  3. Accurate data as the foundation of equitable cancer control: Lessons from global cancer statistics 2024 and the complexity of ovarian cancer
    Christina Washington, Kathleen Moore, Isabelle Ray-Coquard
    CA: A Cancer Journal for CliniciansPeer-reviewedCC BYGeneral biologyEpidemiology & public healthHAL
  4. Radiocarbon dating of bird and mammal eye lenses reveals long-term chronology
    E. Hasegawa, J. Matsubayashi, K. Miura +3
    bioRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textZoology & animal behaviourbioRxiv
  5. Why integrating local communities’ perceptions and practices matters for invasive mammal management on islands
    Pauline Palmas, Hervé Jourdan, Anne-Laure Dotte +1
    Current Opinion in Environmental SustainabilityPeer-reviewedLicence not statedEcologyEnvironmental science & pollutionHAL

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{grimsdale2026global,
  title = {{A global meta‐analysis of non‐lethal mammal browsing control in forests}},
  author = {James B.H. Grimsdale and Daniel W.A. Noble and Geoffrey M. While and Dean Williams and Julianne O'Reilly‐Wapstra},
  journal = {Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  doi = {10.1002/brv.70205},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/brv.70205},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - A global meta‐analysis of non‐lethal mammal browsing control in forests
AU  - James B.H. Grimsdale
AU  - Daniel W.A. Noble
AU  - Geoffrey M. While
AU  - Dean Williams
AU  - Julianne O'Reilly‐Wapstra
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/08/23
JO  - Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
DO  - 10.1002/brv.70205
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1002/brv.70205
AB  - Increasing resource demand, desire to sequester atmospheric carbon, and conservation goals are driving a need for forests to be managed more effectively in the face of numerous challenges. One such challenge is damage perpetrated by browsing mammals, which can cause substantial financial and ecological impacts. Current practices focus on lethal control measures for mitigating mammal browsing damage, however stakeholder pressure is calling for a transition to non‐lethal alternatives. Little is known about the relative efficacy of different non‐lethal control methods for mitigating browsing damage by mammals other than deer. Using a multilevel meta‐analytical framework across 1,908 effect sizes, we investigate the relative efficacy and longevity of different non‐lethal control methods implemented against a broad suite of browsing mammals across different spatial scales. We found that tree guards, repellents and exclusion fencing all significantly reduce mammal browsing damage and retain their effect for long periods. There was, however, substantial variation in efficacy within individual control strategies highlighting the importance to forest managers of selecting the correct method from within the broad strategies we identified. We then discuss other factors to consider when implementing non‐lethal mammal browsing control so that forest managers are well informed when implementing a control strategy.
SN  - 1464-7931
SN  - 1469-185X
ER  -