ArticlePloS one2026
An analysis of farmers' experiences with deterrence methods and investment in mitigation of agricultural crop damage caused by geese.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of geese foraging in agricultural fields and causing damage to crops is increasing. Farmers attempt to reduce damage using passive, active, auditory, and combined deterrent measures, accommodation fields and, increasingly, derogation shooting. For protected geese like the barnacle goose Branta leucopsis and huntable species outside the hunting season, it is a legal requirement within the EU that other deterrent measures have proven insufficient before a derogation permit can be granted. However, there is a lack of guidance regarding the effectiveness of different measures. Via in-person interviews with 54 Danish farmers experiencing problems with wintering barnacle geese we analyse farmers' experiences with deterrence methods to provide an overview of their effectiveness, defined by duration and area coverage. The information obtained is far more extensive than what could realistically be achieved through scientific experiments. We check the validity of responses by comparing reports with existing scientific evidence. Passive deterrents (e.g., scarecrows) cover a few hectares and have a duration effect of 4-6 days, but only until the geese habituate. Active measures (e.g., a person walking into the field) and auditory deterrents (firing scare shots) have high area effect but short duration. Largest area/duration effects are achieved using gas cannons, sound deterrents and derogation shooting. Intensified active deterrence or increased density of passive deterrents enhance effectiveness but require greater investments of time and resources. Effective derogation shooting requires that hunters can respond quickly when needed. Hunting lease agreements regarding hunters' contributions to deterrence and derogation can enhance cooperation and problem-solving. In addition, cooperation between neighboring farmers, including accommodation areas, furthers effectiveness. The cost of geese (yield loss plus time/materials) can have a sizeable impact on the farmers' operation profits. Lack of effort may be due to farmers either coping with the problem, having given up deterrence, or unawareness of more effective deterrence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.