Trina Rytwinski , Matt J Muir, Jennifer RB Miller, Adrienee Smith, Lisa A Kelly, Joseph R Bennett, Siri LA Öckerman, Jessica J Taylor, Andrew M Lemieux, Rob SA Pickles, Meredith L Gore, Stephen F Pires, Amy Pokempner, Heather Slaughter, Daphne P Carlson, Dwi N Adhiasto, Inés Arroyo Quiroz, Steven J Cooke

1. Counter-wildlife crime interventions ̶ those that directly protect target wildlife from illegal harvest/persecution, detect and sanction rule-breakers, and interdict and control illegal wildlife commodities ̶ are widely applied to address biodiversity loss. This systematic map provides an overview of the literature on the effectiveness of counter-wildlife crime interventions for conserving African, Asian, and Latin American wildlife directly threatened by exploitation, including human-wildlife conflicts that trigger poaching. 2. Following our systematic map protocol (Rytwinski, Öckerman, et al., 2021a), we compiled peer-reviewed and grey literature and screened articles using predefined inclusion criteria. Included studies were coded for key variables of interest, from which we produced a searchable database, interactive map, and structured heatmaps. 3. A total of 530 studies from 477 articles were included in the systematic map. Most studies were from Africa and Asia (81% of studies) and focused on African and Asian elephants (16%), felids (14%), and turtles and tortoises (11%). Most evaluations of counter-wildlife crime interventions targeted wildlife products (rather than species) and the transfer of those products along the wildlife-crime continuum (40% of cases). Population/species outcomes were most commonly measured via indicators of threat reduction (65% of cases) and intermediate outcomes (25%). 4. We identified knowledge clusters where studies investigated the links between (1) patrols and other preventative actions to increase detection and population abundance, and (2) information analysis and sharing and wildlife crime/trade levels. However, the effectiveness of most interventions was not rigorously evaluated. Most investigations used post-implementation monitoring only (e.g. lacking a comparator), and no experimental designs were found. We identified several key knowledge gaps including a paucity of studies by geography (Latin America), taxonomy (plants, birds, and reptiles), interventions (non-patrol-based counter-wildlife crime interventions), and outcomes (biological, and the combination of biological and human well-being outcomes). 5. Our map reveals an opportunity to improve the rigor and documentation of counter-wildlife crime intervention evaluations, which would enable the evidence-based selection of effective approaches to improve wildlife conservation and national security.