The effectiveness of livestock protection measures against wolves (Canis lupus) and implications for their co-existence with humans

Integrating robotics into wildlife conservation: testing improvements to predator deterrents through movement

Background

Agricultural and pastoral landscapes can provide important habitat for wildlife conservation, but sharing these landscapes with wildlife can create conflict that is costly and requires managing. Livestock predation is a good example of the challenges involving coexistence with wildlife across shared landscapes. Integrating new technology into agricultural practices could help minimize human-wildlife conflict. In this study, we used concepts from the fields of robotics (i.e., automated movement and adaptiveness) and agricultural practices (i.e., managing livestock risk to predation) to explore how integration of these concepts could aid the development of more effective predator deterrents.

Methods

We used a colony of captive coyotes as a model system, and simulated predation events with meat baits inside and outside of protected zones. Inside the protected zones we used a remote-controlled vehicle with a state-of-the art, commercially available predator deterrent (i.e., Foxlight) mounted on the top and used this to test three treatments: (1) light only (i.e., without movement or adaptiveness), (2) predetermined movement (i.e., with movement and without adaptiveness), and (3) adaptive movement (i.e., with both movement and adaptiveness). We measured the time it took for coyotes to eat the baits and analyzed the data with a time-to-event survival strategy.

Results

Survival of baits was consistently higher inside the protected zone, and the three movement treatments incrementally increased survival time over baseline except for the light only treatment in the nonprotected zone. Incorporating predetermined movement essentially doubled the efficacy of the light only treatment both inside and outside the protected zone. Incorporating adaptive movement exponentially increased survival time both inside and outside the protected zone. Our findings provide compelling evidence that incorporating existing robotics capabilities (predetermined and adaptive movement) could greatly enhance protection of agricultural resources and aid in the development of nonlethal tools for managing wildlife. Our findings also demonstrate the importance of marrying agricultural practices (e.g., spatial management of livestock at night) with new technology to improve the efficacy of wildlife deterrents.

Low-stress livestock handling protects cattle in a five-predator habitat

Given the ecological importance of top predators, societies are turning to non-lethal methods for coexistence. Coexistence is challenging when livestock graze within wild predator habitats. We report a randomized, controlled experiment to evaluate low-stress livestock handling (L-SLH), a form of range riding, to deter grizzly (brown) bears, gray wolves, cougars, black bears, and coyotes in Southwestern Alberta. The treatment condition was supervision by two newly hired and trained range riders and an experienced L-SLH-practicing range rider. This treatment was compared against a baseline pseudo-control condition of the experienced range rider working alone. Cattle experienced zero injuries or deaths in either condition. We infer that inexperienced range riders trained and supervised by an experienced rider did not raise or lower the risk to cattle. Also, predators did not shift to the cattle herds protected by fewer range riders. We found a correlation suggesting grizzly bears avoided herds visited more frequently by range riders practicing L-SLH. More research is required to compare different forms of range riding. However, pending experimental evaluation of other designs, we recommend use of L-SLH. We discuss the cobenefits of this husbandry method.

Shark depredation: future directions in research and management

Shark depredation is a complex social-ecological issue that affects a range of fisheries worldwide. Increasing concern about the impacts of shark depredation, and how it intersects with the broader context of fisheries management, has driven recent research in this area, especially in Australia and the United States. This review synthesises these recent advances and provides strategic guidance for researchers aiming to characterise the occurrence of depredation, identify the shark species responsible, and test deterrent and management approaches to reduce its impacts. Specifically, the review covers the application of social science approaches, as well as advances in video camera and genetic methods for identifying depredating species. The practicalities and considerations for testing magnetic, electrical, and acoustic deterrent devices are discussed in light of recent research. Key concepts for the management of shark depredation are reviewed, with recommendations made to guide future research and policy development. Specific management responses to address shark depredation are lacking, and this review emphasizes that a "silver bullet" approach for mitigating depredation does not yet exist. Rather, future efforts to manage shark depredation must rely on a diverse range of integrated approaches involving those in the fishery (fishers, scientists and fishery managers), social scientists, educators, and other stakeholders.

Defining practical and robust study designs for interventions targeted at terrestrial mammalian predators

Conflicts between humans and mammalian predators are globally widespread and increasing, creating a long-lasting challenge for conservation and local livelihoods. Protection interventions, which are essential to conflict mitigation, should be based on solid evidence of effectiveness produced by robust study designs. Yet, it is unclear what study designs have been used in predator-targeted interventions and how they can be improved to provide best practices for replications. I examined how applications of five study designs (before-after, before-after-control-impact, control-impact, crossover [i.e., the same randomly assigned study units acting as treatments and controls during alternating trials], and randomized controlled trial) have changed over time and how these changes are related to authors, predator species, countries, and intervention types (aversion, husbandry, mixed interventions, invasive management, lethal control, and noninvasive management). I applied multinomial regression modeling to 434 cases (28 predator species and 45 countries) from 244 studies published from 1955 to 2020. Study design was related only to intervention type. Less reliable before-after and control-impact studies were the most common (47.7% and 38.2% of cases, respectively), and their use increased over years as did all interventions. The contribution of the most robust before-after-control-impact (7.4%), randomized controlled trial (5.3%), and crossover designs (1.4%) remained minor over time. Crossover is suitable for aversion, most husbandry techniques, and a few other interventions, but crossover interventions also have the most limitations in terms of applicability. Randomized controlled trial is generally applicable, but impractical or inappropriate for some interventions, and before-after-control-impact appears to be the most widely applicable study design for predator-targeted interventions.

Large-Scale Sheep Losses to Wolves (Canis lupus) in Germany Are Related to the Expansion of the Wolf Population but Not to Increasing Wolf Numbers

Recovery of predator populations triggers conflicts due to livestock depredation losses, particularly in Germany where the wolf (Canis lupus) population grows exponentially and livestock (especially sheep) losses raise public concerns and motivate the authorities to control wolf numbers. Yet, the effects of wolf numbers and alternative factors, such as abundance of prey and livestock, on livestock losses in this country are not investigated. In this study, we collected and analyzed data on the numbers of reproductive units of wolves (packs and pairs together) as a surrogate of adult wolf numbers, sheep killed by wolves, living sheep, red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and wild boar (Sus scrofa) in every German state and year from 2002 to 2019. We applied a negative binomial Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) to estimate the effects of these predictors on the numbers of sheep killed by wolves. We also examined the relationships between the percentages of killed/living sheep and the numbers of living sheep. Ranking of 63 models based on the Akaike information criterion revealed that sheep losses were determined by state, year, and number of living sheep, not by wolf numbers, at high precision and accuracy. The number of sheep killed by wolves increased consistently by 41% per year and by 30% for every additional 10,000 sheep, mainly in the north where most wolf territories are concentrated. This means that sheep are protected insufficiently and/or ineffectively. The percentages of killed/living sheep consistently increased by 0.02–0.05% per state and year, with the maximum percentage of 0.7%, on a backdrop of decreasing numbers of living sheep. In conclusion, we demonstrate that sheep losses in Germany have been driven by the expansion of the wolf population, not by wolf numbers, and by the number of sheep available. We suggest that Germany’s wolf conservation policy should focus on alternative non-lethal interventions, enforcement and standardization of intervention monitoring, and promotion of wolf tolerance rather than on lethal control of wolf population size.

Setting Statistical Thresholds Is Useful to Define Truly Effective Conservation Interventions

Effective interventions are needed to solve conflicts between humans and predators over livestock killing, nuisance behavior, and attacks on pets and humans. Progress in quantification of evidence-based effectiveness and selection of the best interventions raises new questions, such as the existence of thresholds to identify truly effective interventions. Current classification of more and less effective interventions is subjective and statistically unjustified. This study describes a novel method to differentiate true and untrue effectiveness on a basis of false positive risk (FPR). I have collected 152 cases of applications of damage-reducing interventions from 102 scientific publications, 26 countries, 22 predator species, and 6 categories of interventions. The analysis has shown that the 95% confidence interval of the relative risk of predator-caused damage was 0.10–0.25 for true effectiveness (FPR < 0.05) and 0.35–0.56 for untrue effectiveness (FPR ≥ 0.05). This means that damage was reduced by 75–90% for truly effective interventions and by 44–65% for interventions of untrue effectiveness. Based on this, it was specified that truly effective interventions have the relative risk ≤ 0.25 (damage reduction ≥ 75%) and the effectiveness of interventions with the relative risk > 0.25 (damage reduction < 75%) is untrue. This threshold is statistically well-justified, stable, easy to remember, and practical to use in anti-predator interventions. More research is essential to know how this threshold holds true for other conservation interventions aiming to reduce negative outcomes (e.g., poaching rates) or increase positive outcomes (e.g., species richness).

Dealing with false positive risk as an indicator of misperceived effectiveness of conservation interventions

As human pressures on the environment continue to spread and intensify, effective conservation interventions are direly needed to prevent threats, reduce conflicts, and recover populations and landscapes in a liaison between science and conservation. It is practically important to discriminate between true and false (or misperceived) effectiveness of interventions as false perceptions may shape a wrong conservation agenda and lead to inappropriate decisions and management actions. This study used the false positive risk (FPR) to estimate the rates of misperceived effectiveness of electric fences (overstated if reported as effective but actually ineffective based on FPR; understated otherwise), explain their causes and propose recommendations on how to improve the representation of true effectiveness. Electric fences are widely applied to reduce damage to fenced assets, such as livestock and beehives, or increase survival of fenced populations. The analysis of 109 cases from 50 publications has shown that the effectiveness of electric fences was overstated in at least one-third of cases, from 31.8% at FPR = 0.2 (20% risk) to 51.1% at FPR = 0.05 (5% risk, true effectiveness). In contrast, understatement reduced from 23.8% to 9.5% at these thresholds of FPR. This means that truly effective applications of electric fences were only 48.9% of all cases reported as effective, but truly ineffective cases were 90.5%, implying that the effectiveness of electric fences was heavily overstated. The main reasons of this bias were the lack of statistical testing or improper reporting of test results (63.3% of cases) and interpretation of marginally significant results (p < 0.05, p < 0.1 and p around 0.05) as indicators of effectiveness (10.1%). In conclusion, FPR is an important tool for estimating true effectiveness of conservation interventions and its application is highly recommended to disentangle true and false effectiveness for planning appropriate conservation actions. Researchers are encouraged to calculate FPR, publish its constituent statistics (especially treatment and control sample sizes) and explicitly provide test results with p values. It is suggested to call the effectiveness “true” if FPR < 0.05, “suggestive” if 0.05 ≤ FPR < 0.2 and “false” if FPR ≥ 0.2.

Use of European Funds and Ex Post Evaluation of Prevention Measures against Wolf Attacks (Canis lupus italicus) in the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy)

INTRODUCTION

Compensation programs are an important tool for mitigating conflicts between farmers and large predators. However, they present significant weaknesses and faults. For years, the EU has been prioritizing programs for the prevention of damage caused by large carnivores, rather than compensation programs, introducing compulsory compensation for the purposes of decision EC (2019) 772 of 29/01/19. This manuscript reports the experience with the wolf damage prevention programs in an Italian region, Emilia-Romagna, which implemented a pilot project, adopting a new method to interface with the farmers involved in the prevention programs.

METHODS

Starting in 2014, a project aimed at spreading prevention measures was financed through regional and European resources, accompanied by resources sharing and technical assistance with breeders from the regional body. In detail, (i) standardized types of intervention were defined and technical assistance was structured; (ii) ex post, the effectiveness of the interventions carried out was assessed; and (iii) the difficulties encountered in using the various financing instruments were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 298 farms were analyzed, of which 166 applied for regional calls and 132 applied for European funds. The mitigation measures produced a reduction in predatory phenomena of 93.4%, i.e., from 528 to 35 predations over a period of 4-6 years. This study shows that more than one-third of the farmers were forced to abandon the two tenders, mainly due to the lack of liquidity in anticipating the prevention measures.

CONCLUSION

In the years examined by this study, the prevention programs in the Emilia-Romagna region, due to the technical support offered, proved to be a functional and effective tool, capable of significantly reducing the wolf predation on livestock. However, this work highlights the high percentage of denials of mitigation measures by farmers interested in adopting these tools, stressing the need for regional agencies to focus on new policies that can provide advance economic resources to farmers and solve the authorization problems related to the various bodies with which the participant in the tenders must interface.

A comparison of common metrics used to quantify the effectiveness of conservation interventions

Background

Evidence-based conservation is urgently needed to identify, apply and promote effective interventions for mitigation of threats and recovery of the natural environment. Estimation of intervention effectiveness is subject to robust study design and statistical analysis, and much progress is documented in these fields. In contrast, little is understood about the accuracy and biases (underestimation and overestimation) of different effectiveness metrics and how they are affected by sample size.

Methods

In this study, a dataset (n = 500 cases) consisting of random, positive, integer numbers was simulated to produce frequency input data for the 2 × 2 contingency table. For each case, three metrics of the relative risk, odds ratio and the magnitude of change were calculated, their disparity was estimated and the characteristics of treatment (with intervention) and control (without intervention) samples significantly affecting this disparity were studied by means of linear regression. Further, four case studies from different conservation interventions are provided to support the results.

Results

The study has shown that the relative risk and the magnitude of change produce identical estimates of intervention effectiveness only when treatment and control samples are equal, or when the number of target outcomes (e.g., number of livestock killed by predators) in treatment sample reaches zero. In other situations, the magnitude of change gives overestimates or underestimates, depending on relationships between treatment and control sample sizes. The table summarizing the conditions of equalities and biases between these two metrics is provided. These conditions are valid for both reduction-aimed interventions reducing negative target outcomes (e.g., livestock protection to reduce livestock losses to predators) and for addition-aimed interventions increasing positive target outcomes (e.g., establishment of protected areas to increase species presence). No significant effects on the odds ratio were found.

Conclusion

Researchers should set equal treatment and control sample sizes so that to produce identical estimates of intervention effectiveness by the relative risk and the magnitude of change. Otherwise, these estimates are biased if produced by the magnitude of change and the relative risk should be used instead. As setting equal treatment and control samples can be impractical, I encourage researchers and practitioners to use the relative risk in estimation of intervention effectiveness. This will not take additional efforts as both metrics are calculated from the same contingency table. Treatment and control sample sizes, along with their sub-samples affected and not by an intervention, should be explicitly reported by researchers to allow independent evaluation of intervention effectiveness. This approach can help obtain more accurate information on intervention effectiveness for making better decisions in conservation actions.

Development of D-Loop mitochondrial markers for amplification of prey DNA from wolf scat

Analysis of wolves dietary is a currently important theme because of the discussion about wolves preying on livestock as sheep or goats. We developed molecular markers to especially amplify the DNA of the prey out of wolf scat. For this purpose, we used the mitochondrial D-Loop using public available sequences for wolf and seven potential prey species (even-toed ungulates). We developed special primers amplifying either the wolves DNA or the prey DNA. In a fragment of 223-225 basepairs (bp) length we identified 21 SNPs, two 1-bp indels and one 3-bp indel, and three microsatellites to separate seven prey species from each other. Validation of the markers was performed by sequencing the PCR products of 12 fresh prey tissues and 20 wolf scat samples using the different primer pairs.