1
|
Puri M, Srivathsa A, Karanth KK, Patel I, Kumar NS. Safe space in the woods: Mechanistic spatial models for predicting risks of human–bear conflicts in India. Biotropica 2023. [DOI: 10.1111/btp.13204] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Mahi Puri
- Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA
- Centre for Wildlife Studies Bengaluru India
| | - Arjun Srivathsa
- Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA
- Wildlife Conservation Society–India Bengaluru India
- School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA
- National Centre for Biological Sciences, TIFR Bengaluru India
| | - Krithi K. Karanth
- Centre for Wildlife Studies Bengaluru India
- Environmental Science and Policy, Nicholas School of the Environment Duke University Durham North Carolina USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jensen AJ, Marneweck CJ, Kilgo JC, Jachowski DS. Coyote diet in North America: geographic and ecological patterns during range expansion. Mamm Rev 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/mam.12299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Alex J. Jensen
- Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation Clemson University Clemson South Carolina 29631 USA
| | - Courtney J. Marneweck
- Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation Clemson University Clemson South Carolina 29631 USA
| | - John C. Kilgo
- USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station New Ellenton South Carolina 29809 USA
| | - David S. Jachowski
- Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation Clemson University Clemson South Carolina 29631 USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
McCann NP, Walberg EM, Forester JD, Schrage MW, Fulton DC, Ditmer MA. Integrating socioecological suitability with human–wildlife conflict risk: Case study for translocation of a large ungulate. J Appl Ecol 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.14021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas P. McCann
- Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota Saint Paul MN USA
| | - Eric M. Walberg
- Illinois Natural History Survey University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign Urbana‐Champaign IL USA
| | - James D. Forester
- Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota Saint Paul MN USA
| | - Michael W. Schrage
- Resource Management Division Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Cloquet MN USA
| | - David C. Fulton
- Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota Saint Paul MN USA
- U.S. Geological Survey Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Saint Paul MN USA
| | - Mark A. Ditmer
- Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota Saint Paul MN USA
- U.S.D.A. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Ogden UT USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Volski L, McInturff A, Gaynor KM, Yovovich V, Brashares JS. Social Effectiveness and Human-Wildlife Conflict: Linking the Ecological Effectiveness and Social Acceptability of Livestock Protection Tools. FRONTIERS IN CONSERVATION SCIENCE 2021. [DOI: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.682210] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Human-wildlife interactions are embedded within socio-ecological systems (SES), in which animal behavior and human decision-making reciprocally interact. While a growing body of research addresses specific social and ecological elements of human-wildlife interactions, including conflicts, integrating these approaches is essential for identifying practical and effective solutions. Carnivore predation on livestock can threaten human livelihoods, weaken relationships among stakeholders, and precipitate carnivore declines. As carnivores have received greater protection in recent decades, researchers and managers have sought non-lethal tools to reduce predation and promote coexistence between livestock producers and carnivores. For these tools to be successful, they must effectively deter carnivores, and they must also be adopted by producers. Relatively few studies examine the practical and context-specific effectiveness of non-lethal tools, and even fewer simultaneously consider their social acceptability among producers. To address this gap, we suggest that a tool's ecological effectiveness and social acceptability be analyzed concurrently to determine its social effectiveness. We thus paired an experimental study of a carnivore predation deterrent called Foxlights® with qualitative interviews of livestock producers in Northern California. We placed camera traps in sheep pastures to measure the response of coyotes (Canis latrans) to experimentally deployed Foxlights and interviewed livestock producers before and after the experiment. Our experiment revealed weak evidence for reducing coyote activity with Foxlights, but interviews revealed that the potential adoption of tools had as much to do with their social acceptability and implementation feasibility as with evidence-based measurements of tool effectiveness. Interviewees viewed Foxlights as potentially effective components of husbandry systems, despite the data suggesting otherwise, demonstrating that scientific reductionism may lag behind producer practices of systems-thinking and that isolated demonstrations of a tool's ecological effectiveness do not drive tool adoption. Future empirical tests of non-lethal tools should better consider producers' perspectives and acknowledge that data-based tests of ecological effectiveness alone have a limited place in producer decision-making. Iteratively working with producers can build trust in scientific outputs through the research process itself.
Collapse
|
5
|
Patterns of livestock predation risk by large carnivores in India’s Eastern and Western Ghats. Glob Ecol Conserv 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01366] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
|