Understanding conflict and co-existence among Spiti Bhot community and large carnivores in high Himalaya: The case of Himalayan wolves

The wolves in the Hindukush–Himalayan region belong to one of the most basal lineages of Canis lupus, yet little is known about their ecology and behavior. In this study, we determine wolf movement and analyze diet patterns in contrast with studies from within its distribution range. We determine conflict perception and identify hotspots using ecological, social, and remotely sensed information. Wolf diet (n = 283 scats) constituted mostly of domestic prey (79%), while wild prey constituted 17.8% of the wolf diet. Interview-based questionnaire surveys revealed that 55% of the respondents claimed to have seen wolves. Over 98% of the respondents claimed wolves as a possible threat to various livestock in the study area. Marginal response curves through the MaxEnt model showed that wolf hotspots were positive in response to their density of location, landuse-landcover, village population, village density, and depredation. Comparisons between scat- and questionnaire-based depredation data showed that the perceived levels of depredation by wolves differed significantly from the actual proportion of livestock prey species consumed by wolves (χ2 = 99.64, p-value < 0.0001). Wolf conflict hotspots showed a very high conflict zone area of 36 km2, high conflict zone of 62 km2, medium conflict zone of 196 km2, and low conflict zone of 3,636 km2. Future conflict mitigation strategies may focus on such areas primarily to reduce livestock losses and enhance conservation outcomes. Negative perceptions toward wolves can be managed through a holistic conservation action plan in concert with the existing snow leopard conservation program alongside local traditions that do not hinder livelihood security.

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.

Limited influence of hunting on the activity patterns and habitat use of Pampas fox (Lycalopex gymnocercus) in agroecosystems of central Argentina

The Pampas fox (Lycalopex gymnocercus) has suffered from hunting and human persecution for decades, both for fur trade or due to conflicts with livestock. However, studies assessing the effects of hunting pressure on this canid population ecology are lacking. In this work, we assessed the influence of several hunting-related variables on the daily activity patterns and habitat use of the Pampas fox. In private farms of central Argentina, we performed two camera-trapping surveys: one during the non-hunting season and other during the hunting season, distinguishing between sites with or without access by hunters. The habitat use of Pampas foxes did not vary between seasons, but their detectability was lower during the hunting season in habitats that allow humans to see foxes easily (i.e., habitats with high visibility). Pampas foxes selected dusk and night-time, increasing their activity at dusk hours on sites with hunting and showed differences in activity patterns related with the level of visibility of the habitat and to season. Hunting pressure may interact with anthropogenic habitat modifications and create ecological traps for the Pampas fox in agroecosystems.

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).

Examining Drivers of Divergence in Recorded and Perceived Human-Carnivore Conflict Hotspots by Integrating Participatory and Ecological Data

Human-carnivore conflict is a global challenge with complex and context-specific causes and consequences. While spatial analyses can use ecological principles to predict patterns of conflict, solutions to mitigate conflict must also be locally adaptable, sustainable, and culturally-sensitive. In Nakuru County, Kenya, rapid development and land subdivision have exacerbated conflict by isolating wildlife in protected areas that are increasingly adjacent to human settlements. In an effort to understand local perspectives on carnivore conflict, and to apply this information toward locally-based conservations actions, we conducted gender-stratified interviews and participatory mapping sessions with 378 people in 16 villages near two ecologically isolated protected areas in Kenya: Lake Nakuru National Park and Soysambu Conservancy. Specifically, we developed a method for associating interview responses and demographic information with spatial participatory data to examine how local perceptions of conflict compared to spatially-explicit records of livestock depredation in the region from 2010 to 2018. We mapped kernel densities of recorded and perceived risk of human-carnivore conflict and then tested for potential social and ecological predictors of divergences found between the two datasets. Mismatched hotspots of observed and perceived risk of conflict were correlated with several ecological and socioeconomic factors. Regions with higher NDVI exhibited more perceived conflict, while the opposite held true for verified conflict. Road density was positively correlated with both types of conflict, and both types of conflict increased closer to protected areas. Livestock ownership, visitation to Lake Nakuru National Park, if the participant's child walked to school, and male gender identity were associated with more perceived conflict reports. Education level and national park visitation were associated with more positive attitudes toward carnivores. Our results show that while observed and perceived conflict may ultimately be equally important for understanding and managing human-carnivore conflict, they may be driven by markedly different social and ecological processes. We suggest that integrating the spatially explicit experiences and perspectives of local communities with more traditional ecological methods is critical to identifying lasting and socially just forms of conflict mitigation.

Understanding Human–Canid Conflict and Coexistence: Socioeconomic Correlates Underlying Local Attitude and Support Toward the Endangered Dhole (Cuon alpinus) in Bhutan

Understanding human–canid conflict and coexistence must focus on documenting human–canid interactions and identifying the underlying drivers of reciprocal human attitude which enables appropriate strategies to minimize conflict and forge coexistence. The dhole (Cuon alpinus), Asia's most widely distributed wild canid, is highly threatened by human persecution and anthropogenic activities. Despite its “endangered” status, its ecological role as an apex predator, negative interactions with humans, and dhole-specific attitude studies are limited, thus hindering the development of a comprehensive dhole-conservation strategy. Here, we investigate the influence of socioeconomic factors of age, gender, income, residency inside/outside a protected area (PA), and other variables (cultural beliefs, livestock loss, and quantity of livestock loss) on the attitudes of local people and support for dhole conservation in the Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan. We conducted a semi-structured questionnaire survey of 1,444 households located within the PA and non-PA from four representative regions in the country. Using R programming, we ran Pearson's chi-square test of independence to test the overall difference in the attitude and support for dhole conservation, followed by recursive partitioning through a conditional inference regression tree to identify its significant covariates with the highest explanatory power. Majority (79.1%) of respondents (χ2 = 488.6; df = 1; p < 0.001) disliked the dhole over those who liked it. More than half (57.7%) (χ2 = 412.7; df = 2; p < 0.001) opposed dhole conservation over those who either supported or remained neutral. Experience of livestock loss to dholes was the primary ( p < 0.001) factor influencing the negative attitude and opposition to dhole conservation, despite an acknowledgment of the ecological role of the dhole in controlling agricultural crop predators. Our study, which is the first-ever survey in Bhutan, solely focused on investigating human attitudes and perceptions toward the dhole, indicating that livestock loss to dholes transcends all positive attitudes to the species and drives a predominant dislike and opposition to its conservation. To improve the attitude and support toward the dhole and to foster dhole–human coexistence, livestock predation by dholes needs alleviation by improving the existing animal husbandry, in conjunction with promoting conservation awareness on this species.

Effectiveness of non-lethal predator deterrents to reduce livestock losses to leopard attacks within a multiple-use landscape of the Himalayan region

Lethal measures are widely adopted by local communities and governments to manage human-wildlife conflicts. Such measures lead to large scale decline of carnivore populations globally with trophic cascades on ecosystems and questionable impacts on human-wildlife conflicts. Mitigating human-carnivore conflicts through non-lethal measures will protect endangered predators and secure livelihoods. However, information on the effectiveness of such measures are extremely limited and hence cannot be applied in developing scientific evidence. Further to develop human-carnivore coexistence models, it is important for local community members, biologists and wildlife managers to actively participate in conservation programs. We evaluated the response of a non-lethal visual deterrent (i.e. fox lights) to deter leopard attacks on livestock within a multiple-use landscape of western Himalaya through community engagement. We monitored 16 experimental sites and 17 control sites within 27 villages and recorded data on livestock depredation by leopards between April 2018 to April 2019. A multivariate analysis was conducted to determine the influence of landscape predictors and animal husbandry practices on livestock depredation by leopards within the vicinity of human settlements. We found that visual deterrents discouraged common leopards to predate on livestock (cows and goats). We also demonstrated that community based conservation initiatives are successful in mitigating human-carnivore conflicts within large semi-natural landscapes. We suggest developing site specific coexistence strategies and adopting non-lethal measures to safeguard carnivores, livestock and humans within shared landscapes.

Landscape predictors of human-leopard conflicts within multi-use areas of the Himalayan region

Conflict with humans is a significant source of mortality for large carnivores globally. With rapid loss of forest cover and anthropogenic impacts on their habitats, large carnivores are forced to occupy multi-use landscapes outside protected areas. We investigated 857 attacks on livestock in eastern Himalaya and 375 attacks in western Himalaya by leopards between 2015 and 2018. Multivariate analyses were conducted to identify the landscape features which increased the probability of livestock depredation by leopards. The risk of a leopard killing livestock increased within a heterogeneous landscape matrix comprising of both closed and open habitats (very dense forests, moderate dense forests, open forests, scrubland and non-forests). We used the results to map potential human-leopard conflict hotspots across parts of the Indian Himalayan region. Our spatial risk maps indicate pockets in the eastern, central and western part of eastern Himalaya and the central, northern part of western Himalaya as hotspots of human-leopard conflicts. Most of the attacks occurred when livestock were grazing freely within multi-use areas without supervision of a herder. Our results suggest that awareness about high risk areas, supervised grazing, and removing vegetation cover around human settlements should be initiated to reduce predation by leopards.