Bruns, A., Waltert, M., & Khorozyan, I. (2020). The effectiveness of livestock protection measures against wolves (Canis lupus) and implications for their co-existence with humans. Global Ecology and Conservation, 21, e00868.
Abstract: Wolves (Canis lupus) can kill domestic livestock resulting in intense conflicts with humans. Damage to livestock should be reduced to facilitate human-wolf coexistence and ensure positive outcomes of conservation efforts. Current knowledge on the effectiveness of livestock protection measures from wolves is limited and scattered in the literature. In this study, we compiled a dataset of 30 cases describing the application of 11 measures of protecting cattle and smaller livestock against wolves, estimated their effectiveness as a relative risk of damage, and identified the best measures for damage reduction. We found that: (1) lethal control and translocation were less effective than other measures, (2) deterrents, especially fladry which is a fence with ropes marked by hanging colored flags that sway in the wind and provide a visual warning signal, were more effective than guarding dogs; (3) deterrents, fencing, calving control and herding were very effective, but the last two measures included only one case each; and (4) protection of cattle was more effective than that of small stock (sheep and goats, or sheep only) and mixed cattle and small stock. In all of these cases, the relative risk of damage was reduced by 50-100%. Considering Germany as an example of a country with a recovering wolf population and escalating human-wolf conflicts, we suggest electric fences and electrified fladry as the most promising measures, which under suitable conditions can be accompanied by well-trained livestock guarding dogs, and the temporary use of deterrents during critical periods such as calving and lambing seasons. Further research in this field is of paramount importance to efficiently mitigate human-wolf conflicts.
|
Bergmüller, R., & Taborsky, M. (2010). Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(9), 504–511.
Abstract: The existence of 'animal personality', i.e. consistent individual differences in behaviour across time and contexts, is an evolutionary puzzle that has recently generated considerable research interest. Although social factors are generally considered to be important, it is as yet unclear how they might select for personality. Drawing from ecological niche theory, we explore how social conflict and alternative social options can be key factors in the evolution and development of consistent individual differences in behaviour. We discuss how animal personality research might benefit from insights into the study of alternative tactics and illustrate how selection can favour behavioural diversification and consistency due to fitness benefits resulting from conflict reduction among social partners.
|
|
Hunt, G. R., Gray R.D., & Taylor, A. H. (2013). Why is tool use rare in animals? (Boesch C C. J. anz C, Ed.). Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press.
|
|
Meriggi, A., Dagradi, V., Dondina, O., Perversi, M., Milanesi, P., Lombardini, M., et al. (2014). Short-term responses of wolf feeding habits to changes of wild and domestic ungulate abundance in Northern Italy. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 27(4), 389–411.
|
Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., et al. (2015). REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol, 52(3), 675–685.
Abstract: Summary Reliable assessment of animal populations is a long-standing challenge in wildlife ecology. Technological advances have led to widespread adoption of camera traps (CTs) to survey wildlife distribution, abundance and behaviour. As for any wildlife survey method, camera trapping must contend with sources of sampling error such as imperfect detection. Early applications focused on density estimation of naturally marked species, but there is growing interest in broad-scale CT surveys of unmarked populations and communities. Nevertheless, inferences based on detection indices are controversial, and the suitability of alternatives such as occupancy estimation is debatable. We reviewed 266 CT studies published between 2008 and 2013. We recorded study objectives and methodologies, evaluating the consistency of CT protocols and sampling designs, the extent to which CT surveys considered sampling error, and the linkages between analytical assumptions and species ecology. Nearly two-thirds of studies surveyed more than one species, and a majority used response variables that ignored imperfect detection (e.g. presence?absence, relative abundance). Many studies used opportunistic sampling and did not explicitly report details of sampling design and camera deployment that could affect conclusions. Most studies estimating density used capture?recapture methods on marked species, with spatially explicit methods becoming more prominent. Few studies estimated density for unmarked species, focusing instead on occupancy modelling or measures of relative abundance. While occupancy studies estimated detectability, most did not explicitly define key components of the modelling framework (e.g. a site) or discuss potential violations of model assumptions (e.g. site closure). Studies using relative abundance relied on assumptions of equal detectability, and most did not explicitly define expected relationships between measured responses and underlying ecological processes (e.g. animal abundance and movement). Synthesis and applications. The rapid adoption of camera traps represents an exciting transition in wildlife survey methodology. We remain optimistic about the technology's promise, but call for more explicit consideration of underlying processes of animal abundance, movement and detection by cameras, including more thorough reporting of methodological details and assumptions. Such transparency will facilitate efforts to evaluate and improve the reliability of camera trap surveys, ultimately leading to stronger inferences and helping to meet modern needs for effective ecological inquiry and biodiversity monitoring.
|
|
Giraldeau, L. - A. (1997). The ecology of information use. In J. R. Krebs, & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology : an evolutionary approach. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Science.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. (1989). Dominance “style” and primate social organization. In V. Standen, & R. A. Foley (Eds.), Comparative Socioecology (pp. 243–263). Blackwell Science.
|
|
McGregor, P. K., & Dabelsteen, T. (1976). Communication Networks. In D. E. Kroodsma, & E. H. Miller (Eds.), Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds (pp. 409–425). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
|
|
Barton, R. (2002). The evolutionary ecolgy of the primate brain. In P. C. Lee (Ed.), Comparative Primate Socioecology (pp. 167–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
