Schino, G., & Aureli, F. (2016). Reciprocity in group-living animals: partner control versus partner choice. Biol Rev, 92(2), 665–672.
Abstract: ABSTRACT Reciprocity is probably the most debated of the evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Part of the confusion surrounding this debate stems from a failure to note that two different processes can result in reciprocity: partner control and partner choice. We suggest that the common observation that group-living animals direct their cooperative behaviours preferentially to those individuals from which they receive most cooperation is to be interpreted as the result of the sum of the two separate processes of partner control and partner choice. We review evidence that partner choice is the prevalent process in primates and propose explanations for this pattern. We make predictions that highlight the need for studies that separate the effects of partner control and partner choice in a broader variety of group-living taxa.
|
Pimenta, V., Barroso, I., Boitani, L., & Beja, P. (2018). Risks a la carte: Modelling the occurrence and intensity of wolf predation on multiple livestock species. Biol. Conserva., 228, 331–342.
Abstract: Predation on livestock is a source of human-wildlife conflicts and can undermine the conservation of large carnivores. To design effective mitigation strategies, it is important to understand the determinants of predation across livestock species, which often differ in husbandry practices, vulnerability to predators and economic value. Moreover, attention should be given to both predation occurrence and intensity, because these can have different spatial patterns and predictors. We used spatial risk modelling to quantify factors affecting wolf predation on five livestock species in Portugal. Within the 1619 parishes encompassing the entire wolf range in the country, the national wolf compensation scheme recorded 17,670 predation events in 2009-2015, each involving one or more livestock species: sheep (31.7%), cattle (27.7%), goats (26.8%), horses (14.8%) and donkeys (3.2%). Models built with 2009-2013 data and validated with 2014-2015 data, showed a shared general pattern of predation probability on each species increasing with its own density and proximity to wolf packs. For some species there were positive relations with the density of other livestock species, and with habitat variables such as altitude, and land cover by shrubland and natural pastures. There was also a general pattern for predation intensity on each species increasing with its own density, while proximity to wolf packs had no significant effects. Predation intensity on goats, cattle and horses increased with the use of communal versus private pastures. Our results suggest that although predation may occur wherever wolves coexist with livestock species, high predation intensity is mainly restricted to particular areas where husbandry practices increase the vulnerability of animals, and this is where mitigation efforts should concentrate.
|
Imbert, C., Caniglia, R., Fabbri, E., Milanesi, P., Randi, E., Serafini, M., et al. (2016). Why do wolves eat livestock?: Factors influencing wolf diet in northern Italy. Biological Conservation, 195, 156–168.
Abstract: Thanks to protection by law and increasing habitat restoration, wolves (Canis lupus) are currently re-colonizing Europe from the surviving populations of Russia, the Balkan countries, Spain and Italy, raising the need to update conservation strategies. A major conservation issue is to restore connections and gene flow among fragmented populations, thus contrasting the deleterious consequences of isolation. Wolves in Italy are expanding from the Apennines towards the Alps, crossing the Ligurian Mountains (northern Italy) and establishing connections with the Dinaric populations. Wolf expansion is threatened by poaching and incidental killings, mainly due to livestock depredations and conflicts with shepherds, which could limit the establishment of stable populations. Aiming to find out the factors affecting the use of livestock by wolves, in this study we determined the composition of wolf diet in Liguria. We examined 1457 scats collected from 2008 to 2013. Individual scats were genotyped using a non-invasive genetic procedure, and their content was determined using microscopical analyses. Wolves in Liguria consumed mainly wild ungulates (64.4%; in particular wild boar Sus scrofa and roe deer Capreolus capreolus) and, to a lesser extent, livestock (26.3%; in particular goats Capra hircus). We modeled the consumption of livestock using environmental features, wild ungulate community diversity, husbandry characteristics and wolf social organization (stable packs or dispersing individuals). Wolf diet varied according to years and seasons with an overall decrease of livestock and an increase of wild ungulate consumption, but also between packs and dispersing individuals with greater livestock consumption for the latter. The presence of stable packs, instead of dispersing wolves, the adoption of prevention measures on pastures, roe deer abundance, and the percentage of deciduous woods, reduced predation on livestock. Thus, we suggest promoting wild ungulate expansion, the use of prevention tools in pastures, and supporting wolf pack establishment, avoiding lethal control and poaching, to mitigate conflicts between wolf conservation and husbandry.
|
|
Coblentz, B. E. (1978). The effects of feral goats (Capra hircus) on island ecosystems. Biol Conserv, 13.
|
|
Breitenmoser, U. (1998). Large predators in the Alps: the fall and rise of man's competitors. Biol Conserv, 83.
|
|
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2012). Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biol Conserv, 145.
|
|
Apollonio, M., Mattioli, L., Scandura, M., Mauri, L., Gazzola, A., & Avanzinelli, E. (2004). Wolves in the Casentinesi Forests: insights for wolf conservation in Italy from a protected area with a rich wild prey community. Biol Conserv, 120.
|
|
Walpole, M. J., & Leader-Williams, N. (2002). Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodivers Conserv, 11.
|
|
Kleiven, J., Bjerke, T., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (2004). Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodivers Conserv, 13.
|
Suter, S. M., Giordano, M., Nietlispach, S., Apollonio, M., & Passilongo, D. (2016). Non-invasive acoustic detection of wolves. Bioacoustics, .
Abstract: Monitoring wolves (Canis lupus) is a difficult and often expensive task due to high mobility,pack dynamic, shyness and nocturnal activity of this species. Wolves communicate acoustically trough howling, within pack and with packs of the neighbourhood. A wolf howl is a low frequency vocalization that can be transmitted over long distances and thus be used
for monitoring tasks. Animated howling survey is a current method to monitor wolves indifferent areas all over the world. Animated howling, however, may be invasive to residential wolf packs and could create possible negative reactions from local human population. Here we show that it is possible to detect wolves by recording spontaneous howling events. We measured the sound pressure level of wolf howls on captive individuals and we further found that simulated howling may be recorded and clearly identified up to a distance of 3 km. We finally conducted non-invasive acoustic detection of wolves in a free ranging population. The use of passive sound recorders may provide a powerful non-invasive tool for future wolf monitoring and thus help to established sustainable management plans for this species.
|
