| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–16] |
|
Mori, E., Benatti, L., Lovari, S., & Ferretti, F. (2016). What does the wild boar mean to the wolf? European Journal of Wildlife Research, 63(1), 9.
Abstract: Generalist predators are expected to shape their diets according to the local availability of prey species. In turn, the extent of consumption of a prey would be influenced by the number of alternative prey species. We have tested this prediction by considering the wild boar and the grey wolf: two widespread species whose distribution ranges overlap largely in Southern Europe, e.g. in Italy. We have reviewed 16 studies from a total of 21 study areas, to assess whether the absolute frequency of occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet was influenced by (i) occurrence of the other ungulate species in diet and (ii) the number of available ungulate species. Wild boar turned out to be the main prey of the wolf (49% occurrence, on average), followed by roe deer (24%) and livestock (18%). Occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet decreased with increasing usage of roe deer, livestock, and to a lower extent, chamois and red deer. The number of prey species did not influence the occurrence of wild boar in the wolf diet. The wild boar is a gregarious, noisy and often locally abundant ungulate, thus easily detectable, to a predator. In turn, the extent of predation on this ungulate may not be influenced so much by the availability of other potential prey. Heavy artificial reductions of wild boar numbers, e.g. through numerical control, may concentrate predation by wolves on alternative prey (e.g. roe deer) and/or livestock, thus increasing conflicts with human activities.
|
|
Iliopoulos, Y., Sgardelis, S., Koutis, V., & Savaris, D. (2009). Wolf depredation on livestock in central Greece. Mamm. Reas., 54(1), 11–22.
Abstract: We studied wolfCanis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 -- livestock conflict in central Greece by investigating patterns of 267 verified wolf attacks on livestock for 21 months. Wolves attacked adult goats 43% and cattle 218% more than expected, whereas sheep 41% less than expected from their availability. Wolves killed less than four sheep or goats in 79%, and one cow or calf in 74% of depredation events, respectively. We recorded higher attack rates during wolf post-weaning season. Wolf attacks on strayed, or kept inside non predator-proof enclosures, sheep and goats, were on average two to four times respectively more destructive than those when livestock was guarded by a shepherd. Sheepdog use reduced losses per attack. Optimal sheepdog number ranged from 3 to 9 animals depending on flock size. Losses per attack were positively related to the number of wolves involved. Total losses per farm were positively correlated with the size of livestock unit but percentage losses per capita increased with decreasing flock size. Management implications to mitigate livestock depredation are discussed.
|
|
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.
|
|
Hartmann, E., Christensen, J. W., & McGreevy, P. D. (2017). Dominance and Leadership: Useful Concepts in Human-Horse Interactions? Proceedings of the 2017 Equine Science Symposium, 52, 1–9.
Abstract: Dominance hierarchies in horses primarily influence priority access to limited resources of any kind, resulting in predictable contest outcomes that potentially minimize aggressive encounters and associated risk of injury. Levels of aggression in group-kept horses under domestic conditions have been reported to be higher than in their feral counterparts but can often be attributed to suboptimal management. Horse owners often express concerns about the risk of injuries occurring in group-kept horses, but these concerns have not been substantiated by empirical investigations. What has not yet been sufficiently addressed are human safety aspects related to approaching and handling group-kept horses. Given horse's natural tendency to synchronize activity to promote group cohesion, questions remain about how group dynamics influence human-horse interactions. Group dynamics influence a variety of management scenarios, ranging from taking a horse out of its social group to the prospect of humans mimicking the horse's social system by taking a putative leadership role and seeking after an alpha position in the dominance hierarchy to achieve compliance. Yet, there is considerable debate about whether the roles horses attain in their social group are of any relevance in their reactions to humans. This article reviews the empirical data on social dynamics in horses, focusing on dominance and leadership theories and the merits of incorporating those concepts into the human-horse context. This will provide a constructive framework for informed debate and valuable guidance for owners managing group-kept horses and for optimizing human-horse interactions.
Keywords: Horse; Social order; Dominance hierarchy; Aggression; Injury; Learning; Training
|
|
Gehlen, H., Große, V., & Doher, M. (2012). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Herdenschutzes für Pferde in Zusammenhang mit der wachsenden Wolfspopulation in Deutschland Literaturrecherche und Befragung von Pferdehaltern zur Gefährdungsbeurteilung [Options and limitations of protecting horse husbandries in times of growing wolf populations in Germany Review of the literature and horse owner questionnaire on risk assessment]. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G, 49(05), 301–309.
Abstract: Zusammenfassung
Gegenstand und Ziel Seit 2000 siedelt sich der Wolf in Deutschland wieder an. Mit steigenden Wolfszahlen nehmen die durch Wölfe verursachten Nutztierschäden zu, wobei auch Pferde betroffen sind. Ziel der Studie war es, einen Überblick zu dieser Problematik sowie Lösungsansätze zu geben. Material und Methoden Anhand einer Literaturrecherche wurden Daten zur Wolfspopulation in Deutschland, wolfsbedingten Schäden sowie Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Herdenschutzes beim Pferd eruiert. Eine Online-Befragung von Pferdehaltern/-besitzern diente dazu, die tatsächliche und/oder gefühlte Bedrohung durch Wölfe und die daraus resultierenden Auswirkungen auf die Pferdehaltung zu ermitteln. Ergebnisse Die Literaturrecherche zeigte ein kontinuierliches Anwachsen der Wolfspopulation in den letzten Jahren und insbesondere seit 2016 einen deutlichen Anstieg wolfsverursachter Nutztierschäden, wobei Pferde selten betroffen waren. Bei der Online-Befragung stammte die Hälfte der 574 ausgewerteten Fragebögen aus Brandenburg und Niedersachsen. Den größten Einfluss auf die Gefährdungsbeurteilung eigener Pferde durch die wachsende Wolfspopulation hatte das Wissen der Pferdehalter über Wolfsangriffe im eigenen Landkreis, wobei insbesondere die Aspekte einer Haltung von Jungpferden und Weidegang für die Pferde eine Rolle spielten. 64 % der Befragten gaben an, ihre Pferdehaltung trotz der zunehmenden Wolfspopulation nicht geändert zu haben. Nur 8 von 576 Pferdehaltern gaben amtlich bestätigte Wolfsübergriffe an und 30 hatten einen vermuteten Wolfsschaden amtlichen Stellen nicht gemeldet. Mehr als die Hälfte der Befragten, die Kontakt zu einem Wolfsberater hatten, bezeichneten die Zusammenarbeit als nicht bis wenig zielführend. Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz Die Zahl amtlich bestätigter Wolfsangriffe auf Pferde ist gering. Durch einen grundsätzlich durchgeführten Gentest bei entsprechendem Verdacht ließen sich diese Zahlen objektivieren. Trotz des Bewusstseins einer zunehmenden Gefährdung von Pferden durch Wölfe unternehmen Pferdehalter überwiegend keine prophylaktischen Schutzmaßnahmen. Die Kommunikation zwischen den für das Wolfsmonitoring zuständigen Behörden und den Pferdehaltern erscheint verbesserungswürdig. Abstract Objective Since 2000 the wolf population is reestablishing itself in Germany. In consequence to increasing numbers, livestock damage caused by wolves is on the rise, with horses likewise being affected. The aim of the study was to provide an overview of this challenge and its possible solutions. Material and methods Based on a literature research, data on the wolf population in Germany, wolf-related damage as well as possibilities and limitations of herd protection for horses were evaluated. An online survey addressed to horse owners/keepers served to determine the actual and/or perceived threat posed by wolves and the resulting effects on horse husbandry. Results The literature search showed a continuous increase of the wolf population in recent years as well as a significant increase of wolf-caused livestock damage in general especially since 2016; although horses were rarely affected. Half of the 574 evaluated questionnaires were from Brandenburg and Lower Saxony. The greatest influence on the individual risk assessment concerning their own horses by the growing wolf population was the horse owners� knowledge of wolf attacks in their own county. Especially the aspects of keeping young horses as well as pasture keeping played a significant role. 64 % of respondents indicated that they had not changed their horse management practices despite the increasing wolf population. Only 8 of 576 horse owners had reported officially confirmed wolf attacks and 30 respondents had not reported a suspected wolf damage to official agencies. More than half of the respondents who had contact with a wolf advisor described the cooperation as either not or only slightly purposeful. Conclusion and clinical relevance The number of officially confirmed wolf attacks on horses is low. These numbers could be objectified by a routinely performed genetic test in case of corresponding suspicion. Despite the awareness of an increasing danger of horses by wolves, horse owners mostly do not undertake prophylactic protection measures. The communication between responsible authorities for wolf monitoring and horse owners seems to be in need of improvement. |
|
Reinhardt, I., Kluth, G., Balzer, S., & Steyer, K. (2022). Wolfsverursachte Schäden, Präventions- und Ausgleichszahlungen in Deutschland 2021 (Markus Ritz, Ed.) (Vol. 41). Görlitz, Deutschland: DBBW-Dokumentations- und Beratungsstelle des Bundes zum Thema Wolf.
|
|
Genov, P. W., & Kostava, V. (1993). Untersuchungen zur zahlenmäßigen Stärke des Wolfes und seiner Einwirkung auf die Haustierbestände in Bulgarien. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft, 39(4), 217–223.
Abstract: Die Untersuchung wurde in der Zeitspanne von 1984 bis 1988 durchgeführt. Es wurden die Protokolle des Staatlichen Versicherungsinstituts benutzt, die Angaben für Raubüberfälle von Wölfen auf Haustiere beinhalten (Tabelle 1). Außerdem wurden Angaben über die während dieser Zeitspanne erlegten Wölfe zusammengefaßt. Die Abschußzahlen lauten: 1984 – 163, 1985 – 147, 1986 – 179, 1987 – 211 und 1988 – 220 Tiere. Die Anzahl der in den einzelnen Gebirgen lebenden Wölfe wurde nach einer Umfrage festgestellt. Für die in Betracht kommenden Gebirge werden folgende Bestandszahlen angenommen: Rhodopen -- 60-80 Individuen, 189 bis 264 km2 pro Tier, Rila- und Piringebirge -- 60-80 Tiere, 109 bis 145 km2 pro Tier, Ossogowo-Belassiza Gebirgssystem -- 40-50 Individuen, 57-70 km2 pro Tier, West- und Mittelbalkan -- 35-38 Wölfe, 200 km2 pro Tier. Dazu kommen noch 10-15 Wölfe im Flußbecken von Beli Lom und etwa 20 Exemplare in Strandscha- und Sakargebirge. Insgesamt lebten in Bulgarien im Jahre 1988 etwa 260-330 Wölfe (Abb. 1).
|
|
Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., Provost, M. L., & Cellar, A. C. (2010). Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms. Wildl. Res., 37(8), 715–721.
Abstract: Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlife-transmitted diseases. In the western Great Lakes Region of the United States, this conflict has increased as grey wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have served as a wildlife reservoir for bovine tuberculosis (Myobacterium bovis).Aims. We conducted field experiments on cattle farms to evaluate the effectiveness of livestock-protection dogs (LPDs) for excluding wolves, coyotes (C. latrans), white-tailed deer and mesopredators from livestock pastures.Methods. We integrated LPDs on six cattle farms (treatment) and monitored wildlife use with tracking swaths on these farms, concurrent with three control cattle farms during 2005-2008. The amount of time deer spent in livestock pastures was recorded using direct observation.Key results. Livestock pastures protected by LPDs had reduced use by these wildlife compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs. White-tailed deer spent less time in livestock pastures protected by LPDs compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs.Conclusions. Our research supports the theory that LPDs can be an effective management tool for reducing predation and disease transmission. We also demonstrate that LPDs are not limited to being used only with sheep and goats; they can also be used to protect cattle.Implications. On the basis of our findings, we support the use of LPDs as a proactive management tool that producers can implement to minimise the threat of livestock depredations and transmission of disease from wildlife to livestock. LPDs should be investigated further as a more general conservation tool for protecting valuable wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds, that use livestock pastures and are affected by predators that use these pastures.
|
|
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G. - A., & Fleming, P. J. S. (2015). The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Aust. Mammal., 37(1), 13–22.
Abstract: Camera trapping is a relatively new addition to the wildlife survey repertoire in Australia. Its rapid adoption has been unparalleled in ecological science, but objective evaluation of camera traps and their application has not kept pace. With the aim of motivating practitioners to think more about selection and deployment of camera trap models in relation to research goals, we reviewed Australian camera trapping studies to determine how camera traps have been used and how their technological constraints may have affected reported results and conclusions. In the 54 camera trapping articles published between 1991 and 2013, mammals (86%) were studied more than birds (10%) and reptiles (3%), with small to medium-sized mammals being most studied. Australian camera trapping studies, like those elsewhere, have changed from more qualitative to more complex quantitative investigations. However, we found that camera trap constraints and limitations were rarely acknowledged, and we identified eight key issues requiring consideration and further research. These are: camera model, camera detection system, camera placement and orientation, triggering and recovery, camera trap settings, temperature differentials, species identification and behavioural responses of the animals to the cameras. In particular, alterations to animal behaviour by camera traps potentially have enormous influence on data quality, reliability and interpretation. The key issues were not considered in most Australian camera trap papers and require further study to better understand the factors that influence the analysis and interpretation of camera trap data and improve experimental design.
|
|
Holzapfel, M., Wagner, C., & Kluth, G. et al. (2011). Zur Nahrungsökologie der Wölfe (Canis lupus) in Deutschland. Beiträge zur Jagd- und Wildforschung, 36, 117–128.
|