|
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.
|
|
|
Janczarek, I., Wisniewska, A., Chruszczewski, M. H., Tkaczyk, E., & Górecka-Bruzda, A. (2020). Social Behaviour of Horses in Response to Vocalisations of Predators. Animals, 10(2331).
Abstract: We tested the hypothesis that social defensive responses to the vocalisation of a predator still exist in horses. The recordings of a grey wolf, an Arabian leopard and a golden jackal were played to 20 Konik polski and Arabian mares. Durations of grazing, standing still, standing alert and the number of steps in walk and trot/canter were measured. In one-minute scans, the distances of the focal horse from the reference horse (DIST-RH) and from the nearest loudspeaker (DIST-LS) were approximated. The vocalisation of a leopard aroused the Arabians more than the Koniks (less grazing, stand-still and walk, more stand-alert and trotting/cantering). Koniks showed more relaxed behaviours to the leopard vocalisation (more grazing, stand-still and walk), but high alertness to the wolf playback (stand-alert, trotting/cantering). Spatial formation of the herd of Koniks showed tight grouping (lower DIST-RH) and maintaining distance from the potential threat (DIST-LS) in response to the wolf howling, while the Arabians approached the loudspeakers in linear herd formation when the leopard growls were played. Adult horses responded to potential predation by changing spatial group formations. This ability to apply a social strategy may be one of the explanations for the least number of horses among all hunted farm animal species.
|
|
|
Ronnenberg, K., Habbe, B., Gräber, R., Strauß, E., & Siebert, U. (2017). Coexistence of wolves and humans in a densely populated region (Lower Saxony, Germany). Basic. Appl. Ecol., 25, 1–14.
Abstract: Since the first sporadic occurrences of grey wolves (Canis lupus) west of the Polish border in 1996, wolves have shown a rapid population recovery in Germany. Wolves are known to avoid people and wolf attacks on humans are very rare worldwide. However, the subjectively perceived threat is considerable, especially as food-conditioned habituation to humans occurs sporadically. Lower Saxony (Germany) has an exceedingly higher human population density than most other regions with territorial wolves; thus, the potential for human-wolf conflicts is higher. Using hunters' wildlife survey data from 455 municipalities and two years (2014-2015) and data from the official wolf monitoring (557 confirmed wolf presences and 500 background points) collected between 2012-2015, grey wolf habitat selection was modelled using generalized additive models with respect to human population density, road density, forest cover and roe deer density. Moreover, we tested whether habitat use changed in response to human population and road density between 2012/2013 and 2014/2015. Wolves showed a preference for areas of low road density. Human population density was less important as a covariate in the model of the survey data. Areas with higher prey abundance (5-10 roe deer/km2) and areas with >20% forest cover were preferred wolf habitats. Wolves were mostly restricted to areas with the lowest road and human population densities. However, between the two time periods, avoidance of human density decreased significantly. Recolonization of Germany is still in its early stages and it is unclear where this process will halt. To-date authorities mainly concentrate on monitoring measures. However, to avoid conflict, recolonization will require more stringent management of wolf populations and an improved information strategy for rural populations.
|
|