Human–predator–prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Conflicts between humans and predators are the product of socio-economic and political landscapes and are particularly controversial because the resources concerned have economic value and the predators involved are high profile and often legally protected. We surveyed the current literature for information on ecological and social factors common to human–predator–prey conflicts. We used this information to examine whether losses to predators and patterns of investment in husbandry could be linked to these factors. We found that livestock losses to predators were low and were negatively associated with net primary productivity and predator home range sizes, but were not affected by predator density, methods of husbandry or human population density. While there was no effect of husbandry on losses, variation in husbandry was explained by net primary productivity, predator density and percentage of stock killed by predators. Inconsistent and sparse data across conflicts may have limited our ability to identify important factors and resolve patterns, and suggests that there is no reliable or consistent framework for assessing and managing human–predator conflicts that involve game and livestock species. Our approach highlights the type of data that could be very informative to management if collected across a range of cases and habitats.

Introduction

Conflicts between humans and predators are the product of socio-economic and political landscapes. They arise primarily because of competition between people and predators for shared, limited resources. The conflicts can be particularly controversial when the resources concerned have economic value and the predators involved are legally protected (Thirgood et al., 2000a). Many predators kill prey species that humans hunt, harvest or farm for consumption or recreation and occasionally they may even kill people (Caro and Fitzgibbon, 1992; Thirgood et al., 2000b; Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson, 2001). While humans and predators have co-existed for millennia, the frequency of conflicts has grown in recent decades, largely because of the exponential increase in human populations and the resultant expansion of human activities (Woodroffe, 2000; Conover, 2002).

Despite major advances in understanding predator–prey dynamics and competitive interactions in the last 20 years (Krebs, 2001), there has been little attempt to integrate this knowledge into the emerging field of human–wildlife conflict management (Conover, 2002). Historical attempts to manage conflicts with predators, often in the context of agriculture and game resources, have centred on an array of decisions biased towards social and economic values of stakeholders which, in many cases, have lead to a range of negative effects on predator populations (Weber and Rabinowitz, 1996; Estes, 1996; Berger et al., 2001). However, as conservation issues increasingly occupy socio-political agendas and changing attitudes favour non-lethal approaches to wildlife management, it is clear that a shift is required, from decisions based primarily on competing economic interests, to those based on the evolving interplay between the ecological system and the socio-political system.

Most animals live in species-rich communities, yet most human–predator conflicts are described in terms of direct effects arising from simple 1-predator–1-prey interactions. The perception has been that a single predator directly reduces the density of prey available to humans and this can be prevented by removing predators from the system (Yodzis, 2001). This simplistic and intrinsically symmetric view of the predator–prey system is a simplification of the trophic interactions in complex ecosystems. As predator conflicts do occur in real ecological communities, this oversight may partially underpin the failure of predator control and the rapid and widespread decline and extinction of many predator species. Because population interactions, including predator control, propagate over long and short pathways through a food web, it may thus be useful to examine qualitative and quantitative ecological descriptors of the communities in which predator conflicts have arisen.

The primary objective of this paper is to explore published information on human–predator–prey conflicts involving livestock and game species, assess the important ecological and social variables associated with these conflicts, and identify patterns which may be related to the success or failure of management. The paper begins with a brief review of human–predator–prey conflicts involving livestock and game species. Then, we summarize for each documented conflict, a set of commonly cited, basic ecological descriptors of the habitats and wildlife and affiliated socio-economic factors. These include geographic location and habitat descriptors, the corresponding diversity in and structure of the managed and extended food web, and the magnitude or potential for direct and indirect effects in the community at issue. These are supplemented by basic social factors such as human population density, income level and management regime in the conflict. For the set of conflicts where these data are available, we examine statistically the relationship between the ecological descriptors, the social descriptors and the extent of predator based losses and management strategies.

Section snippets

Overview of conflicts

Human–wildlife conflicts that centre on livestock and game species are two of the most well-known predator control problems worldwide. The conflicts tend to be long running and are of considerable economic importance in many parts of the world. They share the common characteristic of a well-defined regime of management of land, human and animal resources. Moreover, their geographic locations ensure that examples exist from a wide range of ecosystem types.

Methods

We surveyed the management, conservation and ecology literature relevant to predator control, game and livestock management around the world. This involved an extensive search of web databases including the ISI Web of Science, European Environment Agency, Natural History Museum, Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Conservation International, USA Department of Agriculture, The World Bank Group, CIESIN and the United Nations Environment Programme.

For each study located, we

General study details

The total latitudinal range of case studies was 34°S–67°N with 8 tropical or subtropical (0–35°), 13 temperate (36–55°) and seven boreal (56–67°) sites. Studies were conducted on all continents except Antarctica: North America (4), South America (2), Eurasia (17), Africa (4), and Australia (1) (Table 1). Predator–livestock conflicts dominated the literature, with a strong European bias. Several studies focused on lynx predation of sheep and reindeer. Most predator–game literature also came from

Discussion

One of the most common requests in the conservation management literature is for more information on the ecological details of a particular problem (Hoogesteijn et al., 1993; Linnell et al., 2001; Ormerod, 2002). This is true across a wide range of conservation issues, from endangered and invasive species to predator control and classic natural resource management. In this study, we have focused on identifying and analysing the quantity, quality and importance of ecological information relating

Acknowledgements

We thank John Harwood for constructive comments on an earlier draft. Adrian Treves, John Polisar, Beatriz Arroyo, Javier Viñuela, and Marcelo Mazzolli provided helpful clarifications of their data. Part of this research was funded by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.

References (91)

  • M. Begon et al.

    Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities

    (1996)
  • J. Berger et al.

    Recolonizing carnivores and naive prey: conservation lessons from Pleistocene extinctions

    Science

    (2001)
  • R.R. Bjorge et al.

    Evaluation of wolf control to reduce cattle predation in Alberta

    Journal of Range Management

    (1985)
  • K.M. Blejwas et al.

    The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation

    Journal of Wildlife Management

    (2002)
  • Boitani, L., 2000. Action plan for the conservation of wolves in Europe (Canis lupus). Nature and Environment Report,...
  • U. Breitenmoser et al.

    Patterns of predation by reintroduced European Lynx in the Swiss Alps

    Journal of Wildlife Management

    (1993)
  • Bro, E., Arroyo, B., Migot, P., (unpublished). Hen harrier and grey partridge in France: conservation conflicts and...
  • Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.H., Okarma, H., Kaphegyi, T., Kaphegyi-Wallman, U., Müller, U.M., 1998....
  • J.R.A. Butler

    The economic costs of wildlife predation on livestock in Gokwe communal land, Zimbabwe

    African Journal of Ecology

    (2000)
  • L. Cardoch et al.

    Net primary productivity as an indicator of sustainability in the Ebro and Mississippi deltas

    Ecological Applications

    (2002)
  • T.M. Caro et al.

    Large carnivores and their prey: the quick and the dead

  • Centre for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE). Atlas of the Biosphere (2002). Availablef form...
  • CIESIN Gridded Population of the World (GPW) Version 2 (2000). Available from...
  • P. Ciucci et al.

    Wolf and dog depredation on livestock in central Italy

    Wildlife Society Bulletin

    (1998)
  • M.M. Conner et al.

    Effect of coyote removal on sheep depredation in northern California

    Journal of Wildlife Management

    (1998)
  • M. Conover

    Resolving Human–Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage Management

    (2002)
  • M.J. Crawley

    Overview

  • B. Dahle et al.

    The diet of brown bears Ursus arctos in central Scandinavia: effect of access to free-ranging domestic sheep Ovis aries

    Wildlife Biology

    (1998)
  • Delibes, M., Hiraldo, F., 1981. The rabbit as prey in the Iberian Mediterranean ecosystem. In: Myers, K., MacInnes,...
  • J. Estes

    Predators and ecosystem management

    Wildlife Society Bulletin

    (1996)
  • C. Greentree et al.

    Lamb predation and fox control in south-eastern Australia

    Journal of Applied Ecology

    (2000)
  • R. Hoogesteijn et al.

    Jaguar predation and conservation: cattle mortality caused by felines on three ranches in the Venezuelan Llanos

    Symposium of the Zoological Society of London

    (1993)
  • P.J. Hudson et al.

    Do parasites make prey vulnerable to predation? Red grouse and parasites

    Journal of Animal Ecology

    (1992)
  • IUCN Redlist of threatened species (2000). Available from...
  • R. Jackson et al.

    Snow leopards in (Panthera uncia) Nepal-home range and movements

    National Geographic Research

    (1989)
  • J.P. Jorgenson et al.

    Humans and big cats as predators in the Neotropics

    Symposium of the Zoological Society of London

    (1993)
  • P. Kaczensky

    Livestock–Carnivore Conflicts in Europe

    (1996)
  • K. Kaubala et al.

    Predator control and the density and reproductive success of grouse populations in Finland

    Ecography

    (2000)
  • R.E. Kenward et al.

    Factors affecting predation by buzzards Buteo buteo on released pheasants Phasianus colchicus

    Journal of Applied Ecology

    (2001)
  • F.F. Knowlton et al.

    Coyote depredation control: an interface between biology and management

    Journal of Range Management

    (1999)
  • C.J. Krebs

    Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance

    (2001)
  • K. Kunkel et al.

    Species-specific population dynamics of cervids in a multipredator ecosystem

    Journal of Wildlife Management

    (1999)
  • A. Landa et al.

    Factors associated with wolverine Gulo gulo predation on domestic sheep

    Journal of Applied Ecology

    (1999)
  • A. Landa et al.

    Wolverines and their prey in southern Norway

    Canadian Journal of Zoology

    (1997)
  • J.D.C. Linnell et al.

    Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: a review

    Biodiversity and Conservation

    (1997)
  • Cited by (314)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Present address: Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.

    2

    Present address: Frankfurt Zoological Society, FZS Regional Office in the Serengeti, P.O. Box 14935, Arusha, Tanzania.

    View full text