Management Tools to Reduce Carnivore-Livestock Conflicts: Current Gap and Future Challenges☆
Introduction
Carnivore predation upon domestic animals is a matter of conservation concern (Treves and Karanth, 2003, Woodroffe et al., 2005). Although the number of domestic animals lost annually to predators tends to be small relative to the number of animals raised (< 1–5%; Baker et al. 2008), these losses might be significant in term of livestock biomass (Novaro et al. 2004) or economically sizeable for the local economy and owner’s well-being (Knowlton et al. 1999). As a consequence, due to human retaliation, numerous carnivores’ populations have declined, some to the extent of being locally extirpated (Thirgood et al., 2005, Dickman, 2010).
Effective management of the conflict derived from the predation of domestic animals would benefit from the explicit use of verificable scientific evidence obtained from both experimental research and the disemination of routinely systematic reviews (Sutherland et al., 2004, Treves et al., 2016). Although the reduction of predation upon domestic animals has traditionally relied on lethal methods (Treves and Karanth 2003), the effectiveness and acceptability of lethal approaches are still controversial (Baker et al., 2008, Treves et al., 2016). For instance, the elimination of “problem” predators at local scale might be buffered by recolonization of individuals migrating from adjacent areas (Novaro et al. 2005) or by the individuals’ compensatory reproduction at regional scale in subsequent years (Knowlton et al. 1999). Thus, even though the elimination of animals could reduce the domestic animal losses in the short term (i.e., during lambing season), little or no effect may be achieved in the long term (Blejwas et al. 2002). More importantly, the extirpation of native carnivores as a management technique is socially regarded as undesirable on ethical and ecological grounds (Treves and Naughton-Treves, 2005, Dickman, 2010).
In turn, the effectiveness and efficiency of nonlethal techniques to reduce predation upon domestic animals while conserving carnivores have to be demonstrated in order to replace the reliance on lethal control techniques (Treves and Karanth, 2003, Baker et al., 2008, Treves et al., 2016). This is particularly important if conservation of biodiversity is to be achieved in lands devoted to agriculture including livestock raising, as expected under the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD 2010). For instance, presumed nonlethal techniques such as the animals’ translocation, requires critical appraisal, as they have turned to trigger higher mortality among translocated individuals, being equivalent to lethal control (Fontúrbel and Simonetti 2011).
In response to the increasing rate of conflicts between carnivores and livestock, recent review studies have documented the relative effectiveness of conflict-mitigation strategies on a global scale (Miller et al., 2016, Van Eeden et al., 2017, Eklund et al., 2017). Although the evidence provided by research suggests that nonlethal strategies may reduce domestic animal predation, the focus on large carnivores-livestock conflicts, as well as the use of predation cases reporting statistic metrics, limit our understanding above the success of nonlethal techniques under a wider range of species and conditions. Consequently, from a conflict management perspective, important insights can be gained by assessing if the effectiveness of each technique varies between carnivore species and environmental conditions. Furthermore, to demonstrate this effectiveness, confident and accurate methods to quantify domestic animal predation should also be considered in order to avoid the overestimates/underestimations of animals’ losses under different management strategies. This is particularly important if replacement animals or financial payments schemes are used by public agencies to compensate those losses (Baker et al. 2008).
If the utilization of nonlethal techniques is not only perceived but also demonstrated to effectively decrease predation, then the willingness to use these methods by producers is expected to increase, enhancing the survival of native carnivores in production-oriented lands (Redpath et al. 2013). The success of techniques has been mostly evaluated individually (e.g., Andelt, 1992, Woodroffe et al., 2007; see examples in Eklund et al. 2017), and little evidence is known about the additive or synergic effects of combined strategies (Espuno et al., 2004, Garrote et al., 2015). Here, we examined the effectiveness of lethal and nonlethal management techniques in reducing predation upon a wide range of domestic animals and carnivores. As a new aspect of this research, we have disaggregated the predation by carnivores with different body sizes in an attempt to identify patterns of used techniques that might facilitate more informed selection by potential users. To do so, we reviewed published cases of predation of domestic animals that quantified effectiveness of a given management technique as the change in domestic animal losses (as reported by different sources) after/with the applied technique.
Section snippets
Methods
We searched the Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) for papers using the following search terms: carnivore-livestock conflict* OR human-carnivore interaction* OR predation risk*. We reviewed peer-reviewed literature dealing with predation of a wide range of domestic animals (from poultry to cattle) by a wide range of terrestrial native carnivores and excluded studies that did not explicitly mention management techniques to prevent domestic animal losses. We also excluded avian
Results
A total of 255 papers were retrieved, of which 149 studies published between 1990 and 2017 fulfilled our inclusion criteria completing a total of 291 study cases involving 47 carnivore species (Appendix 1). We considered a study case as an event of predation on individuals of domestic animal species by a particular carnivore. Lethal control was the method most frequently mentioned across the study cases (19.2%) compared with nonlethal techniques: livestock fencing (15.8%), livestock-guarding
Discussion
Predation on domestic animals by carnivores is a persistent problem wherever carnivores and livestock co-occur. As such, this predation is a triggering factor of human-wildlife conflicts in livestock-raising lands worldwide (Woodroffe et al. 2005). Consequences of this conflict are not only circumscribed to the negative effects on economy or food production of local and regional communities. The elimination of predators is also one of the underlying factors affecting the long-term persistence
Management Implications
Sustainable livestock production is expected to reduce domestic animal loss while reducing pressure on biodiversity occurring on these production-oriented lands. Despite limited data, current evidence suggests that nonlethal methods such as fencing, livestock-guarding dogs, and herdsmen allow the coexistence between native carnivores and livestock activity, but their effectiveness may vary depending on the carnivore species involved in the conflict.
On the basis of the evidence provided by this
Acknowledgments
We thank all participants in the workshop “Dialogue in Patagonia: Perceptions and Attitudes of the Relevant Actors: The First Step,” organized by the Asociación Kauyeken at Río Verde, Magallanes, May 2014. Thanks are also due to G. Simonetti-Grez and G. Stipicic for arranging this workshop. We thanks anonymous reviewers for their relevant comments.
References (37)
- et al.
Perceived effectiveness of livestock-guarding dogs placed on namibian farms
Rangeland Ecology & Management
(2005) - et al.
Understanding and managing conservation conflicts
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
(2013) - et al.
The need for evidence-based conservation
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
(2004) Effectiveness of livestock guarding dogs for reducing predation on domestic sheep
Wildlife Society Bulletin
(1992)- et al.
Terrestrial carnivores and human food production: impact and management
Mammalian Review
(2008) - et al.
The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation
Journal of Wildlife Management
(2002) - et al.
Where do livestock guardian dogs go ? movement patterns of free-ranging maremma sheepdogs
PLoS One
(2014) - et al.
Non-lethal techniques for reducing depredation
The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity targets
(2010)Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict
Animal Conservation
(2010)
Noninvasive monitoring of wolves at the edge of their distribution and the cost of their conservation
Animal Conservation
Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores
Science Reports
Heterogeneous response to preventive wolf sheep husbandry the during French of recolonization Alps
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Translocations and human-carnivore conflicts: problem solving or problem creating?
Wildlife Biology
Poor construction, not time, takes its toll on subsidised fences designed to deter large carnivores
PLoS One
Effectiveness of electric fences as a means to prevent Iberian lynx ( Lynx pardinus ) predation on lambs
Hystrix, Italian Journal of Mammals
Carnivore conservation
PanTHERIA: a species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals
Ecology
Cited by (44)
Where, why and how carnivores kill domestic animals in different parts of their ranges: An example of the Eurasian lynx
2023, Global Ecology and ConservationPerspective: Why might removing carnivores maintain or increase risks for domestic animals?
2023, Biological ConservationImportance of non-journal literature in providing evidence for predator conservation
2022, Perspectives in Ecology and ConservationCitation Excerpt :This classification creates a wrong impression that the gray literature is of poorer quality, but arguably it can be of high enough professional level but remain overlooked (Corlett, 2011). This neglect can be unintentional, when the gray literature is not known or not available, and intentional if scientists focus their research (mainly) on peer-reviewed publications, particularly in meta-analyses and systematic reviews (Moreira-Arce et al., 2018; Torres et al., 2018; Lozano et al., 2019). Division of publications into scholarly and “gray” appears to be not only derogatory regarding the quality of the gray literature, but it is also quite subjective because exceptions are not uncommon.
Effectiveness of interventions for managing human-large carnivore conflicts worldwide: Scare them off, don't remove them
2022, Science of the Total EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :Beyond the literature search choices made here, geographic and species bias are likely to reveal variations in the deployment of management interventions due to the available resources for both solving conflicts and conducting and publishing research, regardless of the severity of the conflict. The main topic dealt with in literature was depredation on livestock (as underlined by Van Eeden et al., 2018a; Van Eeden et al., 2018b; Eklund et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2016; Treves et al., 2016; Lennox et al., 2018; Moreira-Arce et al., 2018), followed by other topics of concern such as attacks on humans and urban coexistence. The relative difference in the topics of concern indicates that the severity of the conflict not only depends on the gravity of the impact but also on its frequency (e.g., attacks resulting in human death are more difficult to tolerate but much rarer than livestock killing, which affects the everyday life of a landowner and endangers their income).
Domestic Sheep Behavior and Habitat Selection in Presence of Livestock Guardian Dogs
2021, Rangeland Ecology and ManagementCitation Excerpt :Predation of livestock by wild carnivores triggers their persecution and killing; this retaliation leads in part to the demise of carnivore populations worldwide (Ripple et al. 2014), even though lethal control is ineffective for long-term reduction or elimination of livestock predation (van Eeden et al. 2017; Moreira-Arce et al. 2018).
- ☆
This work was supported by CONICYT FONDECYT/Postdoctoral Grant No. 3160056 and Proyectos Basal USA 1555-Vridei O91775ZR PUBLIC Universidad de Santiago de Chile.