Researchers and practitioners often exist symbiotically, but this relationship does not always benefit both parties. We here discuss a mutualistic research symbiosis that our organizations have developed over the last decade, the challenges which we have experienced as part of this process, and how our experiences may help others intending to develop such mutualisms. The defining characteristic of our model is that conservation implementers, not investigators, lead the research. This power balance has promoted synergies between researchers and practitioners and has resulted in one of the first ever Randomized Control Trials of a conservation intervention. We have shortened the distance between basic research and field practices by ensuring that the people who will use the results of an investigation play a lead role in designing and implementing it. Local conservation practitioners have been trained in cutting edge scientific methodologies, while university researchers have had an unparalleled role in designing the conservation and development intervention. Our research model is not perfect, however. Although we have facilitated tight relationships between implementers and researchers, such partnerships take significant resources to develop. Moreover, shortening the traditional “arm's length” distance between implementers and investigators is a double‐edged sword: some donors are uncomfortable that our researchers and practitioners comprise a mutually dependent team. Nevertheless, we believe that our model's benefits outweigh its costs. When our researchers undertake their investigations, they do so in ways that do not simply meet their publication needs. Rather, the integration of partners into a mutualistic research team ensures that our investigations are both scientifically cutting edge and that they can improve our conservation initiatives on the ground in real time.
Human-wildlife interactions are present wherever both humans and wildlife are found. Interactions can be positive or negative for humans and can include impacts that range from damage to property, agriculture, health and human safety, to emotional effects. Livestock-wildlife interactions form a major component of human-wildlife conflicts with foci often centered on the implications of livestock predation by wildlife.While most vulture species are obligate scavengers, several species, including the American black vulture (Coragyps atratus), may attack weak or newborn livestock. Black vulture populations and distributions are expanding in the Midwestern U.S., and attacks create a novel problem for livestock producers. We used online and printed surveys to determine the experiences and perceived losses of producers in Indiana and Kentucky. Surveys were distributed March-July 2021.Losses to black vultures were reported by 22% of goat producers, 24% of sheep producers, 38% of cattle producers, and 44% of mixed-livestock producers. The criteria used to determine a perceived predation event were presence of vultures on the carcass, followed by missing eyes or tongue, damage to the perineal area, reported visual observation of the kill, or presence of feathers around the carcass. Sixty-two
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.