Summary1. Increasing population sizes of geese are the cause of numerous agricultural conflicts in many regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Scaring is often used as a tool to chase geese away from fields, either as a means to protect vulnerable crops or as part of goose management schemes to drive geese to accommodation areas. Geese are quick to habituate to stationary scaring devices; hence, active scaring by humans is often employed. However, it remains undocumented how much effort is required for active scaring to be effective. 2. We explored the relationship between intensity of active human scaring on field use and behaviour by geese. Using an experimental framework, we applied four different scaring doses per day (geese were scared either 2, 5, 7 or 10 times per day), to random pastures in a pinkfooted goose spring staging area in mid-Norway, and recorded goose flock sizes, fleeing response distances, and average weekly goose densities assessed by dropping densities. In addition, we counted droppings in fields without scaring. We used mixed models to test for changes in the effects of different scaring doses over time and compared observed with predicted dropping levels. 3. Cumulative dropping densities increased at different rates depending on the scaring dose. Scaring dosage did not affect flock size and fleeing response distance during the study period, but both flock sizes and fleeing response distances changed with time. 4. Scaring dose 2 did not show any decrease in relative goose use compared to the fields without scaring, whereas doses 5, 7 and 10 all showed 74-78% fewer droppings by the end of the spring staging period, indicating a possible threshold between dose 2 and 5. The largest effect of scaring appeared during the first week of scaring. 5. Synthesis and applications. This study is the first to show a dose-response relationship between active scaring and field use of flocking geese. For individual farmers, the study provides guidance on the level of scaring effort needed to be cost-effective. If implemented as part of a management scheme with subsidy/accommodation areas in combination with systematic and persistent scaring, it can be used as a tool to keep geese away from areas where they are not wanted, thereby assisting in the alleviation of goose-agriculture conflicts. The approach in this study can be adapted and used in a wider range of wildlife interactions with human economic interests.

Aim Climate change results in increasing temperature and modified precipitation regimes in the High Arctic. Models can help anticipate the consequences on future biotic dynamics, e.g. vegetation. In rugged terrain, forecasts should consider fine‐scale spatial variability in environmental conditions that are proximally linked to plant performance. Here, we forecasted Arctic plant community response to future climate change using high‐resolution environmental variables. Location Zackenberg in the High Arctic of Greenland. Methods Using a combination of remote‐sensing data and field measurements, we interpolated soil moisture and temperature at 1 m resolution together with spatial data on snow cover and solar radiation. We calibrated stacked species distribution models (S‐SDMs) with data from 200 vegetation plots. To explore the sensitivity of Arctic communities to climate change, we forecasted these models under simulated increases in temperature and changes (positive or negative) in snow cover and soil moisture, corresponding to more winter and/or summer precipitation and higher frequencies of summer droughts. Results S‐SDMs associated with high‐resolution environmental variables were able to reproduce the spatial variation in species richness and plant community structure along a mountain slope in Zackenberg. Model forecasts under climate change revealed that most species reacted to a combination of changes in soil moisture and temperature, and changes in these two variables resulted in an extensive restructuring of the distributions of species assemblages. In most scenarios, a gradual homogenization of communities was forecasted due to shrub expansion. Main conclusions Increasing temperatures and altered soil moisture were predicted to turn the currently highly heterogeneous tundra landscape at Zackenberg into homogenous dwarf‐shrub tundra. Such homogenization of vegetation communities may have profound ramifications for species, interaction webs, and ecosystem processes via modifications to the surface albedo, energy and water balance, as well as snow accumulation and permafrost.

Expanding populations of farmland foraging geese are causing escalating conflict with agriculture. We used questionnaires to investigate farmers´ perceptions in mid-Norway of spring staging geese and the extent to which they attempt to reduce pasture damage by goose scaring. We predicted farmers’ scaring effort (a measure of dissatisfaction) to increase on fields closer to goose roosting sites where goose grazing intensity was highest (measured by dropping counts). Results showed no such relationship, suggesting that farmers’ perception of goose use was not linked to actual goose use, but influenced by sociological factors and individual opinion. These results confirm the need to distribute subsidies/compensation to affected farmers based upon quantifiable measures of goose use rather than complaint levels. To avoid further conflict escalation, it is equally important that managers are aware of farmers´ perceptions and their causes, to effectively target communication about policies and measures to mitigate goose–agriculture problems.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0891-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Many goose species feed on agricultural land, and with growing goose numbers, conflicts with agriculture are increasing. One possible solution is to designate refuge areas where farmers are paid to leave geese undisturbed. Here, we present a generic modelling tool that can be used to designate the best locations for refuges and to gauge the area needed to accommodate the geese. With a species distribution model, locations are ranked according to goose suitability. The size of the area to be designated as refuge can be chosen by including more or less suitable locations. A resource depletion model is then used to estimate whether enough resources are available within the designated refuge to accommodate all geese, taking into account the dynamics of food resources, including depletion by geese. We illustrate this with the management scheme for pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus implemented in Norway. Here, all geese can be accommodated, but damage levels appear to depend on weather, land use and refuge size.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0899-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.