The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The acceptance of large carnivores is one of the key issues for their conservation. We analyzed the level acceptance of brown bears (Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758) amongst 10-18 year old school students in four European countries using anonymous questionnaires. Our aim was to characterize the drivers of species acceptance, described as a rural-urban cline, as well as fear levels and the respondents' familiarity with bears. We found lower levels of acceptance of bears were related to fear of bears and that bear acceptance was not higher in the bear-inhabited countries, but urban inhabitants tended to better accept the species. Factor analysis revealed the importance of country-related aspects, familiarity with bears, experiences in human-wildlife conflict, gender-age differences, respondent's relationship to nature and the origin of their knowledge of the species. We consider that bear-related education and mass media in Latvia and Lithuania could reduce fear of these animals and sustain their acceptance, while human-wildlife conflict management measures in Bulgaria and Turkey are recommended to boost the appreciation of the species.Sustainability 2020, 12, 2397 2 of 15 between the ages of 10 and 13 years, these consolidated at around 16 years of age. Therefore, early age positive attitudes can be developed into more nature friendly views and may foster wildlife conservation in the future [9]. In this study, we focus on brown bear (BB) acceptance by teenagers, as this is indicative of the future of conservation of the BB and other large carnivores. Teenagers are also important in the light of the current trend of scientific ignorance in society and the rapid decrease of interest in biology among schoolchildren [16]. Gender differences in the aforementioned issues are well expressed, as well as a decreasing interest towards animals in older children [17].Teenager attitudes toward LC species depend on several factors, one of which is the presence of a LC species. In Lithuania wolf (Canis lupus) acceptance has been found to be directly related to their presence in the region [18]. In Norway, where the wolf population is minimal, wolf was rated as the most dangerous animal by children and adolescents (9-15 years) regardless of respondents' age, with girls expressing more negatively [19]. The rural-urban cline is also very important in the planning of the future of LC conservation [12]. Removed from the direct arena of human-carnivore conflict, young people living in urban areas are able to more rapidly change their attitudes towards nature and conservation, developing a positive LC acceptance [20]. However, urbanization cannot be seen as a solution to human-wildlife conflicts because the actual conflict may not, in reality, concern the wildlife. All conservation or damage-related conflicts are ultimately between humans with different interests, views and values [21], e.g., urban vs. rural inhabitants.Differences in species acceptance between even neighboring countries may be unexpectedly high: in three Baltic countries ...

Supplementary feeding, although a common practice, is seldom studied in terms of its effect on non-targeted species, such as the brown bear (Ursus arctos). We conducted a GPS-GSM telemetry study on nine individuals (out of about 100 supposedly inhabiting that area) with the aim to inspect how supplementary feeding stations affect home range size, mobility and hibernation. We formulated three hypothesis: 1) there is a correlation between the home range size and the density of feeding stations; 2) the influence of the artificial feeding stations is not changing during hyperphagia and outside the hyperphagia; 3) hibernation is affected by the density of feeding stations, regardless of the areas with trees in masting age present in the home range and forest age heterogeneity. Our analyses showed that the total home range averaged at 148.9 km 2 (range: 24.6-605.1 km 2 ) with 190.1 km 2 for males and 76.9 km 2 for females. Five out of nine brown bears never visited feeding stations and the density of feeding stations did not explain the home range size variability, thus not receiving evidence to support our first hypothesis. No evidence was found to reject the second hypothesis, while the third hypothesis was rejected for now with the proviso that our sample is not big enough for robust conclusions. The comparison of the home range size, as well as the average displacement distance during and outside the hyperphagia season showed no significant difference, contrary to the outcome of other published studies. Despite the variability of the masting areas proportions and age class heterogeneity, the lack of significant difference between the core area and the total home range for these two factors implied that these resources were not concentrated in the core area of the species, but were rather uniformly distributed throughout the whole territory. Neither density of feeding stations nor masting area proportions were found to be solely responsible for the formation of the hyperphagia home range. Additionally, the similarity in the sizes of the home range size during and outside the hyperphagia season suggested a balance between the variables forming the home range during these periods. Most of the brown bears in our study hibernate in their core area, predominantly in its very centre (0.1 percentile), as earlier hibernation than reported for this region from other studies was recorded. Further studies with a larger sample size on the role of the forest age heterogeneity and mast production on the formation of the home range are needed.

Inventorying mammal assemblages is vital for their conservation and management, especially when they include rare or endangered species. However, obtaining a correct estimation of the species diversity in a particular area can be challenging due to uncertainties regarding study design and duration. In this paper, we present the biodiversity estimates derived from three unrelated camera trap studies in Osogovo Mt., Bulgaria. They have different duration and positioning schemes of the camera trap locations: Study 1 -grid based, 34 days; Study 2 -random points based, 138 days; Study 3 -locations based on expert opinion, 1437 days. Utilising EstimateS, we compare a number of estimators (Shannon diversity index, Coleman rarefaction curve, ACE (Abundance-based Coverage Estimator), ICE (Incidence-based Coverage Estimator), Chao 1, Chao 2 and Jackknife estimators) to the number of present and confirmed and/or potentially present mammals (excluding bats) in the mountains. A total of 17 mammal species were registered in the three studies, which represents around 76% of the permanently present mammals in the mountain that inhabit its forested area and can be detected by a camera trap. The results point to some guidelines that can aid future camera trap research in temperate forested areas. A grid-based design works best for very short study periods (e.g. 10 days), while the opportunistic expert-based positioning scheme provides good results for longer studies (approx. a month). However, the grid-based design needs to be further tested for longer periods. Generally, the random points approach does not yield satisfactory results. In agreement with other studies, analysis based on the Jackknife procedure (Jack 2) appears to result in the best estimate of species richness. When performing camera trap studies, special care should be taken to minimise the number of unidentifiable photos and to take into account «trap-shy» individuals. The results from this study emphasise the need for careful preliminary planning of camera trap studies depending on aims, duration and target species.

No abstract