Large carnivore damage in Europe: Analysis of compensation and prevention programs

Bautista, Carlos; Revilla, Eloy; Naves, Javier; Albrecht, Jörg; Fernández, Néstor; Olszańska, Agnieszka; Adamec, Michal; Berezowska‐Cnota, Teresa; Ciucci, Paolo; Groff, Claudio; Härkönen, Sauli; Huber, Djuro; Jerina, Klemen; Jonozovič, Marko; Karamanlidis, Alexandros A.; Palazón, Santiago; Quenette, Pierre‐Yves; Rigg, Robin; Seijas, Juan; Swenson, Jon E.; Talvi, Tõnu; Selva, Nuria

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.019

Cited by 80 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of disease transmission on wildlife can be seen in the loss of around half the global saiga ( Saiga tatarica ) antelope population in 2015 to Pasteurella multocida , a pathogen harboured by livestock ( Fereidouni et al, 2019 ). Contact between wildlife and livestock may also lead to conflict between humans and wildlife, with compensation for large carnivore predation and other damage costing 28.5 million euros annually in Europe ( Bautista et al, 2019 ). The proximity of agricultural land to wildlife habitats is a key factor in human-wildlife conflicts and in the spill-over of pathogens from wildlife to livestock and humans ( Jones et al, 2013 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review

Bacigalupo

Dixon

Gubbins

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild animals are the source of many pathogens of livestock and humans. Concerns about the potential transmission of economically important and zoonotic diseases from wildlife have led to increased surveillance at the livestock-wildlife interface. Knowledge of the types, frequency and duration of contacts between livestock and wildlife is necessary to identify risk factors for disease transmission and to design possible mitigation strategies. Observing the behaviour of many wildlife species is challenging due to their cryptic nature and avoidance of humans, meaning there are relatively few studies in this area. Further, a consensus on the definition of what constitutes a ‘contact’ between wildlife and livestock is lacking. A systematic review was conducted to investigate which livestock-wildlife contacts have been studied and why, as well as the methods used to observe each species. Over 30,000 publications were screened, of which 122 fulfilled specific criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The majority of studies examined cattle contacts with badgers or with deer; studies involving wild pig contacts with cattle or with domestic pigs were the next most frequent. There was a range of observational methods including motion-activated cameras and global positioning system collars. As a result of the wide variation and lack of consensus in the definitions of direct and indirect contacts, we developed a unified framework to define livestock-wildlife contacts that is sufficiently flexible to be applied to most wildlife and livestock species for non-vector-borne diseases. We hope this framework will help standardise the collection and reporting of contact data; a valuable step towards being able to compare the efficacy of wildlife-livestock observation methods. In doing so, it may aid the development of better disease transmission models and improve the design and effectiveness of interventions to reduce or prevent disease transmission.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review

Bacigalupo

Dixon

Gubbins

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of wolves, and looking at the macroscopic continental gradient, a larger distribution (and likely higher abundance) implied higher levels of reported depredation; on the other hand, the link between large carnivore distribution and damage was weak and not significant for the other three large carnivore species, although the model suggested a positive relationship for them, too. Bautista et al (2019) also found contrasting evidence of the link between large carnivore numbers and compensated damage. They revealed a positive relationship between the rate of range change in the last five decades and the costs for damage compensation in brown bears, but not in wolves and lynx (Bautista et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bautista et al (2019) also found contrasting evidence of the link between large carnivore numbers and compensated damage. They revealed a positive relationship between the rate of range change in the last five decades and the costs for damage compensation in brown bears, but not in wolves and lynx (Bautista et al, 2019). These results suggest that distribution and abundance cannot be disregarded as irrelevant factors in livestock damage, and that management actions aimed at influencing them should be evaluated as an option, because they can affect damage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the absence of large areas of wilderness in Europe (Venter et al, 2013), carnivores have almost entirely re-established their populations in rural, but highly human-modified landscapes, where humans raise livestock, keep bees for honey, hunt wild ungulates, and use forests and mountains for tourism and recreation (Chapron et al, 2014). Sharing space has therefore given rise to several forms of direct and indirect interaction between the ecological needs of large carnivores and the interests of rural humans (Bautista et al, 2019). These include depredation on livestock and destruction of beehives, dog killing, reduction of wild ungulate densities and other forms of impact that often generate conflicts which need to be managed (Linnell, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compensation programs rely on the social contract principle that the localized costs of human-large carnivore coexistence should be shared among all citizens (Schwerdtner & Gruber, 2007), under the expectation that time will allow the establishment of the appropriate coexistence mechanisms, thus progressively reducing the overall economic and social costs of the whole process. The long-term effectiveness of damage compensation programs in reducing large carnivore impact, though, is still under debate, considering that European countries nowadays pay almost 30 million euros per year for damage compensation, a sum that has increased during the last decade (Bautista et al, 2019). This raises the question if the whole compensation strategy will still be socially and economically sustainable in the near future (Linnell, 2013), especially considering that large carnivores will likely further expand their range in future years (Chapron et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ecological and anthropogenic drivers of large carnivore depredation on sheep in Europe

Gervasi

Linnell

Berce

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

88 89 90 Tõnu Talvi 91 Environmental Board of the Estonian Ministry of Environment, Viidumäe, 93343 Saaremaa, 92 Estonia 93 94 Manuela von Arx 95 KORA -Carnivore Ecology and Wildlife Management, Thunstrasse 31, 3074 Muri b. Bern, 96 Switzerland 97 98 Figure legends: 160. 105 N. of tables: 1 106 N. of figures: 4 107 N. of references: 30 108 109 SUMMARY 110 • Sharing space with large carnivores on a human-dominated continent like Europe results 111 in multiple conflictful interactions with human interests, of which depredation on 112 livestock is the most widespread. Wildlife management agencies maintain compensation 113 programs for the damage caused by large carnivores, but the long-term effectiveness of 114 such programs is often contested. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms driving large 115 carnivore impact on human activities is necessary to identify key management actions to 116 reduce it. 117 • We conducted an analysis of the impact by all four European large carnivores on sheep 118 husbandry in 10 European countries, during the period 2010-2015. We ran a hierarchical 119 Simultaneous Autoregressive model, to assess the influence of ecological and 120 anthropogenic factors on the spatial and temporal patterns in the reported depredation 121 levels across the continent. 122 • On average, about 35,000 sheep were compensated in the ten countries as killed by large 123 carnivores annually, representing about 0.5% of the total sheep stock. Of them, 45% were 124 recognized as killed by wolves, 24% by wolverines, 19% by lynx and 12% by bears. At 125 the continental level, we found a positive relationship between wolf distribution and the 126 number of compensated sheep, but not for the other three species. Impact levels were 127 lower in the areas where large carnivore presence has been continuous compared to areas 128 where they disappeared and recently returned. The model explained 62% of the variation 129 in the number of compensated sheep per year in each administrative unit. Only 13% of 130 the variation was related to the ecological components of the process. 131 • Synthesis and Applications: Large carnivore distribution and local abundance alone are 132 poor predictors of large carnivore impact on livestock at the continental level. A few 133 individuals can produce high damage, when the contribution of environmental, social and 134 economic systems predisposes for it, whereas large populations can produce a limited 135 impact when the same components of the system reduce the probability that depredations 136 occur. Time seems to play in favour of a progressive reduction in the costs associated 137 with coexistence, provided that the responsible agencies focus their attention both on 138 compensation and co-adaptation.

show abstract

Winners and losers of land use change: A systematic review of interactions between the world’s crane species (Gruidae) and the agricultural sector

Hemminger

König

Månsson

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While agricultural intensification and expansion are major factors driving loss and degradation of natural habitat and species decline, some wildlife species also benefit from agriculturally managed habitats. This may lead to high population densities with impacts on both human livelihoods and wildlife conservation. Cranes are a group of 15 species worldwide, affected both negatively and positively by agricultural practices. While eleven species face critical population declines, numbers of common cranes (Grus grus) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) have increased drastically in the last 40 years. Their increase is associated with higher incidences of crane foraging on agricultural crops, causing financial losses to farmers. Our aim was to synthesize scientific knowledge on the bilateral effects of land use change and crane populations. We conducted a systematic literature review of peer‐reviewed publications on agriculture‐crane interactions (n = 135) and on the importance of agricultural crops in the diet of cranes (n = 81). Agricultural crops constitute a considerable part of the diet of all crane species (average of 37%, most frequently maize (Zea mays L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)). Crop damage was identified in only 10% of all agriculture‐crane interactions, although one‐third of interactions included cranes foraging on cropland. Using a conceptual framework analysis, we identified two major pathways in agriculture‐crane interactions: (1) habitat loss with negative effects on crane species dependent on specific habitats, and (2) expanding agricultural habitats with superabundant food availability beneficial for opportunistic crane species. The degree to which crane species can adapt to agricultural land use changes may be an important factor explaining their population response. We conclude that multi‐objective management needs to combine land sparing and land sharing strategies at landscape scale. To support viable crane populations while guaranteeing sustainable agricultural production, it is necessary to include the perspectives of diverse stakeholders and streamline conservation initiatives and agricultural policy accordingly.

show abstract

Large carnivore damage in Europe: Analysis of compensation and prevention programs

Cited by 80 publications

References 38 publications

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review

Ecological and anthropogenic drivers of large carnivore depredation on sheep in Europe

Winners and losers of land use change: A systematic review of interactions between the world’s crane species (Gruidae) and the agricultural sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About