Predation on livestock by an expanding reintroduced lynx population: long‐term trend and spatial variability

Abstract

Summary In recent decades, the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx has recolonized former habitat, bringing it into potential conflict with livestock. We studied the spatial and temporal distribution of lynx attacks on sheep in the French Jura between 1984 and 1998, during and after its population expansion. We estimated the local and regional impact of lynx predation on livestock. The number of attacks increased from three in 1984 to 188 in 1989, concurrently with the colonization of the main sheep range by lynx. During subsequent years, 66–131 attacks were recorded annually (92–194 sheep killed per year). On average, 1·6 sheep were killed per attack. Lynx preyed disproportionately on lambs and subadult sheep. A small percentage of flocks (9·5–22·9%) were attacked, most of which (75·2%) were attacked once or twice a year. At the regional level, annual sheep losses to lynx were 0·14–0·59% of the total number of sheep. The major lynx–livestock problem was due to clustered attacks in a few small areas. Each year, two to six ‘hot spots’ (33–69% of the attacks) were identified. Hot spots covered 0·3–4·5% of the total area where attacks occurred (1835–4061 km2). Roe deer abundance was higher in hot spots and, even here, sheep only made up 3·1% of the lynx diet. These data show that lynx were not killing sheep due to shortages of alternative prey or in response to an increased need for food when rearing young. The concentration of hot spots in only nine small areas between 1984 and 1998 indicated that only a few individual lynx were involved. The reappearance of hot spots at the same sites, after years of interruption and despite the removal of lynx, suggested that the ultimate factors causing hot spots were factors inherent to those sites. Further investigation is needed to identify causal factors with a view to eliminating them. These may relate to landscapes features, animal husbandry practices or the behavioural ecology of lynx. In future, where large predator reintroductions are planned, the potential for concentrated, localized, impact should be evaluated and mitigation measures put in place. For scattered and episodic lynx damage, financial compensation is the only realistic option at present. In hot spots, the cost‐effectiveness of guard‐dogs or the selective removal of some individual lynx should be evaluated.

Do attacks by jaguars Panthera onca and pumas Puma concolor (Carnivora: Felidae) on livestock correlate with species richness and relative abundance of wild prey?

“…For example, snow leopard (Uncia uncia) in the Himalayas (Bagchi & Mishra, 2006) and wolf (Canis lupus) in Southern Europe (Meriggi & Lobari, 1996) showed an inverse relationship between the abundance and richness of wild prey and occurrence or frequency of attacks to domestic ungulates. On the other hand, European lynx (Lynx lynx) in Norway (Odden, Herfindal, Linnell, & Andersen, 2008) and France (Stahl, Vandel, Herrenschmidt, & Migot, 2001;Stahl et al, 2002) showed that attacks on sheep match with areas with high abundance of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Focusing on jaguar and puma, Polisar et al (2003) and Cavalcanti and Gese (2010) showed that these big cats selected wild prey even when cattle were available at the Llanos of Venezuela and Pantanal of Brazil, respectively.…”

Predation on Artificial Nests of Northern Bobwhites, <em>Colinus virginianus</em>, by Mammalian Mesopredators: Does the Problem-Individual Paradigm Fit?

“…Given that these individuals represented only 2 of 49 Striped Skunks captured and were only captured 2 and 3 times, respectively, in the present study and that Vickery et al (1992) reported predation by Striped Skunks on nests of birds was not targeted, these results do not corroborate the "problem-individual" paradigm. Additionally, in comparison with larger mammalian predators, this paradigm has been associated, generally, with much higher levels of predation and by greater numbers of individuals repeatedly involved in taking prey (Claar et al 1986;Stander 1990;Ross et al 1997;Sacks et al 1999;Stahl et al 2001). Scalet et al (1996) pointed out that predator-prey interactions influence both prey and predator populations.…”

“…They refer to the phenomena as the "problem-individual" paradigm. Although this paradigm appears to fit some larger carnivores (Rabinowitz 1986;Ross et al 1997;Sacks et al 1999;Stahl et al 2001), the hypothesis rarely has been tested (Linnell et al 1999). Presently, the existence of individuals or a demographic group within mid-sized mammalian predators that prey upon a disproportionate number of nests of ground-nesting birds is unknown.…”

Impacts and management of common buzzards Buteo buteo at pheasant Phasianus colchicus release pens in the UK: a review

“…Although the underlying assumption of the problem-individual paradigm had been little tested (Linnell et al 1999), more recent studies, on a number of species, have shown that a small proportion of individuals in the predator population can be responsible for the majority of predation events (Stahl et al 2001;Marquiss et al 2003a;Rosas-Rosas et al 2008). The observation that only a small proportion of radio-tagged buzzards associated with pheasant pens (Kenward et al 2001), together with the anecdotal reporting that the removal of two buzzards from a poultry farm was followed by a cessation of predation, gives some support to this idea.…”

“…More recently, however, at a poultry farm, the licensed removal of one adult buzzard was followed by a cessation in predation events that had previously persisted for around 18 months (Natural England pers comm). For a number of other predator species, studies have shown that predation events on livestock can be unevenly distributed across the predator population, with a small number of individuals responsible for a significant majority of total kills (Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx, Stahl et al 2001; white-tailed eagle, Marquiss et al 2003a; jaguar Panther onca, RosasRosas et al 2008).…”