Why do wolves eat livestock?

Imbert, Camille; Caniglia, Romolo; Fabbri, Elena; Milanesi, Pietro; Randi, Ettore; Serafini, Matteo; Torretta, Elisa; Meriggi, Alberto

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.01.003

Cited by 85 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a review nearly 25 years ago, Meriggi and Lovari (1996) concluded that a simultaneous increase (or reintroduction) of wild ungulates may reduce predation on livestock. This was confirmed by other authors from different countries (Meriggi et al 2011;Imbert et al 2016;Newsome et al 2016;Janeiro-Otero et al 2020). In this discussion human management perspectives as economic interests and on the other hand protection obligations, of course, lead to conflicts as well as ideas for a co-existence between humans and wolves (Herzog 2018;Bruns et al 2020;Martin et al 2020).…”

supporting

confidence: 76%

Development of D-Loop mitochondrial markers for amplification of prey DNA from wolf scat

Schroeder¹,

Palczewski²,

Деген³

2020

Conservation Genet Resour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of wolves dietary is a currently important theme because of the discussion about wolves preying on livestock as sheep or goats. We developed molecular markers to especially amplify the DNA of the prey out of wolf scat. For this purpose, we used the mitochondrial D-Loop using public available sequences for wolf and seven potential prey species (even-toed ungulates). We developed special primers amplifying either the wolves DNA or the prey DNA. In a fragment of 223-225 basepairs (bp) length we identified 21 SNPs, two 1-bp indels and one 3-bp indel, and three microsatellites to separate seven prey species from each other. Validation of the markers was performed by sequencing the PCR products of 12 fresh prey tissues and 20 wolf scat samples using the different primer pairs.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 76%

Development of D-Loop mitochondrial markers for amplification of prey DNA from wolf scat

Schroeder¹,

Palczewski²,

Деген³

2020

Conservation Genet Resour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A particular case-study is offered by the Italian wolf population, which is sharply genetically differentiated from any other wolf population due to protracted isolation south of the Alps and to demographic declines that led it to shrink down to <100 individuals in the 1970s ( Zimen and Boitani 1975 ; Lucchini et al 2004 ; Pilot et al 2014 ; Randi et al 2014 ). Thanks to the increased availability of prey and legal protection, Italian wolves are now recovering ( Galaverni et al 2016 ), but they are still threatened by heavy poaching ( Caniglia et al 2010 ; Imbert et al 2016 ) and hybridization with stray dogs, as documented by genetic evidences ( Lucchini et al 2004 ; Caniglia et al 2013 ; Randi et al 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling Timing of Admixture, Patterns of Introgression, and Phenotypic Indicators in a Hybridizing Wolf Population

Galaverni

Caniglia

Pagani

et al. 2017

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Self Cite

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybridization is a natural or anthropogenic process that can deeply affect the genetic make-up of populations, possibly decreasing individual fitness but sometimes favoring local adaptations. The population of Italian wolves (Canis lupus), after protracted demographic declines and isolation, is currently expanding in anthropic areas, with documented cases of hybridization with stray domestic dogs. However, identifying admixture patterns in deeply introgressed populations is far from trivial. In this study, we used a panel of 170,000 SNPs analyzed with multivariate, Bayesian and local ancestry reconstruction methods to identify hybrids, estimate their ancestry proportions and timing since admixture. Moreover, we carried out preliminary genotype–phenotype association analyses to identify the genetic bases of three phenotypic traits (black coat, white claws, and spur on the hind legs) putative indicators of hybridization. Results showed no sharp subdivisions between nonadmixed wolves and hybrids, indicating that recurrent hybridization and deep introgression might have started mostly at the beginning of the population reexpansion. In hybrids, we identified a number of genomic regions with excess of ancestry in one of the parental populations, and regions with excess or resistance to introgression compared with neutral expectations. The three morphological traits showed significant genotype–phenotype associations, with a single genomic region for black coats and white claws, and with multiple genomic regions for the spur. In all cases the associated haplotypes were likely derived from dogs. In conclusion, we show that the use of multiple genome-wide ancestry reconstructions allows clarifying the admixture dynamics even in highly introgressed populations, and supports their conservation management.

show abstract

“…Related to this, the literature is unclear whether and how the response of survivors might differ from response to other mortality causes. In some cases, newcomers might kill more domestic animals than previous residents had killed because social networks might be disrupted, as reported in cougars (Cooley et al, 2009a,b;Peebles et al, 2013); or survivors might turn to domestic animals when their conspecifics have been removed (Imbert et al, 2016;Santiago-Avila et al, 2018a), and other "spill-over" effects (Santiago-Avila et al, 2018a). A number of correlational studies have reported such effects (Peebles et al, 2013;Fernández-Gil et al, 2015), including four papers from one site that have all been disputed without consensus on their resolution (Wielgus and Peebles, 2014;Bradley et al, 2015;Poudyal et al, 2016;Kompaniyets and Evans, 2017).…”

Section: Do Survivors Prey On Domestic Animals At Similar Rates Aftermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perhaps, killing a predator returning to a carcass soon after predation might protect other livestock (Woodroffe et al, 2005), but experiments with such methods also show surprisingly high error rates (Sacks et al, 1999). Indeed, recent, independent research in several regions found killing wild animals could exacerbate future threats to human interests, e.g., cougars (Cooley et al, 2009a;Peebles et al, 2013), birds (Bauer et al, 2018;Beggs et al, 2019), and wolves (Santiago-Avila et al, 2018a) -without requiring us to delve into the unresolved controversy and contested evidence about wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA or in Southern Europe (Wielgus and Peebles, 2014;Bradley et al, 2015;Fernández-Gil et al, 2015;Imbert et al, 2016;Poudyal et al, 2016;Kompaniyets and Evans, 2017). The uncertainties about predator removal reflect the indirect application unlike the lion and the goat hypothetical above.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predator Control Needs a Standard of Unbiased Randomized Experiments With Cross-Over Design

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid, global changes, such as extinction and climate change, put a premium on evidence-based, environmental policies and interventions, including predator control efforts. Lack of solid scientific evidence precludes strong inference about responses of predators, people, and prey of both, to various types of predator control. Here we formulate two opposing hypotheses with possible underlying mechanisms and propose experiments to test four pairs of opposed predictions about responses of predators, domestic animals, and people in a coupled, dynamic system. We outline the design of a platinum-standard experiment, namely randomized, controlled experiment with cross-over design and multiple steps to blind measurement, analysis, and peer review to avoid pervasive biases. The gold-standard has been proven feasible in field experiments with predators and livestock, so we call for replicating that across the world on different methods of predator control, in addition to striving for an even higher standard that can improve reproducibility and reliability of the science of predator control.

show abstract

Why do wolves eat livestock?

Cited by 85 publications

References 71 publications

Development of D-Loop mitochondrial markers for amplification of prey DNA from wolf scat

Development of D-Loop mitochondrial markers for amplification of prey DNA from wolf scat

Disentangling Timing of Admixture, Patterns of Introgression, and Phenotypic Indicators in a Hybridizing Wolf Population

Predator Control Needs a Standard of Unbiased Randomized Experiments With Cross-Over Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About