2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102890
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wildlife impact on cultivated lands: A multi-temporal spatial analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At both of the sites, the wild grapevines grew in proximity to fig trees (Ficus carica), plane trees (Platanus orientalis), and holy raspberries (Rubus sanguineus), a plant community typical to water-rich habitats along the Mediterranean basin. Interestingly, the observed Sylvestris female plants tended to grow between the spiny holy raspberry plants, which, apparently, provide protection during flowering against herbivores that are abundant in these regions, including wild boar (Sus scrofa) [32] and mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella) [33], which commonly feed on grapevine shoots and leaves in cultivated vineyards. Spiny vegetation has been suggested to have played a vital role in protecting wild vines from both wild and domestic animals [34,35].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At both of the sites, the wild grapevines grew in proximity to fig trees (Ficus carica), plane trees (Platanus orientalis), and holy raspberries (Rubus sanguineus), a plant community typical to water-rich habitats along the Mediterranean basin. Interestingly, the observed Sylvestris female plants tended to grow between the spiny holy raspberry plants, which, apparently, provide protection during flowering against herbivores that are abundant in these regions, including wild boar (Sus scrofa) [32] and mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella) [33], which commonly feed on grapevine shoots and leaves in cultivated vineyards. Spiny vegetation has been suggested to have played a vital role in protecting wild vines from both wild and domestic animals [34,35].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have typically classified human-wildlife conflicts into four categories. The first category involves damage to crops, with much large herbivorous wildlife feeding on crops, causing significant losses (Mauri et al ., 2020). The second category pertains to harm inflicted on livestock, with some carnivorous wildlife preying on poultry and livestock.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relevant data can be a valuable and up-to-date source of information about human activities and interactions with the natural environment in various spatial and temporal scales [16]. A review of the literature indicates that crowdsourced social media data have been used to map cultural ecosystem services [18], evaluate visitors' preferences regarding biological diversity [19], monitor biological diversity [11], monitor visitors in nature conservation areas, monitor social responses to environmental protection events [20,21], explore global trends in wildlife trade [22], and monitor of animal movements [14,23]. These models lead to an assessment of relevant quantities, such as the probability of animals entering/escaping from an urban area, in addition to typical traffic patterns, which in turn lead to an estimate of the risk of human-wildlife interactions [24][25][26][27].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%