Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
environmental science
Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large carnivores
Wildlife Society Bulletin, Volume 40, No. 4, Year 2016
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Mitigation of large carnivore depredation is essential to increasing stakeholder support for human–carnivore coexistence. Lethal and non-lethal techniques are implemented by managers, livestock producers, and other stakeholders to reduce livestock depredations by large carnivores. However, information regarding the relative effectiveness of techniques commonly used to reduce livestock depredations is currently lacking. We evaluated 66 published, peer-reviewed research papers that quantitatively measured livestock depredation before and after employing 4 categories of lethal and non-lethal mitigation techniques (livestock husbandry, predator deterrents and removal, and indirect management of land or wild prey) to assess their relative effectiveness as livestock protection strategies. Effectiveness of each technique was measured as the reported percent change in livestock losses. Husbandry (42–100% effective) and deterrents (0–100% effective) demonstrated the greatest potential but also the widest variability in effectiveness in reducing livestock losses. Removal of large carnivores never achieved 100% effectiveness but exhibited the lowest variation (67–83%). Although explicit measures of effectiveness were not reported for indirect management, livestock depredations commonly decreased with sparser and greater distances from vegetation cover, at greater distances from protected areas, and in areas with greater wild prey abundance. Information on time duration of effects was available only for deterrents; a tradeoff existed between the effectiveness of tools and the length of time a tool remained effective. Our assessment revealed numerous sources of bias regarding the effectiveness of techniques as reported in the peer-reviewed literature, including a lack of replication across species and geographic regions, a focus on Canid carnivores in the United States, Europe, and Africa, and a publication bias toward studies reporting positive effects. Given these limitations, we encourage managers and conservationists to work with livestock producers to more consistently and quantitatively measure and report the impacts of mitigation techniques under a wider range of environmental, economic, and sociological conditions. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.
Authors & Co-Authors
Miller, Jennifer R.B.
United States, New Haven
Yale University
United States, New York
Panthera Usa
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town
United States, Ithaca
Cornell University
Stoner, Kelly J.
United States, New Haven
Yale University
Tanzania, Iringa
Ruaha Carnivore Project
Cejtin, Mikael R.
United States, New Haven
Yale University
Meyer, Tara K.
United States, New Haven
Yale University
United States, Olympia
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Middleton, Arthur D.
United States, New Haven
Yale University
United States, Berkeley
Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
Schmitz, Oswald J.
United States, New Haven
Yale University
Statistics
Citations: 113
Authors: 6
Affiliations: 7
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1002/wsb.720
ISSN:
00917648
e-ISSN:
19385463