Mapping attack hotspots to mitigate human–carnivore conflict: approaches and applications of spatial predation risk modeling

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jennifer R. B. Miller
• 关键词：Attack hazard ; Carnivore conservation ; Grazing management ; Livestock depredation ; Nonlethal carnivore control ; Predator–prey interactions
• 刊名：Biodiversity & Conservation
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：November 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：24
• 期：12
• 页码：2887-2911
• 全文大小：2,057 KB
• 参考文献：Abade L, Macdonald DW, Dickman AJ (2014) Assessing the relative importance of landscape and husbandry factors in determining large carnivore depredation risk in Tanzania’s Ruaha landscape. Biol Conserv 180:241-48CrossRef
  Agarwala M, Kumar S, Treves A, Naughton-Treves L (2010) Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biol Conserv 143:2945-955CrossRef
  Alessa LN, Kliskey AA, Brown G (2008) Social–ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space. Landsc Urban Plan 85:27-9CrossRef
  Atwood TC, Gese EM, Kunkel KE (2009) Spatial partitioning of predation risk in a multiple predator–multiple prey system. J Wildl Manag 73:876-84CrossRef
  Balme GA, Hunter LTB, Slotow R (2007) Feeding habitat selection by hunting leopards Panthera pardus in a woodland savanna: prey catchability versus abundance. Anim Behav 74:589-98CrossRef
  Baruch-Mordo S, Breck SW, Wilson KR, Theobald DM (2008) Spatiotemporal distribution of black bear–human conflicts in Colorado, USA. J Wildl Manag 72:1853-862CrossRef
  Baruch-Mordo S, Wilson KR, Lewis DL et al (2014) Stochasticity in natural forage production affects use of urban areas by black bears: implications to management of human–bear conflicts. PLoS One 9:1-0CrossRef
  Behdarvand N, Kaboli M, Ahmadi M et al (2014) Spatial risk model and mitigation implications for wolf–human conflict in a highly modified agroecosystem in western Iran. Biol Conserv 177:156-64CrossRef
  Boyce MS, Vernier P, Nielsen S, Schmiegelow F (2002) Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model 157:281-00CrossRef
  Breitenmoser U, Angst C, Landry J-M et al (2005) Non-lethal techniques for reducing depredation. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (eds) People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 49-1
  Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49-1
  Brown G, Raymond C (2007) The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl Geogr 27:89-11CrossRef
  Brown JS, Laundré JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385-99CrossRef
  Bryssinckx W, Ducheyne E, Muhwezi B et al (2012) Improving the accuracy of livestock distribution estimates through spatial interpolation. Geospat Health 7:101-09CrossRef PubMed
  Bump JK, Tischler KB, Schrank AJ et al (2009) Large herbivores and aquatic-terrestrial links in southern boreal forests. J Anim Ecol 78:338-45CrossRef PubMed
  Chapin FS III, Carpenter SR, Kofinas GP et al (2010) Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol Evol 25:241-49CrossRef PubMed
  Clark JD, Dunn JE, Smith KG (1993) A multivariate model of female black bear habitat use for a geographic information system. J Wildl Manag 57:519-26CrossRef
  Creel S, Christianson D (2008) Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends Ecol Evol 23:194-01CrossRef PubMed
  Dale MR, Fortin M-J (2014) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  Davie HS, Murdoch JD, Lhagvasuren A, Reading RP (2014) Measuring and mapping the influence of landscape factors on livestock predation by wolves in Mongolia. J Arid Environ 103:85-1CrossRef
  DeCesare NJ (2012) Separating spatial search and efficiency rates as components of predation risk. Proc R Soc B 279:4626-633PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim Conserv 13:458-66CrossRef
  Dickman AJ, Macdonald EA, Macdonald DW (2011) A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:13937-3944PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  Dormann CF, Schymanski SJ, Cabral J et al (2012) Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. J Biogeogr 39:2119-131CrossRef
  Edge JL, Beyer DE, Belant JL et al (2011) Adapting a predictive spatial model for wolf Canis spp. predation on livestock in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan, USA. Wildl Biol 17:1-0CrossRef
  García-Rangel S, Pettorelli N (2013) Thinking spatially: the importance of geospatial techniques for carnivore conservation. Ecol Inform 14:84-9CrossRef
  Gervasi V, Nilsen EB, Odden J et al (2013) The spatio-temporal distribution of wild and domestic ungulates modulates lynx kill rates in a multi-use landscape. J Zool 292:175-83CrossRef
  Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association. Geogr Anal 24:189-06CrossRef
  Gorini L, Linnell JDC, May R et al (2012) Habitat heterogeneity and mammalian predator–prey interactions. Mamm
• 作者单位：Jennifer R. B. Miller (1) (2)
  
  1. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA
  2. Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehra Dun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India
  
• 刊物类别：Biomedical and Life Sciences
• 刊物主题：Life Sciences
  Evolutionary Biology
  Plant Sciences
  Tree Biology
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1572-9710

文摘

A major challenge in carnivore conservation worldwide is identifying priority human–carnivore conflict sites where mitigation efforts would be most effective. Spatial predation risk modeling recently emerged as a tool for predicting and mapping hotspots of livestock depredation using locations where carnivores attacked livestock in the past. This literature review evaluates the approaches and applications of spatial risk modeling for reducing human–carnivore conflict and presents a workflow to help conservation practitioners use this tool. Over the past decade 18 studies were published, most which examined canid and felid (10 and 8 studies on each group, respectively) depredation on cattle (14) and sheep (12). Studies employed correlation modeling, spatial association and/or spatial interpolation to identify high-risk landscape features, and many (but not all) validated models with independent data. The landscape features associated with carnivore attacks related to the species (carnivore and prey), environment, human infrastructure and management interventions. Risk maps from most studies (14) were used to help livestock owners and managers identify top-priority areas for implementing carnivore deterrents, with some efforts achieving >90 % reductions in attacks. Only one study affected policy, highlighting a gap where risk maps could be useful for more clearly communicating information to assist policymakers with large-scale decisions on conflict. Studies were used to develop a six-step workflow on integrating risk modeling into conservation. This review reveals a need for future predation risk modeling to focus more on validating models, accounting for feedbacks and impacting conflict-related policy in order to reliably improve the mitigation of human–carnivore conflict globally. Keywords Attack hazard Carnivore conservation Grazing management Livestock depredation Nonlethal carnivore control Predator–prey interactions