Abstract
SummaryA critical question in the conservation of large mammals in the Anthropocene is to know the extent to which they can tolerate human disturbance. Surprisingly, little quantitative data is available about large-scale effects of human activity and land use on their broad scale distribution in Europe. In this study, we quantify the relative importance of human land use and protected areas as opposed to biophysical constraints on large mammal distribution. We analyze data on large mammal distribution to quantify the relative effect of anthropogenic variables on species' distribution as opposed to biophysical constraints. We finally assess the effect of anthropogenic variables on the size of the species' niche by simulating a scenario where we assumed no anthropogenic pressure on the landscape. Results show that large mammal distribution is primarily constrained by biophysical constraints rather than anthropogenic variables. This finding offers grounds for cautious optimism concerning wildlife conservation in the Anthropocene.
Highlights
Even though most conservation actions have the primary objective of safeguarding the long-term persistence of wildlife, there is substantial disagreement about the most effective strategies to achieve these goals
Little quantitative data is available about large-scale effects of human activity and land use on their broad scale distribution in Europe
We have further shown that human disturbance and protected area coverage are only minor drivers of large mammal distributions at the continental scale
Summary
Even though most conservation actions have the primary objective of safeguarding the long-term persistence of wildlife, there is substantial disagreement about the most effective strategies to achieve these goals (e.g., land sparing vs land sharing, Phalan et al, 2011). Some conservationists advocate for implementing a spatial dichotomy, where ‘‘wild areas’’ would be subject to minimal human intervention (land sparing) acting as refugia for wildlife against human disturbance Another paradigm consists of a diversity of coexistence strategies (land sharing), which envisions the possibility of shared landscapes where human and wildlife interactions are allowed, managed and sustained by effective institutions (Carter and Linnell, 2016; Linnell and Kaltenborn, 2019). Adopting a land sharing strategy requires a mutual adaptation in behavior from both humans and wildlife (Carter and Linnell, 2016) This may seem especially challenging for large animals as they are more likely to be negatively impacted directly (e.g., through persecution and exploitation) and indirectly (loss and fragmentation of habitats) by human activities owing to their larger spatial and resource requirements and the potential for human-wildlife conflicts (Redpath et al, 2013). Large animals with wideranging behavior and slow reproductive rates are frequently viewed as being at a disproportionately high risk of extinction (Ripple et al, 2014, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
