Abstract
Giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) were historically hunted using dogs and are currently threatened by free-roaming dogs and their associated diseases. To better understand the spatial magnitude of this threat, we used a GIS approach to investigate edge effects of dogs on giant panda habitat. We first examined two nature reserves with contrasting free-roaming dog populations: Liziping, with many dogs (~0.44/km2), and Daxiangling, with few dogs (~0.14/km2). Spatial analysis indicated that giant pandas at Liziping (but not Daxiangling) showed a shift in habitat use away from populated areas consistent with a risk response to the foray distance of free-roaming dogs (10.9 km path-distance). Most giant panda locations (86%) from the 2014 census in Liziping were clustered around remote “dog-free zones.” Expanding this analysis across the entire giant panda range revealed that 40% of panda habitat is within the foray distance of dogs. Our assessment will inform dog control programs including monitoring, education, veterinary care, and other measures. We recommend that reserves designated for the release of translocated pandas receive priority consideration for dog control efforts. Only by understanding and managing complex interactions between humans, domestic animals, and wild animals can we sustain natural systems in a world increasingly dominated by humans.
Highlights
Giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) were historically hunted using dogs and are currently threatened by free-roaming dogs and their associated diseases
Lower abundance near edges is indicative of negative edge effects at the population level[5] and mammalian carnivores are especially sensitive to this global threat[3]
We estimated that the available effective giant panda habitat at Daxiangling was 271 km[2], much greater than the effective giant panda habitat in Liziping (109 km2)
Summary
Giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) were historically hunted using dogs and are currently threatened by free-roaming dogs and their associated diseases. Edge effects are not confined to a few hundred meters, as was previously thought, but can persist 10 km from a habitat edge, impacting the conservation of biodiversity at landscape scales[6] This knowledge has failed to translate into management reform for even some of our most iconic threatened species[4,7]. Due to a complexity of socioecological factors, conservation efforts, such as reserve planning and corridor placement, have consistently failed to incorporate mitigation techniques for addressing the role reserve edges play as population sinks for species of concern. Species interactions such as competition, disease transmission, and predation are altered at edges[8]. How do we incorporate the edge effects of dogs into the management of protected areas to mitigate impacts on threatened species? Here, we provide strategies for how to measure potential impacts at a Source Meek, 199957 Sepúlveda, et al, 201539 Scott & Causey, 197358 Butler, Du Toit, & Bingham, 200413 This study
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.
