Abstract
The management of conflicts between wildlife conservation and agricultural practices often involves the implementation of strategies aimed at reducing the cost of wildlife impacts on crops. Vital to the success of these strategies is the perception that changes in management efforts are synchronized relative to changes in impact levels, yet this expectation is never evaluated. We assess the level of synchrony between time series of population counts and management effort in the context of conflicts between agriculture and five populations of large grazing birds in northern Europe. We reveal inconsistent patterns of synchrony and asynchrony between changes in population counts and impact management effort relating to population harvesting, monetary payments, or scaring practices. This variation is likely due to differing management aims, the existence of lags between management decisions and population monitoring, and the inconsistent use of predictive models across case studies. Overall, our findings highlight the need for more adaptive and timely responses of management to changes in target species numbers so as not to unexpectedly increase social conflicts and jeopardize the status of wildlife populations.
Highlights
Conflicts between wildlife conservation and agricultural activities occur worldwide and have serious consequences for biodiversity and human well-being (Barua, Bhagwat, & Jadhav, 2013; Hill, 2015)
Compensation payments and scaring subsidies associated with the management of common cranes in the Örebro county of Sweden showed nonsignificant negative (GLM: -96.4 ± 68.8 euros per year, P = 0.189) and significant positive (GLM: 4,069.7 ± 1,187.0 euros, P < 0.01; Figure 3) trends over time, respectively, which were concurrent with an initially increasing and stable population count trend
Our study reveals inconsistent patterns of synchrony and asynchrony between changes in impact management effort and population counts of large grazing bird species across case studies in northern Europe
Summary
Conflicts between wildlife conservation and agricultural activities occur worldwide and have serious consequences for biodiversity and human well-being (Barua, Bhagwat, & Jadhav, 2013; Hill, 2015). Delays or deficiencies in the implementation of management actions may strengthen attitudes against wildlife conservation (Webber, Hill, & Reynolds, 2007), exacerbating the conflict (Olson et al, 2015). This can be expected if population culling quotas or compensation payments are reduced from one year to the despite a measured or perceived increase in the abundance of a target species (i.e., asynchrony; Figure 1b). Last, delayed management actions may be ill suited to the ecological context in which they are eventually applied, thereby resulting in overabundance or extinction risks (Fryxell, Packer, McCann, Solberg, & Sæther, 2010; Figure 1c)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.