A Low-Cost Manipulation of Food Resources Reduces Spatial Overlap Between Baboons (Papio ursinus) and Humans in Conflict

Abstract

Competition over food and space is a primary driver of human-wildlife conflict. In the Cape Peninsula, South Africa, chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) have adapted to a human-modified environment, sleeping on the urban edge and raiding anthropogenic food sources on a daily basis. Human monitors, who herd baboons away from residential areas, are currently the preferred method of conflict mitigation. However, this method is costly and suffers from short-term interruptions, wherein the unexpected absence of monitors may lead to unprepared residents using lethal force to deter raiding baboons. Elsewhere in the chacma baboon distribution (in nonconflict areas), artificial food patches have been shown to alter troop movements drastically by eliciting consistent leadership behavior from alpha males. We investigated whether an artificial patch could be used to draw baboons away from the urban environment in the absence of monitors. First, we introduced an artificial food patch into natural land within a troop's range and monitored movement and activity patterns. Although the troop utilized the patch, there was not a significant decline in use of the urban space as they continued to favor food in urban waste sites. Maintaining the patch, we then restricted access to these waste sites using wire-mesh fencing and observed a significant reduction in the time the troop spent within the urban space. In both experimental phases we observed consistent leadership, with dominant individuals arriving first at the patch and monopolizing food items thereon. Thus, we recommend the combined strategy of reducing raiding incentives in conjunction with provisioning as a short-term, costeffective strategy to alter a baboon troop's movement patterns and raiding frequency.

Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human‐bear conflict mitigation

“…Such benefit reduction approach has been successfully implemented in other systems; for example, an aggressive campaign to better secure humanfood sources in U.S. National Parks resulted in declines in human-bear conflict in Yellowstone (Gunther 1994) and less human foods in black bears diets in Yosemite (Hopkins et al 2014). Similarly, better securing of anthropogenic foods from baboons (Papio ursinus) in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa, caused a shift from use of anthropogenic foods to other food sources (Kaplan et al 2011).…”

“…Urban areas offer novel resources to wildlife that are concentrated and predictable in space and time and can alter the ecology of species as they adapt to exploit these resources (e.g., Prange et al 2004, Rodewald and Shustack 2008, Withey and Marzluff 2009). Use of the urban environment can increase the potential for human-wildlife conflict, resulting in property damage, economic losses, or human injury (DeStefano and DeGraaf 2003, Timm et al 2004, Kaplan et al 2011, and the mitigation of conflict is becoming an important aspect of urban wildlife conservation (Conover 1997, Messmer 2000. Because human-wildlife conflict mitigation can be costly to implement (Treves and Karanth 2003), it is essential to understand the ecology of wildlife and how animals select for anthropogenic resources, so that we can better target conflict-management solutions.…”

Crop-raiding macaques: predictions, patterns and perceptions from Langtang National Park, Nepal

“…Experience from Japan shows that a key factor in this approach is to reduce the food resources available to macaques, such as crops (by proper protection), unharvested fruit, garbage and disposed vegetables, in and around human settlements so as not to attract the macaques to the area (Nakagawa et al 2010). In other areas, persuading primates to change their ranging patterns by offering artificial feeding stations away from human settlements has been demonstrated to be a cost-effective solution (Kaplan et al 2011). When proper protection of crops or effectively culling crop-raiding animals is not an option, the best techniques for deterring crop-raiding are often centred around influencing the behaviour of the raiding animal.…”

Diversionary feeding: an effective management strategy for conservation conflict?

“…Interactions can also occur more frequently when conservation efforts result in an increase in population density of certain wildlife species, leading to damage to economic crops (e.g. agriculture and forestry; Sullivan and Sullivan 2008;Barrio et al 2010), threats to human safety (Kaplan et al 2011;Rogers 2011), and predation of commercially valuable species such as livestock (Smith et al 2000) or game (Redpath 2001;Redpath and Thirgood 2009). In some cases, these impacts can lead to wildlife persecution (Woodroffe et al 2005;Fitzherbert et al 2014).…”