Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores

Abstract

Successful coexistence between large carnivores and humans is conditional upon effective mitigation of the impact of these species on humans, such as through livestock depredation. It is therefore essential for conservation practitioners, carnivore managing authorities, or livestock owners to know the effectiveness of interventions intended to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. We reviewed the scientific literature (1990–2016), searching for evidence of the effectiveness of interventions. We found experimental and quasi-experimental studies were rare within the field, and only 21 studies applied a case-control study design (3.7% of reviewed publications). We used a relative risk ratio to evaluate the studied interventions: changing livestock type, keeping livestock in enclosures, guarding or livestock guarding dogs, predator removal, using shock collars on carnivores, sterilizing carnivores, and using visual or auditory deterrents to frighten carnivores. Although there was a general lack of scientific evidence of the effectiveness of any of these interventions, some interventions reduced the risk of depredation whereas other interventions did not result in reduced depredation. We urge managers and stakeholders to move towards an evidence-based large carnivore management practice and researchers to conduct studies of intervention effectiveness with a randomized case-control design combined with systematic reviewing to evaluate the evidence.

Cattle selectivity by leopards suggests ways to mitigate human–leopard conflict

“…We suggest that these characteristics may play a certain role in livestock depredation, but apart from selective preference of juveniles (Azevedo & Murray, ; Michalski et al., ; Odden et al., ), little is known about selectivity of sex and coloration of livestock by predators. Livestock breeds may also affect depredation rates (Eklund et al., ; Landa et al., ), but we could not study this aspect as only one cattle breed has been kept in our sampled villages. Potentially, livestock selectivity studies can be considered within the predator–prey framework if kill sites are explicitly known for making inferences over the fine‐scale site‐specific relationships (Miller et al., ; Trainor & Schmitz, ).…”

“…Conflicts between local people and mammalian carnivores are widespread because of depredation on domestic animals, especially livestock, and occasional attacks on humans (Eklund, Lopez‐Bao, Tourani, Chapron, & Frank, ; Loveridge, Wang, Frank, & Seidensticker, ). Such conflicts pose a challenge for rural development and biodiversity conservation as many carnivores are officially protected and act as conservation flagships, but financial and social losses from depredation fuel intolerance to wildlife and conservation in general.…”

“…Juvenile individuals of livestock are more prone to depredation than adults because of their weakly developed antipredator behavior (Azevedo & Murray, ; Michalski, Boulhosa, Faria, & Peres, ; Odden, Herfindal, Linnell, & Andersen, ). Livestock breeds are also important as heavier and less agile breeds or those with poor defensive capacities can be preferentially taken by carnivores (Eklund et al., ; Landa, Gudvangen, Swenson, & Røskaft, ; Quigley et al., ). Sex‐based selectivity by carnivores has been studied in wild prey, but not in livestock (Anderson & Lindzey, ; Karanth & Sunquist, ; Majumder, Sankar, Qureshi, & Basu, ).…”

Patterns of livestock depredation and cost‐effectiveness of fortified livestock enclosures in northern Tanzania

“…However, few studies have provided quantitative assessments of the efficacy of various strategies used in carnivore conflict mitigation (Eklund, López-Bao, Tourani, Chapron, & Frank, 2017 Fortification of livestock enclosures (known locally as "bomas") with sturdy fences using posts and chain-link fencing is one of the predominant intervention methods used to prevent livestock depredation at night (Lichtenfeld, Trout, & Kisimir, 2015;Manoa & Mwaura, 2016;Okello, Bonham, & Hill, 2014;Sutton et al, 2017;Weise et al, 2018). In this study, we use a randomized case-control experimental design of longitudinal data collected over a five-year period to examine the effectiveness of boma fortification in reducing carnivore raids on livestock.…”

When is it acceptable to kill a strictly protected carnivore? Exploring the legal constraints on wildlife management within Europe’s Bern Convention

“…As one Bern Convention guidance document (T-PVS/Inf (2010) 16) puts it: "Competent authorities need to explain the particular circumstances justifying the choice of an Article 9.1 reason and verify that the specific conditions are met." There is currently a general lack of documentation about the utility of many lethal and non-lethal approaches to interventions aimed at the relatively simple conflict associated with livestock depredation (Eklund et al 2017;Treves et al 2016), let alone the more complex social/cultural conflicts (Reed 2008;Sandström et al 2009). However, providing evidence that allowing more liberal killing of wolves helps to increase tolerance requires that it is actually tested and evaluated, so there can be a catch-22 situation where proof is needed, but cannot be obtained until tested.…”