Mind the gap: Experimental tests to improve efficacy of fladry for nonlethal management of coyotes

Young, Julie K.; Draper, John P.; Breck, Stewart W.

doi:10.1002/wsb.970

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These approaches may have important consequences for evolutionary change in cities. (Young, Draper, et al, 2019;Young, Hammill, et al, 2019) and rodenticides are now restricted in some jurisdictions (Quinn et al, 2019). Incorporating evolutionary concepts in such management decisions will help inform successful mitigation strategies.…”

Section: Box 1 Case Studies: Coyotes Versus Brown Ratsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolutionary consequences of human–wildlife conflict in cities

Schell

Stanton

Young³

et al. 2020

Evolutionary Applications

Self Cite

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human–wildlife interactions, including human–wildlife conflict, are increasingly common as expanding urbanization worldwide creates more opportunities for people to encounter wildlife. Wildlife–vehicle collisions, zoonotic disease transmission, property damage, and physical attacks to people or their pets have negative consequences for both people and wildlife, underscoring the need for comprehensive strategies that mitigate and prevent conflict altogether. Management techniques often aim to deter, relocate, or remove individual organisms, all of which may present a significant selective force in both urban and nonurban systems. Management‐induced selection may significantly affect the adaptive or nonadaptive evolutionary processes of urban populations, yet few studies explicate the links among conflict, wildlife management, and urban evolution. Moreover, the intensity of conflict management can vary considerably by taxon, public perception, policy, religious and cultural beliefs, and geographic region, which underscores the complexity of developing flexible tools to reduce conflict. Here, we present a cross‐disciplinary perspective that integrates human–wildlife conflict, wildlife management, and urban evolution to address how social–ecological processes drive wildlife adaptation in cities. We emphasize that variance in implemented management actions shapes the strength and rate of phenotypic and evolutionary change. We also consider how specific management strategies either promote genetic or plastic changes, and how leveraging those biological inferences could help optimize management actions while minimizing conflict. Investigating human–wildlife conflict as an evolutionary phenomenon may provide insights into how conflict arises and how management plays a critical role in shaping urban wildlife phenotypes.

show abstract

Section: Box 1 Case Studies: Coyotes Versus Brown Ratsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolutionary consequences of human–wildlife conflict in cities

Schell

Stanton

Young³

et al. 2020

Evolutionary Applications

Self Cite

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is essential to understand how these cues interact with other aspects of behavior and how salience of cues varies within and across target species to achieve maximum efficacy. In the case of fladry, small adjustments in the spacing of flags hung from ropes are required to effectively deter coyotes as compared to wolves (Young, Draper, & Breck, 2019), and subordinate coyotes are more neophobic in response to fladry than dominant coyotes (Mettler & Shivik, 2007).…”

Section: Instilling Fear To Mitigate Human-wildlife Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice

Gaynor

Cherry

Gilbert

et al. 2020

Animal Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the ecology of fear has highlighted the importance of perceived risk from predators and humans in shaping animal behavior and physiology, with potential demographic and ecosystem-wide consequences. Despite recent conceptual advances and potential management implications of the ecology of fear, theory and conservation practices have rarely been linked. Many challenges in animal conservation may be alleviated by actively harnessing or compensating for risk perception and risk avoidance behavior in wild animal populations. Integration of the ecology of fear into conservation and management practice can contribute to the recovery of threatened populations, human-wildlife conflict mitigation, invasive species management, maintenance of sustainable harvest and species reintroduction plans. Here, we present an applied framework that links conservation interventions to desired outcomes by manipulating ecology of fear dynamics. We discuss how to reduce or amplify fear in wild animals by manipulating habitat structure, sensory stimuli, animal experience (previous exposure to risk) and food safety trade-offs to achieve management objectives. Changing the optimal decision-making of individuals in managed populations can then further conservation goals by shaping the spatiotemporal distribution of animals, changing predation rates and altering risk effects that scale up to demographic consequences. We also outline future directions for applied research on fear ecology that will better inform conservation practices. Our framework can help scientists and practitioners anticipate and mitigate unintended consequences of management decisions, and highlight new levers for multi-species conservation strategies that promote human-wildlife coexistence. An applied ecology of fear framework Scientists and practitioners recognize the importance of considering animal behavior when designing conservation strategies for wild animal populations (Burt, 1943; Martin, 1998). Knowledge of habitat selection, mating systems and sociality, for example, have informed habitat and population management strategies (Festa-Bianchet & Apollonio, 2003; Blumstein & Fern andez-Juricic, 2010). Behaviors related to risk avoidance have also received some attention in the management arena, generally in the context of deterrents that aim to instill fear and flight responses in pest species to reduce undesired behaviors (Miller et al., 2016). However, proactive risk Animal Conservation (2020)ª 2020 The Zoological Society of London 1 Animal Conservation.

show abstract

“…We modified standard turbo fladry to a narrower flag spacing of 27.9 cm (Young et al ., 2019 a ) and tested its effectiveness at excluding coyotes from areas within fladry exclosures on each treatment colony (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although coyotes Canis latrans have similar neophobic responses to that of wolves (Mettler & Shivik, 2007), the horizontal spacing of flags on commercial fladry and turbo fladry is likely unsuitable for smaller‐sized coyotes (Davidson‐Nelson & Gehring, 2010). As a result, a recent captive study used the ratio of wolf body width to the horizontal spacing between fladry flags and narrowed the spacing of flags for use with coyotes (Young, Draper & Breck, 2019 a ). The study found that modified coyote fladry, when compared with commercial fladry, nearly doubled the duration of effectiveness when used with coyotes (Young et al ., 2019 a ); however, coyote fladry has yet to be tested in a field setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving evaluation of nonlethal tools for carnivore management and conservation: evaluating fladry to protect an endangered species from a generalist mesocarnivore

Windell

Bailey

Young³

et al. 2021

Animal Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carnivore conservation and management are global research priorities focused on reversing population declines of imperiled species and identifying more effective and humane management of generalist carnivores with thriving populations. Nonlethal methods to mitigate conflict are increasingly used to advance conservation objectives; however, there is limited knowledge about the effectiveness of many nonlethal methods. We tested a nonlethal tool (fladry), that serves as a barrier to deter wolves Canis lupus and coyotes Canis latrans, for its efficacy at preventing coyotes from using prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus colonies, the primary prey for critically endangered black‐footed ferrets Mustela nigripes. We used camera trap data and an occupancy approach to evaluate the tool’s efficacy. We measured coyote response to fladry at both a coarse monthly scale (via use, attraction and avoidance probabilities) and a fine scale (via daily activity). Overall, use of areas inside exclosures declined by 60% after 60 days of fladry application and coyotes avoided some previously used areas both within and outside exclosures. Interestingly, coyotes were attracted to previously unused areas surrounding exclosures and increased activity around the periphery of fladry exclosures by 170% immediately after fladry installation, suggesting coyotes actively explored these areas and may have responded to fladry in a way that is counterintuitive to management expectations. Occupancy models provided more robust evaluation of fladry and revealed important behavioral responses relative to other common evaluation techniques (i.e. time until first detected crossing). Our results have implications for future development and evaluation of nonlethal tools for carnivore conservation and management globally.

show abstract

Mind the gap: Experimental tests to improve efficacy of fladry for nonlethal management of coyotes

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

The evolutionary consequences of human–wildlife conflict in cities

The evolutionary consequences of human–wildlife conflict in cities

An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice

Improving evaluation of nonlethal tools for carnivore management and conservation: evaluating fladry to protect an endangered species from a generalist mesocarnivore

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About