Predation of livestock by puma (Puma concolor) and culpeo fox (Lycalopex culpaeus): numeric and economic perspectives

Abstract

In particular, for culpeo foxes, livestock predation is significantly affected by both, livestock and native prey densities (Pia et al. 2003). In contrast, for livestock predation by pumas the type of habitat, prey densities (both, native and livestock), and livestock management practices are important factors (Polisar et al. 2003). Most human communities across the Bolivian Altiplano, including the SNP, have commonly managed the livestock predation conflict by simply killing carnivores. As a consequence, several populations have been eradicated, or severely depleted, including carrion eaters such as the Andean condor (Vultur gryphus), with marked ecological consequences at the community and ecosystem levels, as reported by similar functional losses in other study sites (Mech 1998; Johnson et al. 2001; Blejwas et al. 2002; Treves et al. 2002; Athreya et al. 2004). Although Gallardo et al. (2009) estimated that puma population at SNP was around 10 individuals (~1 puma/100 km 2), retaliation hunting due to livestock depredation was common in the area (GG, JEJ, pers. obs.). There is no local abundance estimate for culpeo foxes, but we infer that their numbers may be lower than in other regions of their distribution, given the high probability of retaliation hunting by locals and the large home range size (35.9 km 2) of a radio-tracked female for ~1 year at SNP (Olarte et al. 2009). This was the second largest estimate for this species, only below the 896 km 2 home range reported by Jiménez et al. (2001) and much larger than the 13.9 km 2 maximum home range size reported for females in Fray Jorge Reserve (Salvatori et al. 1999), both in northern Chile. Therefore, SNP is under a scenario of intense conflict between carnivores and livestock, which is worrisome giving that this protected area harbors protected populations of two of the largest carnivores occurring in the highlands of South America. Consequently, a muchneeded contribution to managing the problem entails an analysis of environmental factors that may influence livestock attack. Specifically, in this study we assessed the relative contribution of socio-ecological variables influencing the probability of an attack at the ranch level within SNP. We predicted that the probability of a carnivore attack on a ranch would increase with a) higher livestock densities, b) lower abundance of wild prey, c) good habitat characteristics for carnivores, such as dense vegetation cover, and a rocky structure, and d) low vigilance by ranchers and their watchdogs. Likewise, we predicted that fewer attacks would be associated with e) smaller ranch areas and f) livestock foraging in areas closer to the nearest human settlement. To examine the relative importance of livestock deaths caused directly by carnivores, we also considered new information on other non-predation related factors affecting livestock mortality at the SNP.

Diagnóstico de los conflictos fauna silvestre gente en el valle seco interandino de Vilcabamba, Andes del sur de Ecuador.

“…Sin embargo de esto, a nivel regional existe un solo estudio que reporta a esta especie como causante de conflictos con los pobladores en Colombia (Parra-Colorado et al, 2014). En el caso de L. culpaeus, se ha reportado en varios estudios relacionados a conflictos humanos fauna silvestre en Argentina (González et al, 2012;Lucherini & Merino, 2008) en donde la especie es considerada como el principal depredador del ganado (Guntiñas et al, 2021) inclusive causando más daño que el puma (Llanos et al, 2019), también existen reportes de ataques al ganado y otras especies domésticas en Chile (Novaro et al, 2017;Zorondo-Rodríguez et al, 2020) y Bolivia (Gallardo et al, 2020). Mientras que para Ecuador hasta el momento no se cuenta con documentos publicados en medios científicos sobre la conflictividad existente con este cánido silvestre.…”

A Genetic Tool to Identify Predators Responsible for Livestock Attacks in South America and Recommendations for Human–Wildlife Conflict Mitigation

“…Other methods, such as night corrals, and the specific management of newborn and young individuals would be more effective for this species [34]. Nevertheless, to date, we have not found any study that has used saliva samples for the molecular identification of predators in South America, even though attacks on livestock are common throughout the continent [35][36][37][38][39][40][41].…”

Small-livestock farmers’ perceived effectiveness of predation control methods and the correlates of reported illegal poison use in the South African Karoo

“…Although diverse non-lethal methods have been developed and promoted (e.g., Tobajas et al 2019 ; Naha et al 2020 ), lethal control remains pervasive, mostly because of its perceived effectiveness in managing “problem” or “damage-causing” animals (Scasta et al 2017 ). Livestock predation is the major cause of negative interactions between people and carnivores worldwide (Torres et al 2018 ), due to its socio-economic (Gallardo et al 2020 ), psychological (Chowdhury and Jadhav 2012 ) and health impacts (Barua et al 2013 ) on individual farmers and rural communities. Predators are lethally removed from ecosystems in an effort to extirpate or to keep their populations within desired limits and with the goal of maintaining livestock-related activities (Woodroffe et al 2005 ).…”