The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests

Ohrens, Omar; Santiago‐Ávila, Francisco J.; Treves, Adrian

doi:10.1017/9781108235730.015

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Controlled experiments are needed to draw strong inference about functional effectiveness and will thereby help to prevent the implementation of ineffective but popular interventions, which often lead to wasted resources and harm to animals, both wild and domestic. Rigorous experiments using random assignments as well as methods that avoid bias in sampling, treatments, measurements, and reporting (hereafter referred to as "gold-standard" experiments) (Platt 1964;Ioannidis 2005) are required, given widespread promotion of methods based on perceived effectiveness, small sample sizes, or flawed research designs (van Eeden et al 2018;Ohrens et al 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐lethal defense of livestock against predators: flashing lights deter puma attacks in Chile

Ohrens

Bonacic

Treves

2019

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic mortality among populations of large terrestrial carnivores undermines the health of ecosystems globally, and generally increases when people respond lethally to real or perceived threats to property, including livestock. Reducing such threats through the use of non‐lethal methods could therefore protect both large predators and human interests. However, the scarcity of information on the effectiveness of methods to prevent livestock predation hinders the formulation of science‐based policy. We present the results of a randomized crossover experimental test of a method to prevent predation on livestock, which to our knowledge is the first such test in Latin America. By relying on a so‐called “gold‐standard” design, we evaluated the effectiveness of using flashing lights to deter predators. We found that light deterrents discouraged pumas (Puma concolor) but not Andean foxes (Lycalopex culpaeus) from preying on alpacas (Vicugna pacos) and llamas (Lama glama), and demonstrated that gold‐standard experiments are feasible in large natural ecosystems, contradicting assumptions that people will reject placebo controls and that such systems contain too many confounding variables. Functionally effective non‐lethal methods can protect wildlife, livestock, and people. Strong inference is needed for the development of sound policy concerning wildlife management, livestock husbandry, environmental conservation, and biodiversity.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐lethal defense of livestock against predators: flashing lights deter puma attacks in Chile

Ohrens

Bonacic

Treves

2019

Frontiers in Ecol & Environ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 1240, De Bracton wisely stated: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Several approaches can be used to address human–carnivore conflicts, including the following: fully engaging key stakeholders; testing and adapting predation reduction methods and social conflict mitigation strategies; and working closely with the affected local communities (Zarco‐González et al 2018, Ohrens et al 2019a). Several recent reviews concurred in concluding that there are wide gaps in the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of techniques to reduce livestock depredation (Eklund et al 2017, van Eeden et al 2018b, Treves et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, successful mitigation techniques have to be tailored to the local scenarios, and the livestock owner’s budget, available time, and predisposition must be considered. Given the potential variety of scenarios where puma–livestock conflicts can occur, this felid’s ecological flexibility, and the available information, we conclude that scientists and managers wishing to address conflict need to work along with livestock producers to consider a diverse array of strategies which account for both the ecological and human dimensions (Hulet et al 1987, Ohrens et al 2019a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an attempt to reduce depredation losses, people apply lethal and/or non‐lethal methods (van Eeden et al 2018a, b). Generally, non‐lethal methods are more effective than lethal methods in preventing carnivore predation of livestock (Treves et al 2016), and it is important to address local cultural values and environmental conditions in order to achieve long‐term coexistence between farmers and large carnivores (van Eeden et al 2018a, b, Ohrens et al 2019a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Puma–livestock conflicts in the Americas: a review of the evidence

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loss of livestock is one of the greatest sources of conflict between humans and large felids worldwide. The puma Puma concolor is the most widespread apex predator in the Americas, and conflicts between this felid and humans are common throughout its geographical range. In response to predation on livestock, humans persecute and hunt pumas. We identified the main environmental and anthropogenic variables that define puma–livestock conflict areas in the Americas as 12 conflict predictor variables, and explored the techniques proposed to mitigate conflicts between the puma and livestock producers. We conducted a systematic search and subsequent review of the scientific literature and found 92 publications on puma–livestock conflicts. Through single‐variable analyses and generalised linear models (GLM), we identified which of the 12 conflict predictors were most predictive of the occurrence of predation. The single‐variable analyses showed that high livestock density (goat, sheep, and cattle), low latitudes, low habitat steepness, low co‐predator richness, high distance to habitat (shrub), and high distance to roads characterised areas with conflict. The binomial GLM indicated that areas with conflicts were primarily located in the temperate southern hemisphere and characterised by densities of livestock. The most frequently cited conflict mitigation techniques were ‘improving livestock management’, ‘predator control’, and the ‘use of fencing’. Although our knowledge about the puma and its relationships with human communities has improved, there are wide geographical gaps, and many facets of puma–livestock conflicts are still little understood. Scientists should work with local stakeholders to generate reliable information regarding the ecological and societal consequences of puma–livestock conflicts, and to develop conflict mitigation techniques that could facilitate the coexistence of pumas and humans.

show abstract

“…To test our hypotheses relating to the human system and the predator system, we recommend measures of predators, domestic animals, and of humans. We recommend social scientific surveys of human subjects to measure attitudes toward predators, toward the methods being employed, to government verifiers if appropriate; and measures of intentions to poach and to adopt predator control methods after the experiment ends, i.e., all variables of perceived effectiveness (Ohrens et al, 2019b). Ideally, outcomes would be measured for a year or more afterwards ( Table 1).…”

Section: An Example Of Platinum-standard Experimental Design For Predmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predator Control Needs a Standard of Unbiased Randomized Experiments With Cross-Over Design

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid, global changes, such as extinction and climate change, put a premium on evidence-based, environmental policies and interventions, including predator control efforts. Lack of solid scientific evidence precludes strong inference about responses of predators, people, and prey of both, to various types of predator control. Here we formulate two opposing hypotheses with possible underlying mechanisms and propose experiments to test four pairs of opposed predictions about responses of predators, domestic animals, and people in a coupled, dynamic system. We outline the design of a platinum-standard experiment, namely randomized, controlled experiment with cross-over design and multiple steps to blind measurement, analysis, and peer review to avoid pervasive biases. The gold-standard has been proven feasible in field experiments with predators and livestock, so we call for replicating that across the world on different methods of predator control, in addition to striving for an even higher standard that can improve reproducibility and reliability of the science of predator control.

show abstract

The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests

Cited by 15 publications

References 60 publications

Non‐lethal defense of livestock against predators: flashing lights deter puma attacks in Chile

Non‐lethal defense of livestock against predators: flashing lights deter puma attacks in Chile

Puma–livestock conflicts in the Americas: a review of the evidence

Predator Control Needs a Standard of Unbiased Randomized Experiments With Cross-Over Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About