Population Ecology

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 385–393 | Cite as

Managing boldness of wildlife: an ethological approach to reducing crop damage

Original article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Wildlife can cause serious crop damages, and factorial analyses focusing ecological aspects have been conducted to resolve this problem. However, ethological perspectives should also be considered. Individuals often show consistent biases in behaviour—so-called personality; e.g., boldness may cause to intrude into a farmland. Here, we hypothesized that boldness–shyness traits in wildlife could be managed through selective harvesting on the base of personality traits. We considered several scenarios involving the selective harvesting and fencing as means to prevent crop damage, and assessed their effects on the average boldness and population size using simulation models, assuming that bold individuals tend to enter farmlands, while shy ones prefer to stay in forests. The results showed that fencing and selective harvesting in farmlands reduced both the average boldness and crop damages, while harvesting in forests caused the increase of the both. Those results came from the selective harvesting and fencing on the base of personality traits, and indicate that not only population ecology but also an ethological approach is needed for wildlife management.

Keywords

Boldness–shyness Fence Selective harvesting Simulation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Travis Carlton Tewes and Hiromi Tewes for their help in reviewing the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10144_2016_546_MOESM1_ESM.txt (11 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (TXT 11 kb)

References

  1. Allendorf FW, Hard JJ (2009) Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals. PNAS 106:9987–9994CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrzejewski R, Jezierski W (1978) Management of a wild boar population and its effects on commercial land. Acta Theriol 23:309–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmüller R (2010) Animal personality and behavioural syndromes. In: Kappeler P (ed) Animal behaviour: evolution and mechanisms. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 587–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bieber C, Ruf T (2005) Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa: ecology, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management of pulsed resource consumers. J Appl Ecol 42:1203–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleier N, Lehoczki R, Újváry D, Szemethy L, Csányi S (2012) Relationships between wild ungulates density and crop damage in Hungary. Acta Theriol 57:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conover MR (2002) Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage management. Lewis Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuller RJ, Gill RMA (2001) Ecological impacts of increasing numbers of deer in British woodland. Forestry 74:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SK, Huse G, Huth A, Jepsen JU, Jørgensen C, Mooij WM, Muller B, Pe’er G, Piou C, Railsback SF, Robbins AM, Robbins MM, Rossmanith E, Rüger N, Strand E, Souissi S, Stillman RA, Vabø R, Visser U, DeAngelis DL (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grimm V, Berger U, DeAngelis DL, Polhill JG, Giske J, Railsback SF (2010) The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Model 221:2760–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hazumi T (1999) Status and management of the Asiatic black bear in Japan. In: Servheen C, Herrero H, Peyton B, The IUCN/SSC Bear and Polar Bear Specialist Groups (eds) Bears: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland, pp 207–211Google Scholar
  11. Honda T (2009) Environmental factors affecting the distribution of the wild boar, sika deer, Asiatic black bear and Japanese macaque in central Japan, with implications for human-wildlife conflict. Mamm Study 34:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Honda T, Hayashi Y, Sato Y (2008) Habitat selection of wild boar (Sus scrofa) captured near the forest edge. Mamm Sci 48:11–16 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  13. Honda T, Miyagawa Y, Ueda H, Inoue M (2009) Effectiveness of newly-designed electric fences in reducing crop damage by medium and large mammals. Mamm Study 34:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Honda T, Kuwata H, Yamasaki S, Miyagawa Y (2010) A low-cost, low-labor-intensity electric fence effective against wild boar, sika deer, Japanese macaque and medium-sized mammals. Mamm Study 36:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Honda T, Miyagawa Y, Kuwata H, Yamasaki S, Iijima H (2014) Behavioral traits of damage-causing sika deer: open land preference. Mamm Study 39:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Izumiyama S, Mochizuki T, Shiraishi T (2003) Troop size, home range area and seasonal range use of the Japanese macaque in the Northern Japan Alps. Ecol Res 18:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keuling O, Stier N, Roth M (2009) Commuting, shifting or remaining? Different spatial utilisation patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in forest and field crops during summer. Mamm Biol 74:145–152Google Scholar
  18. Kilpatrick HJ, Labonte AM, Barclay JS (2007) Acceptance of deer management strategies by suburban homeowners and bowhunters. J Wildl Manag 71:2095–2101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mazzoni della Stella R, Calovi F, Burrini L (1995) The wild boar management in a province of the central Italy. J Mount Ecol 3:213–216Google Scholar
  20. Mizukami RN, Goto M, Izumiyama S, Hayashi H, Yoh M (2005) Estimation of feeding history by measuring carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios in hair of Asiatic black bears. Ursus 16:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oers K, Drent PJ, Goede P, Nooordwijk AJ (2004) Realized heritability and repeatability of risk-taking behaviour in relation to avian personalities. Behav Genet 34:611–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ohta U, Jusup M, Mano T, Tsuruga H, Matsuda H (2012) Adaptive management of the brown bear population in Hokkaido, Japan. Ecol Model 242:20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 19 March 2012
  24. Reale D, Reader SM, Sol D, McDougall PT, Dingemanse NJ (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol Rev 82:291–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rooney TP (2001) Deer impacts on forest ecosystems: a North American perspective. Forestry 74:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saeki M (2009) Nyctereutes procyonoides (Grey, 1834). In: Ohdachi SD, Ishibashi Y, Iwasa MA, Saitoh T (eds) The wild mammals of Japan. Shokado, Kyoto, pp 216–217Google Scholar
  27. Sih A, Cote J, Evans M, Fogarty S, Pruitt J (2012) Ecological implications of behavioral syndromes. Ecol Lett 15:278–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yamanashi Prefecture Agricultural Research CenterKaiJapan
  2. 2.Yamanashi Forest Research InstituteFujikawaJapan

Personalised recommendations