Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing trends in wolf impact on livestock through verified claims in historical vs. recent areas of occurrence in Italy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Wildlife Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As wolves in Europe are expanding in range, their impact on economic activities through predation on livestock is increasing. In this context, the effectiveness of damage compensation programs is being debated and requires adequate assessment. With this aim, we performed a survey of wolf depredation on livestock in Italy during the years 2010 − 2014, comparing regions of historical and more recent wolf occurrence. We collected data on livestock depredations, prevalent husbandry practices and the main features of compensation schemes. We investigated the effect of several ecological and management-related variables on the extent of wolf impact. On average, 3274 (± 195.2 SD) wolf depredation events were compensated across Italy each year, comprising 7809 (± 1278.9 SD) livestock heads, and corresponding to € 1,450,814 (± € 184,762 SD) annual compensation costs. Regions recently recolonized by wolves reported lower and decreasing levels of impact compared to those with historical wolf presence. Half of all depredations occurred in 121 municipalities (9.7% of the total), which emerged as hotspots of impact and economic cost for the system. The proportion of farms with chronically recurring damage increased by 80% in the southern Apennines, where wolves never disappeared, whereas it declined by 100% in the Alps, due to effective prevention measures implemented following wolf recolonization in the mid-1990s. Long-term human-wolf coexistence does not necessarily correspond to lower damage levels and effective conflict management, casting doubts on the effectiveness and sustainability of compensation programs, if applied without reference to a context of adaptive management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Banti P, Bartolozzi L, Cavallini P (2005) The management of wolf in Tuscany-Italy. In: Ciucci P, Teofili C, Boitani L (eds.) Grandi carnivori e zootecnia tra conflitto e coesistenza. Biol Cons Fauna 115:98–101 (in Italian)

  • Bautista C, Revilla E, Naves J, Albrecht J, Fernández N, Olszańska A, Adamec M, Berezowska-Cnota T, Ciucci P, Groff C, Härkönen S, Huber D, Jerina K, Jonozovič M, Karamanlidis AA, Palazón S, Quenette PY, Rigg R, Seijas J, Swenson JE, Talvi T, Selva N (2019) Large carnivore damage in Europe: analysis of compensation and prevention programs. Biol Conserv 235:308–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boitani L, Ciucci P, Raganella-Pelliccioni E (2010) Ex-post compensation payments for wolf predation on livestock in Italy: a tool for conservation? Wildl Res 37:722–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boitani L, Fabbri ML (1983) Censimento dei cani in Italia con particolare riguardo al fenomeno del randagismo. Ric Biol Selv 73 (in Italian)

  • Brunagel M, Menez V, Mottet A, Chotteau P (2008) The future of the sheep and goat sector in Europe. European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium, p 109

  • Caniglia R, Fabbri E, Galaverni M, Milanesi P, Randi E (2014) Noninvasive sampling and genetic variability, pack structure, and dynamics in an expanding wolf population. J Mammal 95:41–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter NH, Linnell JDC (2016) Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol Evol 31:575–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapron G, Kaczensky P, Linnell JDC et al (2014) Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517–1519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ciucci P, Boitani L (2005) Conflitto tra lupo e zootecnia in italia: stato delle conoscenze, ricerca e conservazione. In: Ciucci P, Teofili C, Boitani L (eds.) Grandi carnivori e zootecnia tra conflitto e coesistenza. Biologia e Conservazione della Fauna 115:26–51

  • Ciucci P, Boitani L (1998) Il Lupo. Elementi di biologia, gestione e ricerca. Istituto Nazionale della Fauna Selvatica “Alessandro Ghigi”, Documenti Tecnici n. 23

  • Cozzi G (2007) Present situation and future challenges of beef cattle production in Italy and the role of the research. Ital J Anim Sci 6:389–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dressel S, Sandstrom C, Ericsson G (2014) A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. Conserv Biol 29:565–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espuno N, Lequette B, Poulle ML, Migot P, Lebreton JD (2004) Heterogeneous response to preventive sheep husbandry during wolf recolonization of the French Alps. Wildl Soc Bull 32:1195–1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabbri E, Miquel C, Lucchini V, Santini A, Caniglia R, Duchamp C, Weber JM, Lequette B, Marucco F, Boitani L, Fumagalli L, Taberlet P, Randi E (2007) From the Apennines to the Alps: colonization genetics of the naturally expanding Italian wolf (Canis lupus) population. Mol Ecol 16:1661–1671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fourli M (1999) Compensation for damage caused by bears and wolves in the European Union. Experiences from LIFE-Nature projects. Report to Directorate General XI of the European Commission, Bruxelles, Belgium

  • Galaverni M, Caniglia R, Fabbri E, Milanesi P, Randi E (2016) One, no one, or one thousand: how many wolves are there currently in Italy? Mamm Res 61:13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galluzzi A, Donfrancesco V, Mastrantonio G, Sulli C, Ciucci P (2021) Cost of coexisting with a relict large carnivore population: impact of Apennine brown bears, 2005–2015. Animals 11:1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gervasi V, Linnell JDC, Berce T et al (in press) Ecological drivers of large carnivore impact on sheep in Europe. Glob Ecol Conserv

  • Glikman JA, Vaske JJ, Bath AJ, Ciucci P, Boitani L (2011) Residents’ support for wolf and bear conservation: the moderating influence of knowledge. Eur J Wildl Res 58:295–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grente O, Saubusse T, Gimenez O, Marboutin E, Duchamp C (2021) Wolf depredation hotspots in France: clustering analyses accounting for livestock availability (in press)

  • Gusset M, Maddock AH, Gunther GJ, Szykman M, Slotow R, Walters M, Somers MJ (2008) Conflicting human interests over the re-introduction of endangered wild dogs in South Africa. Biodivers Conserv 17:83–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindrikson M, Remm J, Pilot M, Godinho R, Stronen AV, Baltrūnaité L, Saarma U (2017) Wolf population genetics in Europe: a systematic review, meta-analysis and suggestions for conservation and management. Biol Rev 92:1601–1629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter L (2011) Carnivores of the world. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • ISTAT (2017) Conti economici territoriali, anno 2017. p 1–29 (in Italian)

  • Kaczensky P, Chapron G, Von Arx M (2012) Status, management and distribution of large carnivores (bear, lynx, wolf and wolverine) in Europe. Report to the European Commission

  • Karanth KK, Gupta S, Vanamamalai A (2018) Compensation payments, procedures and policies towards human-wildlife conflict management: insights from India. Biol Conserv 227:383–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llaneza L, López-Bao JV, Sazatornil V (2012) Insights into wolf presence in human-dominated landscapes: the relative role of food availability, humans and landscape attributes. Divers Distrib 18:459–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnell JDC (2013) From conflict to coexistence: insights from multi-disciplinary research into the relationships between people, large carnivores and institutions. Report for the European Commission – Task 4, Report to the European Commission, p 56

  • Linnell JDC, Boitani L (2012) Building biological realism into wolf management policy: the development of the population approach in Europe. Hystrix 23:80–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnell JDC, Cretois B (2020) The challenges and opportunities of coexisting with wild ungulates in the human-dominated landscapes of Europe’s Anthropocene. Biol Conserv 244:108500

  • Lovari S, Sforzi A, Scala C, Fico R (2007) Mortality parameters of the wolf in Italy: does the wolf keep himself from the door? J Zool 272:117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marino A, Braschi C, Ricci S, Salvatori V, Ciucci P (2016) Ex post and insurance-based compensation fail to increase tolerance for wolves in semi-agricultural landscapes of central Italy. Eur J Wildl Res 62:227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marucco F, Boitani L (2011) Wolf population monitoring and livestock depredation preventive measures in Europe. Hystrix 23:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Marucco F, Pletscher DH, Boitani L, Schwartz MK, Pilgrim KL, Lebreton JD (2009) Wolf survival and population trend using non-invasive capture-recapture techniques in the Western Alps. J Appl Ecol 46:1003–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menzano A, Sigaudo D, Martinelli L, Colombo M, Dalmasso S, Contarino M, Caballo C, Marucco F (2018) Ad hoc pastures management plans implementation in the Western alpine core areas and new preventive techniques for cow depredations. Technical Report, LIFE Project 12 NAT/IT/000807 WOLFALPS

  • Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyhus P, Osofsky S, Ferraro PJ, Madden F, Fischer H (2005) Bearing the costs of human–wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (eds) People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Pellikka J, Sandström C (2011) The role of large carnivore committees in legitimising large carnivore management in Finland and Sweden. Environ Manage 48:212–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piédallu B, Quenette PY, Mounet C, Lescureux N, Borelli-Massines M, Dubarry E, Camarra JJ, Gimenez O (2016) Spatial variation in public attitudes towards brown bears in the French Pyrenees. Biol Conserv 197:90–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer M (2003) JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. R Found. Stat Comput. Vienna, Austria

  • Ravenelle J, Nyhus PJ (2017) Global patterns and trends in human-wildlife conflict compensation. Conserv Biol 31:1247–1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SJ, Young AE, Adams W, Sutherland W, Whitehouse A, Amar A, Lambert R, Linnell J, Watt A, Gutiérrez R (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:100–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Røskaft E, Händel B, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP (2007) Human attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildlife Biol 13:172–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvatori V, Donfrancesco V, Trouwborst A, Boitani L, Linnell JDC, Alvares F, Åkesson M, Balys V, Blanco JC, Chiriac S (2020) European agreements for nature conservation need to explicitly address wolf-dog hybridisation. Biol Conserv 248:108525

  • Salvatori V, Mertens A (2012) Damage prevention methods in Europe: experiences from LIFE Nature projects. Hystrix 23:73–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandström C, Pellikka J, Ratamäki O, Sande A (2009) Management of large carnivores in fennoscandia: new patterns of regional participation. Hum Dimens Wildl 14:37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwerdtner K, Gruber B (2007) A conceptual framework for damage compensation schemes. Biol Conserv 134:354–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scown MW, Brady MV, Nichols KA (2020) Billions in misspent EU agricultural subsidies could support the sustainable development goals. One Earth 3:237–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swenson JE, Andrén H (2005) A tale of two countries: large carnivore depredations and compensation schemes in Sweden and Norway. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (eds) People and Wildlife: Conflict or Co-Existence? Cambridge University Press, pp 323–339

  • Windman M, Elofsson K (2018) Costs of livestock depredation by large carnivores in Sweden 2001 to 2013. Ecol Econ 143:188–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimen E, Boitani L (1975) Number and distribution of wolves in Italy. Zeitchrift Für Säugetierkunde 40:102–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu J, Zheng Y, Carroll AL, Aukema BH (2008) Autologistic regression analysis of spatial-temporal binary data via Monte Carlo maximum likelihood. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 13:84–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all local authorities (provinces, national and regional parks) for their collaboration in data gathering, and specifically to Francesca De Cristo, Claudia De Rosa, Arianna Menzano and Luisa Vielmi for compiling the local datasets into a single homogeneous database. Agnese Marino provided useful comments and insights on a previous draft of the manuscript and revised the English style.

Funding

Funding for our work was provided by the Unione Zoologica Italiana (UZI), through a convention with the Italian Ministry of the Environment, which covered data collection. V. Gervasi was supported by a fellowship from the Italian Institute of Applied Ecology (IEA) during the data analysis period.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto Di Ecologia Applicata, via B. Eustachio 10, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Vincenzo Gervasi, Valeria Salvatori & Gianluca Catullo

  2. Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, University of Rome, La Sapienza, Viale dell’Università 32, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Paolo Ciucci

Authors
  1. Vincenzo Gervasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valeria Salvatori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gianluca Catullo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paolo Ciucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincenzo Gervasi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1 Summary of the main characteristics and performances of the different compensation schemes adopted in Italy for wolf/dog predation on livestock

Appendix 1 Summary of the main characteristics and performances of the different compensation schemes adopted in Italy for wolf/dog predation on livestock

Region/province

Predator compensated

Criteria for predator identification a

Max N. days to report predation

Max. N. days for field inspection

Compensation cap (De minimis)

% of market price compensated

Mean N. days from reporting to payment

Conditionality to protection measures b

Abruzzo

Wolf and dog

0

N.A

N.A

No

100

N.A

0

Basilicata

Wolf and dog

0

1

24

No

80

60

4

Calabria

No compensation for damage to livestock

Campania

Wolf

2

30

30

No

100

310

0

Emilia Romagna

Wolf and dog

0

1

N.A

No

100

120

3

Friuli Venezia Giulia

Wolf

1

30

3

No

100

30

5

Lazio

Wolf and dog

0

5

30

Yes

80–100

N.A

2

Liguria

Wolf and dog

0

1

N.A

Yes

100

350

3

Lombardia

Wolf

2

N.A

N.A

No

100

60

0

Marche

Wolf and dog

0

1

2

Yes

80

132

3

Molise

Wolf and dog

0

2

2

No

100

N.A

0

Piemonte

Wolf and dog

0

7

N.A

Yes

50–100

300

4

Puglia

Wolf

0

2

2

Yes

90

90

3

Toscana

Wolf and dog

0

N.A

10

Yes

100

364

3

P.A. Trento

Wolf

1

1

1

No

100

90

0

P. A. Bolzano

Wolf

0

60

N.A

No

80

N.A

0

Umbria

Wolf and dog

0

2

N.A

No

150

150

3

Valle d’Aosta

Wolf and dog

0

1

N.A

Yes

100

140

N.A

Veneto

Wolf

0

2

10

Yes

100

N.A

N.A

  1. a0 = no explicit criterion for predator identification; 1 = reliable criteria; 2 = unreliable criteria
  2. bThe range 0–5 goes from 0 = no conditionality of compensation to the use of protection measures to 5 = strict conditionality to the use of protection measures

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gervasi, V., Salvatori, V., Catullo, G. et al. Assessing trends in wolf impact on livestock through verified claims in historical vs. recent areas of occurrence in Italy. Eur J Wildl Res 67, 82 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-021-01522-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-021-01522-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation