Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 2887–2911 | Cite as

Mapping attack hotspots to mitigate human–carnivore conflict: approaches and applications of spatial predation risk modeling

Review Paper

Abstract

A major challenge in carnivore conservation worldwide is identifying priority human–carnivore conflict sites where mitigation efforts would be most effective. Spatial predation risk modeling recently emerged as a tool for predicting and mapping hotspots of livestock depredation using locations where carnivores attacked livestock in the past. This literature review evaluates the approaches and applications of spatial risk modeling for reducing human–carnivore conflict and presents a workflow to help conservation practitioners use this tool. Over the past decade 18 studies were published, most which examined canid and felid (10 and 8 studies on each group, respectively) depredation on cattle (14) and sheep (12). Studies employed correlation modeling, spatial association and/or spatial interpolation to identify high-risk landscape features, and many (but not all) validated models with independent data. The landscape features associated with carnivore attacks related to the species (carnivore and prey), environment, human infrastructure and management interventions. Risk maps from most studies (14) were used to help livestock owners and managers identify top-priority areas for implementing carnivore deterrents, with some efforts achieving >90 % reductions in attacks. Only one study affected policy, highlighting a gap where risk maps could be useful for more clearly communicating information to assist policymakers with large-scale decisions on conflict. Studies were used to develop a six-step workflow on integrating risk modeling into conservation. This review reveals a need for future predation risk modeling to focus more on validating models, accounting for feedbacks and impacting conflict-related policy in order to reliably improve the mitigation of human–carnivore conflict globally.

Keywords

Attack hazard Carnivore conservation Grazing management Livestock depredation Nonlethal carnivore control Predator–prey interactions 

Supplementary material

10531_2015_993_MOESM1_ESM.doc (358 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 358 kb)

References

  1. Abade L, Macdonald DW, Dickman AJ (2014) Assessing the relative importance of landscape and husbandry factors in determining large carnivore depredation risk in Tanzania’s Ruaha landscape. Biol Conserv 180:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwala M, Kumar S, Treves A, Naughton-Treves L (2010) Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biol Conserv 143:2945–2955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alessa LN, Kliskey AA, Brown G (2008) Social–ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space. Landsc Urban Plan 85:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atwood TC, Gese EM, Kunkel KE (2009) Spatial partitioning of predation risk in a multiple predator–multiple prey system. J Wildl Manag 73:876–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balme GA, Hunter LTB, Slotow R (2007) Feeding habitat selection by hunting leopards Panthera pardus in a woodland savanna: prey catchability versus abundance. Anim Behav 74:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baruch-Mordo S, Breck SW, Wilson KR, Theobald DM (2008) Spatiotemporal distribution of black bear–human conflicts in Colorado, USA. J Wildl Manag 72:1853–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baruch-Mordo S, Wilson KR, Lewis DL et al (2014) Stochasticity in natural forage production affects use of urban areas by black bears: implications to management of human–bear conflicts. PLoS One 9:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Behdarvand N, Kaboli M, Ahmadi M et al (2014) Spatial risk model and mitigation implications for wolf–human conflict in a highly modified agroecosystem in western Iran. Biol Conserv 177:156–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyce MS, Vernier P, Nielsen S, Schmiegelow F (2002) Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model 157:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breitenmoser U, Angst C, Landry J-M et al (2005) Non-lethal techniques for reducing depredation. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (eds) People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 49–71Google Scholar
  11. Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49–71Google Scholar
  12. Brown G, Raymond C (2007) The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl Geogr 27:89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown JS, Laundré JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bryssinckx W, Ducheyne E, Muhwezi B et al (2012) Improving the accuracy of livestock distribution estimates through spatial interpolation. Geospat Health 7:101–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bump JK, Tischler KB, Schrank AJ et al (2009) Large herbivores and aquatic-terrestrial links in southern boreal forests. J Anim Ecol 78:338–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapin FS III, Carpenter SR, Kofinas GP et al (2010) Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol Evol 25:241–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark JD, Dunn JE, Smith KG (1993) A multivariate model of female black bear habitat use for a geographic information system. J Wildl Manag 57:519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Creel S, Christianson D (2008) Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends Ecol Evol 23:194–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dale MR, Fortin M-J (2014) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Davie HS, Murdoch JD, Lhagvasuren A, Reading RP (2014) Measuring and mapping the influence of landscape factors on livestock predation by wolves in Mongolia. J Arid Environ 103:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeCesare NJ (2012) Separating spatial search and efficiency rates as components of predation risk. Proc R Soc B 279:4626–4633PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim Conserv 13:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dickman AJ, Macdonald EA, Macdonald DW (2011) A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:13937–13944PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Dormann CF, Schymanski SJ, Cabral J et al (2012) Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. J Biogeogr 39:2119–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Edge JL, Beyer DE, Belant JL et al (2011) Adapting a predictive spatial model for wolf Canis spp. predation on livestock in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan, USA. Wildl Biol 17:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. García-Rangel S, Pettorelli N (2013) Thinking spatially: the importance of geospatial techniques for carnivore conservation. Ecol Inform 14:84–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gervasi V, Nilsen EB, Odden J et al (2013) The spatio-temporal distribution of wild and domestic ungulates modulates lynx kill rates in a multi-use landscape. J Zool 292:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association. Geogr Anal 24:189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gorini L, Linnell JDC, May R et al (2012) Habitat heterogeneity and mammalian predator–prey interactions. Mamm Rev 42:55–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH, McDonald T (2005) Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection functions: an example in a wolf–elk predator–prey system. Oikos 111:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hopcraft JGC, Sinclair ARE, Packer C (2005) Planning for success: Serengeti lions seek prey accessibility rather than abundance. J Anim Ecol 74:559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howery LD, Deliberto TJ (2004) Indirect effects of carnivores on livestock foraging behavior and production. Sheep Goat Res J 19:53–57Google Scholar
  33. Inskip C, Zimmermann A (2009) Human–felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43:18–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inskip C, Ridout M, Fahad Z et al (2013) Human–tiger conflict in context: risks to lives and livelihoods in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Hum Ecol 41:169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH et al (2006) Resource selection functions based on use-availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J Wildl Manag 70:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaartinen S, Luoto M, Kojola I (2009) Carnivore–livestock conflicts: determinants of wolf (Canis lupus) depredation on sheep farms in Finland. Biodivers Conserv 18:3503–3517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karanth KK, Gopalaswamy AM, DeFries RS, Ballal N (2012) Assessing patterns of human–wildlife conflicts and compensation around a central Indian protected area. PLoS One 7:e50433PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Karanth KK, Gopalaswamy AM, Prasad PK, Dasgupta S (2013) Patterns of human–wildlife conflicts and compensation: insights from Western Ghats protected areas. Biol Conserv 166:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kissling WD, Fernández N, Paruelo JM (2009) Spatial risk assessment of livestock exposure to pumas in Patagonia, Argentina. Ecography 32:807–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kluever BM, Breck SW, Howery LD et al (2008) Vigilance in cattle: the influence of predation, social interactions, and environmental factors. Rangel Ecol Manag 61:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kluever BM, Howery LD, Breck SW, Bergman DL (2009) Predator and heterospecific stimuli alter behaviour in cattle. Behav Process 81:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laporte I, Muhly TB, Pitt JA et al (2010) Effects of wolves on elk and cattle behaviors: implications for livestock production and wolf conservation. PLoS One 5:e11954PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Laundré JW, Hernandez L, Ripple WJ (2010) The landscape of fear: ecological implications of being afraid. Open Ecol J 3:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lele SR, Merrill EH, Keim J, Boyce MS (2013) Selection, use, choice and occupancy: clarifying concepts in resource selection studies. J Anim Ecol 82:1183–1191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Letnic M, Ritchie EG, Dickman CR (2012) Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 87:390–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Li J, Heap AD (2011) A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences: performance and impact factors. Ecol Inform 6:228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lichtenfeld LL, Trout C, Kisimir EL (2014) Evidence-based conservation: predator-proof bomas protect livestock and lions. Biodivers Conserv 24:483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Manly BF, McDonald LL, Thomas DL (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical analysis and design for field studies, 2nd edn. Springer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  51. Marucco F, McIntire EJB (2010) Predicting spatio-temporal recolonization of large carnivore populations and livestock depredation risk: wolves in the Italian Alps. J Appl Ecol 47:789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McManus JS, Dickman AJ, Gaynor D et al (2014) Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms. Oryx 1–9. doi:10.1017/S0030605313001610
  53. Meena V, Macdonald DW, Montgomery RA (2014) Managing success: Asiatic lion conservation, interface problems and peoples’ perceptions in the Gir Protected Area. Biol Conserv 174:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller JRB, Jhala YV, Jena J, Schmitz OJ (2015) Landscape-scale accessibility of livestock to tigers: implications of spatial grain for modeling predation risk to mitigate human–carnivore conflict. Ecol Evol 5:1354–1367PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ogada MO, Woodroffe R, Oguge NO, Frank LG (2003) Limiting depredation by African carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Conserv Biol 17:1521–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pienaar EF, Telesco D, Barrett S (2015) Understanding people’s willingness to implement measures to manage human–bear conflict in Florida. J Wildl Manag 79:798–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rambaldi G, Kyem P, Mccall M, Weiner D (2006) Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 25:1–9Google Scholar
  58. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL et al (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ripple WJ, Newsome TM, Wolf C et al (2015) Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Sci Adv 1:e1400103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robinson TP, Franceschini G, Wint W (2007) The food and agriculture organization’s gridded livestock of the world. Vet Ital 43:745–751PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Schiess-Meier M, Ramsauer S, Gabanapelo T, König B (2007) Livestock predation—insights from problem animal control registers in Botswana. J Wildl Manag 71:1267–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmitz OJ, Beckerman AP, O’Brien KM (1997) Behaviorally mediated trophic cascades: effects of predation on food web interactions. Ecology 78:1388–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schmolke A, Thorbek P, DeAngelis DL, Grimm V (2010) Ecological models supporting environmental decision making: a strategy for the future. Trends Ecol Evol 25:479–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Shivik JA (2006) Tools for the edge: what’s new for conserving carnivores. Bioscience 56:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shrader AM, Brown JS, Kerley GIH, Kotler BP (2008) Do free-ranging domestic goats show “landscapes of fear”? Patch use in response to habitat features and predator cues. J Arid Environ 72:1811–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sih A (1984) The behavioral response race between predator and prey. Am Nat 123:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sinclair ARE (1991) Science and the practice of wildlife management. J Wildl Manag 55:767–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Soh YH, Carrasco LR, Miquelle DG et al (2014) Spatial correlates of livestock depredation by Amur tigers in Hunchun, China: relevance of prey density and implications for protected area management. Biol Conserv 169:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stahl P, Vandel JM, Herrenschmidt V, Migot P (2001) The effect of removing lynx in reducing attacks on sheep in the French Jura Mountains. Biol Conserv 101:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stankowich T, Blumstein DT (2005) Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proc Lond R Soc B 272:2627–2634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Suryawanshi KR, Bhatnagar YV, Redpath S, Mishra C (2013) People, predators and perceptions: patterns of livestock depredation by snow leopards and wolves. J Appl Ecol 50:550–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trainor AM, Schmitz OJ (2014) Infusing considerations of trophic dependencies into species distribution modelling. Ecol Lett 17:1507–1517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Treves A, Karanth KU (2003) Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv Biol 17:1491–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Treves A, Naughton-Treves L, Harper EK et al (2004) Predicting human–carnivore conflict: a spatial model derived from 25 years of data on wolf predation on livestock. Conserv Biol 18:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Treves A, Wallace RB, Morales A (2006) Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts: a review. Hum Dimens Wildl 11:383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Treves A, Martin KA, Wydeven AP, Wiedenhoeft JE (2011) Forecasting environmental hazards and the application of risk maps to predator attacks on livestock. Bioscience 61:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Willems EP, Hill RA (2009) Predator-specific landscapes of fear and resource distribution: effects on spatial range use. Ecology 90:546–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson SM, Madel MJ, Mattson DJ et al (2005) Natural landscape features, human-related attractants, and conflict hotspots: a spatial analysis of human-grizzly bear conflicts. Biol Conserv 16:117–129Google Scholar
  79. Wilson SM, Neudecker G, Jonkel J (2014) Human-grizzly bear coexistence in the Blackfoot River Watershed, Montana getting ahead of the conflict curve. In: Clark SG, Rutherford MC (eds) Large carnivore conservation: integrating science and policy in the North American West. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 177–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (2005) People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence?. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wydeven AP, Treves A, Brost B, Wiedenhoeft JE (2004) Characteristics of wolf packs in Wisconsin: identification of traits influencing depredation. In: Fascione N, Delach A, Smith M (eds) People and predators: from conflict to coexistence. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 28–50Google Scholar
  82. Zarco-González MM, Monroy-Vilchis O, Alaníz J (2013) Spatial model of livestock predation by jaguar and puma in Mexico: conservation planning. Biol Conserv 159:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yale School of Forestry & Environmental StudiesNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Wildlife Institute of IndiaDehra DunIndia

Personalised recommendations