Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses

IF 7.7 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Letters Pub Date : 2023-11-17 DOI:10.1111/conl.12994
Miroslav Kutal, Martin Duľa, Alisa Royer Selivanova, José Vicente López-Bao
{"title":"Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses","authors":"Miroslav Kutal,&nbsp;Martin Duľa,&nbsp;Alisa Royer Selivanova,&nbsp;José Vicente López-Bao","doi":"10.1111/conl.12994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Variation in the legal status and management of wolves (<i>Canis lupus</i>) across EU Member States provides a good opportunity to test the effectiveness of different practices to reduce livestock losses. This opportunity for testing is particularly useful for lethal interventions, as they are among the most controversial actions within the large carnivore management toolbox. We aimed to test a conservation compromise adopted in Slovakia, based on a public wolf-hunting scheme and annual hunting quotas between 2014 and 2019, and partially justified to reduce livestock losses. We assessed whether this hunting scheme influenced livestock depredation levels (at the district level). Wolves in the area fed mainly on wild ungulates (98.9% of consumed biomass). While domestic sheep comprised only 0.5% of the diet, they were dominant among the reported livestock killed by wolves (91.1%). Using two different approaches, we did not observe a relationship between the number of killed wolves and livestock losses. Alternatively, a negative relationship between wild prey biomass and livestock losses was found. Since 2021, public wolf hunting has not been conducted in Slovakia, and there is no merit in the previous justification for this conservation compromise to reduce livestock losses.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.12994","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12994","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Variation in the legal status and management of wolves (Canis lupus) across EU Member States provides a good opportunity to test the effectiveness of different practices to reduce livestock losses. This opportunity for testing is particularly useful for lethal interventions, as they are among the most controversial actions within the large carnivore management toolbox. We aimed to test a conservation compromise adopted in Slovakia, based on a public wolf-hunting scheme and annual hunting quotas between 2014 and 2019, and partially justified to reduce livestock losses. We assessed whether this hunting scheme influenced livestock depredation levels (at the district level). Wolves in the area fed mainly on wild ungulates (98.9% of consumed biomass). While domestic sheep comprised only 0.5% of the diet, they were dominant among the reported livestock killed by wolves (91.1%). Using two different approaches, we did not observe a relationship between the number of killed wolves and livestock losses. Alternatively, a negative relationship between wild prey biomass and livestock losses was found. Since 2021, public wolf hunting has not been conducted in Slovakia, and there is no merit in the previous justification for this conservation compromise to reduce livestock losses.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
检验保护妥协:没有证据表明斯洛伐克的公众猎狼减少了牲畜的损失
欧盟成员国对狼(Canis lupus)的法律地位和管理存在差异,这为检验减少牲畜损失的不同做法的有效性提供了一个很好的机会。这种测试的机会对致命干预特别有用,因为它们是大型食肉动物管理工具箱中最具争议的行动之一。我们旨在测试斯洛伐克采用的一项保护妥协方案,该方案基于一项公开猎狼计划和2014年至2019年的年度狩猎配额,并在一定程度上证明了减少牲畜损失的合理性。我们评估了这种狩猎计划是否影响牲畜的掠夺水平(在地区层面)。该地区的狼主要以野生有蹄类动物为食(占所消耗生物量的98.9%)。虽然家羊只占饲粮的0.5%,但它们在被狼杀死的牲畜中占主导地位(91.1%)。使用两种不同的方法,我们没有观察到狼被杀数量和牲畜损失之间的关系。另外,野生猎物生物量与牲畜损失呈负相关。自2021年以来,斯洛伐克没有公开猎狼,之前为减少牲畜损失而做出的这种保护妥协的理由是没有道理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Letters
Conservation Letters BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Conservation Letters is a reputable scientific journal that is devoted to the publication of both empirical and theoretical research that has important implications for the conservation of biological diversity. The journal warmly invites submissions from various disciplines within the biological and social sciences, with a particular interest in interdisciplinary work. The primary aim is to advance both pragmatic conservation objectives and scientific knowledge. Manuscripts are subject to a rapid communication schedule, therefore they should address current and relevant topics. Research articles should effectively communicate the significance of their findings in relation to conservation policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
High Fish Biomass and Low Nutrient Enrichment Synergistically Enhance Stability in a Seagrass Meta-Ecosystem How Do We Identify Anthropogenic Allee Effects in the Wildlife Trade? Hunting for Sustainability: Indigenous Stewardship in the Cofán Territory of Zábalo Collective PES Contracts Can Motivate Institutional Creation to Conserve Forests: Experimental Evidence First Evidence of Individual Sharks Involved in Multiple Predatory Bites on People
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1