Distance-related human–wildlife conflict presents a serious challenge in parks and protected areas across the world. Finding ways to alleviate distance-related human– wildlife conflict is hampered by both the difficulty of studying human–wildlife interactions in the field as well as the dearth of existing methodological tools. The purpose of this study is to investigate factors of group size, distance from bison (Bison bison), and use of wildlife viewing equipment on visitor proximity preferences in Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, USA). Researchers collected data via intercept-surveys during summer 2015. The data were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA to explore how these factors influenced acceptability ratings of distances between people and bison. Results indicate that people who always used a smartphone camera felt it was more acceptable to stand closer to bison than people who never used a smartphone camera. The discussion offers several practical applications for reducing human–bison conflicts as well as directions for future research.
{"title":"Visual-Based Social Norms, Distance-Related Human–Wildlife Interactions, and Viewing Devices in Parks and Protected Areas","authors":"Stephanie Freeman, Z. Miller, B. D. Taff","doi":"10.26077/M3D3-PY21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/M3D3-PY21","url":null,"abstract":"Distance-related human–wildlife conflict presents a serious challenge in parks and protected areas across the world. Finding ways to alleviate distance-related human– wildlife conflict is hampered by both the difficulty of studying human–wildlife interactions in the field as well as the dearth of existing methodological tools. The purpose of this study is to investigate factors of group size, distance from bison (Bison bison), and use of wildlife viewing equipment on visitor proximity preferences in Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, USA). Researchers collected data via intercept-surveys during summer 2015. The data were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA to explore how these factors influenced acceptability ratings of distances between people and bison. Results indicate that people who always used a smartphone camera felt it was more acceptable to stand closer to bison than people who never used a smartphone camera. The discussion offers several practical applications for reducing human–bison conflicts as well as directions for future research.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"21 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90713141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Glasscock, T. Whitney, D. Hewitt, S. Cooper, F. Bryant, Christina M Toenjes
: Supplemental feeding of cervid species such as white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ; deer) is now a common management practice in the United States. Supplemental feeding can be costly and more expensive when supplements are consumed by non-target species such as wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ; pigs). From May 13 to June 17, 2015, we evaluated the effects of using ground blueberry juniper ( Juniperus ashei) or cottonseed ( Gossypium spp.) hulls as a roughage ingredient in a supplemental deer pellet to deter pig consumption at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Center in San Angelo, Texas, USA. We analyzed dry matter intake, growth performance, in vitro digestibility and fermentation, and blood serum chemistry of pigs using a 2 × 2 factorial study design that included 3 feeding periods. Pigs were assigned to 1 of 4 supplement diets ( n = 5 pigs/supplement) or to a commercially available swine diet (BASAL; n = 4 pigs). Animals assigned to supplement diets were also offered BASAL based on percentage of body weight (BW) during each period. Supplement diets differed by roughage source and percentage of roughage: cottonseed hulls 20%, cottonseed hulls 40%, blueberry juniper 20%, or blueberry juniper 40%. During each period, the amount of supplement and BASAL diet offered to animals assigned to a supplement was fed as a percentage of BW; period 1 (day 0 to 17) = 5% supplement diet and 5% BASAL diet, period 2 (day 18 to 26) = 5% supplement diet and 2% BASAL diet, period 3 (day 27 to 34) = 5% supplement diet and 5% BASAL diet. Animals assigned to only BASAL were offered the same amount of feed as a percent of BW as supplement animals during each period. We observed a roughage × period interaction ( P = 0.03) for supplement dry matter intake g/day and a roughage × period interaction ( P < 0.09) for total dry matter intake as a percentage of BW. No differences were observed within period. No other variables had percent roughage x period differences. Ground blueberry juniper was indigestible by pigs; the in vitro digestibility of dry matter and gross energy was <1%. Greater blood serum alanine aminotransferase ( P = 0.07) in pigs consuming experimental supplement diets suggested the possibility of liver damage. Our findings suggest that there does not appear to be a benefit of using ground juniper as a roughage source to reduce consumption of supplemental deer feed by pigs.
{"title":"Intake of Supplemental Deer Pellets Containing Ground Blueberry Juniper by Wild Pigs","authors":"J. Glasscock, T. Whitney, D. Hewitt, S. Cooper, F. Bryant, Christina M Toenjes","doi":"10.26077/8C72-9755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/8C72-9755","url":null,"abstract":": Supplemental feeding of cervid species such as white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ; deer) is now a common management practice in the United States. Supplemental feeding can be costly and more expensive when supplements are consumed by non-target species such as wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ; pigs). From May 13 to June 17, 2015, we evaluated the effects of using ground blueberry juniper ( Juniperus ashei) or cottonseed ( Gossypium spp.) hulls as a roughage ingredient in a supplemental deer pellet to deter pig consumption at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Center in San Angelo, Texas, USA. We analyzed dry matter intake, growth performance, in vitro digestibility and fermentation, and blood serum chemistry of pigs using a 2 × 2 factorial study design that included 3 feeding periods. Pigs were assigned to 1 of 4 supplement diets ( n = 5 pigs/supplement) or to a commercially available swine diet (BASAL; n = 4 pigs). Animals assigned to supplement diets were also offered BASAL based on percentage of body weight (BW) during each period. Supplement diets differed by roughage source and percentage of roughage: cottonseed hulls 20%, cottonseed hulls 40%, blueberry juniper 20%, or blueberry juniper 40%. During each period, the amount of supplement and BASAL diet offered to animals assigned to a supplement was fed as a percentage of BW; period 1 (day 0 to 17) = 5% supplement diet and 5% BASAL diet, period 2 (day 18 to 26) = 5% supplement diet and 2% BASAL diet, period 3 (day 27 to 34) = 5% supplement diet and 5% BASAL diet. Animals assigned to only BASAL were offered the same amount of feed as a percent of BW as supplement animals during each period. We observed a roughage × period interaction ( P = 0.03) for supplement dry matter intake g/day and a roughage × period interaction ( P < 0.09) for total dry matter intake as a percentage of BW. No differences were observed within period. No other variables had percent roughage x period differences. Ground blueberry juniper was indigestible by pigs; the in vitro digestibility of dry matter and gross energy was <1%. Greater blood serum alanine aminotransferase ( P = 0.07) in pigs consuming experimental supplement diets suggested the possibility of liver damage. Our findings suggest that there does not appear to be a benefit of using ground juniper as a roughage source to reduce consumption of supplemental deer feed by pigs.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"22 1","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78796432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Propper, L. Hardy, Brittni D. Howard, R. Flor, G. Singleton
Rice (Oryza sativa) agriculture provides food and economic security for nearly half of the world’s population. Rice agriculture is intensive in both land and agrochemical use. However, rice fields also provide aquatic resources for wildlife, including amphibians. In turn, some species may provide ecosystem services back to the farmers working in the rice agroecosystem. The foundation for understanding the complexity of agroecosystem–human relationships requires garnering information regarding human perceptions and knowledge of the role of biodiversity in these rice agroecosystems. Understanding farmer knowledge and perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by wildlife in their fields, along with their understanding of the risks to wildlife associated with agrochemical exposure, can inform biodiversity preservation efforts. In June and July 2014, we used focus groups and structured and semi-structured interviews that engaged 22 individuals involved in rice agriculture operations in Laguna, Philippines, a village close to the International Rice Research Institute in Los Baños, Philippines, to learn more about farmer perceptions and knowledge of amphibians in their rice fields. We found that many, though not all farm workers (managers, tenants, and laborers) noted declines in amphibian populations over time, expressed how they incorporated frogs and toads (Anura) into their daily lives, and recognized the value of amphibians as ecosystem service providers. Specifically, farmers noted that amphibians provide pest-management through consumption of rice pests, act as biomonitors for pesticiderelated health outcomes, and provide a local food and economic resource. Some farmers and farm workers noted the general cultural value of listening to the “frogs sing when it rains.” Overall, our findings demonstrate that farmers have an understanding of the value of amphibians in their fields. Future efforts can support how engagement with farmers and farm workers to evaluate the value of wildlife in their fields can lead to directed education efforts to support biodiversity conservation in agroecosystems.
{"title":"Role of farmer knowledge in agro-ecosystem science: Rice farming and amphibians in the Philippines","authors":"C. Propper, L. Hardy, Brittni D. Howard, R. Flor, G. Singleton","doi":"10.26077/7C28-0418","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/7C28-0418","url":null,"abstract":"Rice (Oryza sativa) agriculture provides food and economic security for nearly half of the world’s population. Rice agriculture is intensive in both land and agrochemical use. However, rice fields also provide aquatic resources for wildlife, including amphibians. In turn, some species may provide ecosystem services back to the farmers working in the rice agroecosystem. The foundation for understanding the complexity of agroecosystem–human relationships requires garnering information regarding human perceptions and knowledge of the role of biodiversity in these rice agroecosystems. Understanding farmer knowledge and perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by wildlife in their fields, along with their understanding of the risks to wildlife associated with agrochemical exposure, can inform biodiversity preservation efforts. In June and July 2014, we used focus groups and structured and semi-structured interviews that engaged 22 individuals involved in rice agriculture operations in Laguna, Philippines, a village close to the International Rice Research Institute in Los Baños, Philippines, to learn more about farmer perceptions and knowledge of amphibians in their rice fields. We found that many, though not all farm workers (managers, tenants, and laborers) noted declines in amphibian populations over time, expressed how they incorporated frogs and toads (Anura) into their daily lives, and recognized the value of amphibians as ecosystem service providers. Specifically, farmers noted that amphibians provide pest-management through consumption of rice pests, act as biomonitors for pesticiderelated health outcomes, and provide a local food and economic resource. Some farmers and farm workers noted the general cultural value of listening to the “frogs sing when it rains.” Overall, our findings demonstrate that farmers have an understanding of the value of amphibians in their fields. Future efforts can support how engagement with farmers and farm workers to evaluate the value of wildlife in their fields can lead to directed education efforts to support biodiversity conservation in agroecosystems.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"36 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74807292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
W. O’Shea, N. Coughlan, T. Kelly, Neil Mitham, J. Nicholson
{"title":"Line of Sight: Simulated Aerial Avian Predators Can Reduce Problematic Bird Flyovers of Airfields","authors":"W. O’Shea, N. Coughlan, T. Kelly, Neil Mitham, J. Nicholson","doi":"10.26077/FAEB-A2BD","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/FAEB-A2BD","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"130 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73513142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
H. Shapiro, A. Willcox, Mallory K Tate, Emma V. Willcox
Bats (Chiroptera) are often viewed negatively by the public. Negative public perceptions of bats may hinder efforts to conserve declining populations. In Belize, the presence of vampire bats (Desmodus rotundus and Diphylla ecaudata) exacerbates the potential for conflicts with humans because of the increased rabies transmission risks. To mitigate these risks, the Belize government provides farmers with assistance to trap and remove vampire bats. In June 2018, we surveyed farmers (n = 44) in and adjacent to the Vaca Forest Reserve in Belize to learn more about their attitudes, knowledge, and experiences with bats. This information may provide new insights and approaches to address farmers’ concerns and enhance bat conservation efforts in Belize. Farmers held negative attitudes toward bats, exhibited low knowledge of their ecosystem services, and supported the trapping and use of toxicants to control bat populations to reduce the risk of rabies transmission between vampire bats and livestock. Farmers with livestock had more negative attitudes toward bats than farmers without livestock. Despite farmers reporting depredation incidences with fruit-eating and vampire bats, farmers expressed more negative attitudes toward vampire bats. We recommend that conservation education efforts target all stakeholders in the reserve to increase awareness about the importance of bats to ecosystems and highlight the dangers of indiscriminate trapping. Cumulatively, this may lead to positive attitude changes toward bats and their conservation.
{"title":"Can Farmers and Bats Co-exist? Farmer Attitudes, Knowledge, and Experiences with Bats in Belize","authors":"H. Shapiro, A. Willcox, Mallory K Tate, Emma V. Willcox","doi":"10.26077/5WWP-SP53","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/5WWP-SP53","url":null,"abstract":"Bats (Chiroptera) are often viewed negatively by the public. Negative public perceptions of bats may hinder efforts to conserve declining populations. In Belize, the presence of vampire bats (Desmodus rotundus and Diphylla ecaudata) exacerbates the potential for conflicts with humans because of the increased rabies transmission risks. To mitigate these risks, the Belize government provides farmers with assistance to trap and remove vampire bats. In June 2018, we surveyed farmers (n = 44) in and adjacent to the Vaca Forest Reserve in Belize to learn more about their attitudes, knowledge, and experiences with bats. This information may provide new insights and approaches to address farmers’ concerns and enhance bat conservation efforts in Belize. Farmers held negative attitudes toward bats, exhibited low knowledge of their ecosystem services, and supported the trapping and use of toxicants to control bat populations to reduce the risk of rabies transmission between vampire bats and livestock. Farmers with livestock had more negative attitudes toward bats than farmers without livestock. Despite farmers reporting depredation incidences with fruit-eating and vampire bats, farmers expressed more negative attitudes toward vampire bats. We recommend that conservation education efforts target all stakeholders in the reserve to increase awareness about the importance of bats to ecosystems and highlight the dangers of indiscriminate trapping. Cumulatively, this may lead to positive attitude changes toward bats and their conservation.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"55 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88840024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
: In the United States alone, there are >5,000 state-licensed wildlife rehabilitators in addition to a multitude of other wildlife caregivers across rehabilitation and sanctuary settings. Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care provide a unique lens from which to explore human– wildlife interactions. We examined the experiences of wildlife caregivers within a continuum of acute veterinary services, community-based rehabilitation, and sanctuary care to gain insight into wildlife caregiving and its implications for human–wildlife coexistence. Between 2016 and 2018, we completed in-depth interviews with 15 wildlife caretakers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire, USA. In addition to the interviews, we observed 197 unique human–animal interactions during wildlife care. The overarching paradigm that emerged from our research was what we refer to as “caring for the circle of life.” Embraced within this paradigm were 5 themes: (1) entering and persevering in the circle of care; (2) honoring natural processes; (3) knowing and being known by the wild creature; (4) extending the circle of care; and (5) fulfillment. Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care, in addition to providing medical assistance to animals in need, advance knowledge about individual species and contributes to increased public awareness regarding wildlife conservation and human–wildlife coexistence.
{"title":"Caring for the Circle of Life: Wildlife Rehabilitation and Sanctuary Care","authors":"Donna J Perry, Jacob P. Averka","doi":"10.26077/B761-F05F","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/B761-F05F","url":null,"abstract":": In the United States alone, there are >5,000 state-licensed wildlife rehabilitators in addition to a multitude of other wildlife caregivers across rehabilitation and sanctuary settings. Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care provide a unique lens from which to explore human– wildlife interactions. We examined the experiences of wildlife caregivers within a continuum of acute veterinary services, community-based rehabilitation, and sanctuary care to gain insight into wildlife caregiving and its implications for human–wildlife coexistence. Between 2016 and 2018, we completed in-depth interviews with 15 wildlife caretakers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire, USA. In addition to the interviews, we observed 197 unique human–animal interactions during wildlife care. The overarching paradigm that emerged from our research was what we refer to as “caring for the circle of life.” Embraced within this paradigm were 5 themes: (1) entering and persevering in the circle of care; (2) honoring natural processes; (3) knowing and being known by the wild creature; (4) extending the circle of care; and (5) fulfillment. Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care, in addition to providing medical assistance to animals in need, advance knowledge about individual species and contributes to increased public awareness regarding wildlife conservation and human–wildlife coexistence.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"20 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79844134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book Review: Saving Species on Private Lands: Unlocking Incentives to Conserve Wildlife and Their Habitats","authors":"Lorien R. Belton","doi":"10.26077/2MN0-1A79","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/2MN0-1A79","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"4 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87415845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Micah P. Fern, James Armstrong, R. Barlow, J. Kush
Expanding wild pig (Sus scrofa) populations across the southern United States has the potential to impact longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) restoration efforts. The depredation of planted pine seedlings is the most widespread and economically costly damage caused by wild pigs in forest plantations. A better understanding of the ecological factors affecting depredation rates will allow managers to implement best management practices to reduce seedling mortality from wild pigs at their most vulnerable stage of growth. From March 2016 to March 2017, we evaluated wild pig preferences for planted pine and hardwood species at a 34.4-ha cutover site and 4.7-ha pecan (Carya illinoinensis) orchard in Bullock County, Alabama, USA. Wild pig damage differed for the 5 seedling species tested, with longleaf and cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodaefolia) being the most preferred. Ninety one percent of seedlings destroyed by wild pigs were from the cutover site. Wild pigs at the cutover site experienced substantially more hunting pressure compared to those at the other site. We believe the debris scattering practices of the logging crew following a clearcut created a desirable foraging environment that led to the initial discovery of the seedlings. The short-term protection and minimization of seedling depredation in young forest plantations may be the most realistic solution to reducing the impact of wild pigs on forestry and timber resources.
{"title":"Ecological Factors Influencing Wild Pig Damage to Planted Pine and Hardwood Seedlings","authors":"Micah P. Fern, James Armstrong, R. Barlow, J. Kush","doi":"10.26077/E63F-B82A","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/E63F-B82A","url":null,"abstract":"Expanding wild pig (Sus scrofa) populations across the southern United States has the potential to impact longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) restoration efforts. The depredation of planted pine seedlings is the most widespread and economically costly damage caused by wild pigs in forest plantations. A better understanding of the ecological factors affecting depredation rates will allow managers to implement best management practices to reduce seedling mortality from wild pigs at their most vulnerable stage of growth. From March 2016 to March 2017, we evaluated wild pig preferences for planted pine and hardwood species at a 34.4-ha cutover site and 4.7-ha pecan (Carya illinoinensis) orchard in Bullock County, Alabama, USA. Wild pig damage differed for the 5 seedling species tested, with longleaf and cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodaefolia) being the most preferred. Ninety one percent of seedlings destroyed by wild pigs were from the cutover site. Wild pigs at the cutover site experienced substantially more hunting pressure compared to those at the other site. We believe the debris scattering practices of the logging crew following a clearcut created a desirable foraging environment that led to the initial discovery of the seedlings. The short-term protection and minimization of seedling depredation in young forest plantations may be the most realistic solution to reducing the impact of wild pigs on forestry and timber resources.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"458 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79801288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
F. S. Ahrestani, Mark A. Ternent, M. Lovallo, W. D. Walter
: Range expansion of American black bears ( Ursus americanus; bear) and residential development have increased the bear presence in suburbia. Suburban landscapes exhibiting patchworks of variable-sized parcels and habitats and owned by landowners with diverse values can create large areas of suitable habitats with limited public access. These landscapes may limit the effectiveness of hunting as a traditional bear population management tool. Managers require better information regarding landowner attitudes about hunting before implementing harvest regulations intended to mitigate conflicts in suburban areas. To address this need, in 2013, we surveyed landowners to identify properties that allowed bear hunting in 3 suburban areas of Pennsylvania, USA where bear sightings or human–bear conflicts have increased. We then used location data obtained for 29 bears equipped with global positioning system transmitters from 2010 to 2012 to model their resource selection in the study area. We assessed the influence of hunting access, housing density, land cover, and topographic variables on radio-marked black bears monitored 10 days before, during, and after the bear hunting season. We found that resource selection of radio-marked bears was similar for all 3 periods and bears selected for forested land in all 3 seasons and herbaceous cover in the pre-hunting and hunting periods. Resource selection by bears was not influenced by hunting access in the pre-hunting and hunting periods. For the post-hunting period, lands closed to hunting had support as the second-best model. All of the radio-marked bears in our study were vulnerable to harvest. However, they did not change resource selection during the hunting season, nor did they avoid areas open to hunting. Integrating human dimension data with bear habitat use studies, especially in suburban landscapes, has the potential to address bear space use and population management needs often overlooked by traditional research designs. evaluating datasets at the landscape or level for a more complete understanding of ecology of a of organisms that epidemiology,
{"title":"Resource Use by American Black Bears in Suburbia: A Landholder Step Selection Approach","authors":"F. S. Ahrestani, Mark A. Ternent, M. Lovallo, W. D. Walter","doi":"10.26077/2AF3-235D","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/2AF3-235D","url":null,"abstract":": Range expansion of American black bears ( Ursus americanus; bear) and residential development have increased the bear presence in suburbia. Suburban landscapes exhibiting patchworks of variable-sized parcels and habitats and owned by landowners with diverse values can create large areas of suitable habitats with limited public access. These landscapes may limit the effectiveness of hunting as a traditional bear population management tool. Managers require better information regarding landowner attitudes about hunting before implementing harvest regulations intended to mitigate conflicts in suburban areas. To address this need, in 2013, we surveyed landowners to identify properties that allowed bear hunting in 3 suburban areas of Pennsylvania, USA where bear sightings or human–bear conflicts have increased. We then used location data obtained for 29 bears equipped with global positioning system transmitters from 2010 to 2012 to model their resource selection in the study area. We assessed the influence of hunting access, housing density, land cover, and topographic variables on radio-marked black bears monitored 10 days before, during, and after the bear hunting season. We found that resource selection of radio-marked bears was similar for all 3 periods and bears selected for forested land in all 3 seasons and herbaceous cover in the pre-hunting and hunting periods. Resource selection by bears was not influenced by hunting access in the pre-hunting and hunting periods. For the post-hunting period, lands closed to hunting had support as the second-best model. All of the radio-marked bears in our study were vulnerable to harvest. However, they did not change resource selection during the hunting season, nor did they avoid areas open to hunting. Integrating human dimension data with bear habitat use studies, especially in suburban landscapes, has the potential to address bear space use and population management needs often overlooked by traditional research designs. evaluating datasets at the landscape or level for a more complete understanding of ecology of a of organisms that epidemiology,","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"57 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85508266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anthropogenic activities that concentrate wildlife near airports increases the risk of wildlife–aircraft collisions. Placing waste management facilities, natural areas, golf courses, and other landscape features near airports have the potential to attract wildlife hazardous to aviation. We conducted a 3-year study (March 2013–February 2016) to determine if the implementation of a Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Program (WHMP) would influence the bird use of a waste transfer station located near LaGuardia Airport, New York City, New York, USA. We conducted wildlife surveys during 3 phases: (1) no mitigation program and no waste transfer station, (2) active mitigation and no waste transfer station, and (3) active mitigation and operating waste transfer station. Overall, bird abundance decreased when the WHMP was implemented, thereby reducing the risk of wildlife strikes with aircraft operating in association with LaGuardia Airport. The active mitigation program reduced the presence of birds associated with the waste transfer station as well as many species using the adjacent marine environment.
{"title":"Talking Trash in the Big Apple: Mitigating Bird Strikes Near the North Shore Marine Transfer Station","authors":"Stephan J Beffre, B. Washburn","doi":"10.26077/PR0Z-SF91","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26077/PR0Z-SF91","url":null,"abstract":"Anthropogenic activities that concentrate wildlife near airports increases the risk of wildlife–aircraft collisions. Placing waste management facilities, natural areas, golf courses, and other landscape features near airports have the potential to attract wildlife hazardous to aviation. We conducted a 3-year study (March 2013–February 2016) to determine if the implementation of a Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Program (WHMP) would influence the bird use of a waste transfer station located near LaGuardia Airport, New York City, New York, USA. We conducted wildlife surveys during 3 phases: (1) no mitigation program and no waste transfer station, (2) active mitigation and no waste transfer station, and (3) active mitigation and operating waste transfer station. Overall, bird abundance decreased when the WHMP was implemented, thereby reducing the risk of wildlife strikes with aircraft operating in association with LaGuardia Airport. The active mitigation program reduced the presence of birds associated with the waste transfer station as well as many species using the adjacent marine environment.","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"69 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89116010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：