Minimizing animal welfare harms associated with predation management in agro‐ecosystems

The impacts of wild predators on livestock are a common source of human–wildlife conflict globally, and predators are subject to population control for this reason in many situations. Animal welfare is one of many important considerations affecting decisions about predation management. Recent studies discussing animal welfare in this context have presented arguments emphasizing the importance of avoiding intentional harm to predators, but they have not usually considered harms imposed by predators on livestock and other animals. Efforts to mitigate predation impacts (including ‘no control’ approaches) cause a variety of harms to predators, livestock and other wildlife. Successfully minimizing the overall frequency and magnitude of harms requires consideration of the direct, indirect, intentional and unintentional harms imposed on all animals inhabiting agricultural landscapes. We review the harms resulting from the management of dingoes and other wild dogs in the extensive beef cattle grazing systems of Australia to illustrate how these negative impacts can be minimized across both wild and domestic species present on a farm or in a free‐ranging livestock grazing context. Similar to many other predator–livestock conflicts, wild dogs impose intermittent harms on beef cattle (especially calves) including fatal predation, non‐fatal attack (mauling and biting), pathogen transmission, and fear‐ or stress‐related effects. Wild dog control tools and strategies impose harms on dingoes and other wildlife including stress, pain and death as a consequence of both lethal and non‐lethal control approaches. To balance these various sources of harm, we argue that the tactical use of lethal predator control approaches can result in harming the least number of individual animals, given certain conditions. This conclusion conflicts with both traditional (e.g. continuous or ongoing lethal control) and contemporary (e.g. predator‐friendly or no‐control) predation management approaches. The general and transferable issues, approaches and principles we describe have broad applicability to many other human–wildlife conflicts around the world.     

Persistence of Alarm-Call Behaviour in the Absence of Predators: A Comparison Between Wild and Captive-Born Meerkats (Suricata Suricatta)

Performing correct anti‐predator behaviour is crucial for prey to survive. But, are such abilities lost in species or populations living in predator‐free environments? How individuals respond to the loss of predators has been shown to depend on factors such as the degree to which anti‐predator behaviour relies on experience, the type of cues evoking the behaviour, the cost of expressing the behaviour and the number of generations under which relaxed selection has taken place. Here we investigated whether captive‐born populations of meerkats (Suricata suricatta) used the same repertoire of alarm calls previously documented in wild populations and whether captive animals, as wild ones, could recognize potential predators through olfactory cues. We found that all alarm calls that have been documented in the wild also occurred in captivity and were given in broadly similar contexts. Furthermore, without prior experience of odours from predators, captive meerkats seemed to distinguish between faeces of potential predators (carnivores) and non‐predators (herbivores). Despite slight structural differences, the alarm calls given in response to the faeces largely resembled those recorded in similar contexts in the wild. These results from captive populations suggest that direct, physical interaction with predators is not necessary for meerkats to perform correct anti‐predator behaviour in terms of alarm‐call usage and olfactory predator recognition. Such behaviour may have been retained in captivity because relatively little experience seems necessary for correct performance in the wild and/or because of the recency of relaxed selection on these populations.     

The role of state wildlife professionals under the public trust doctrine

The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is considered the cornerstone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Effective application of the PTD requires a clear understanding of the doctrine and appropriate behavior by trustees, trust managers, and beneficiaries. Most PTD literature refers generically to the role of the government as the people's trustee, without addressing the differences between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government in the United States or recognizing the distinction between elected and appointed officials and career civil servants. Elected and appointed officials, especially in the legislative branch, have policy-level decision-making authority that makes them trustees of the people's wildlife under the PTD. In contrast, career professionals working for state wildlife agencies (SWA's) have ministerial duties as trust managers. The differences between the roles of trustees and trust managers are important. By focusing on their role as trust managers, while supporting and respecting the role of elected and appointed officials as trustees, SWA professionals can more effectively advance application of the PTD. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.     

Bringing Compassion to the Ethical Dilemma in Killing Kangaroos for Conservation

Ethical debate on the killing of kangaroos has polarised conservation and animal welfare science, yet at the heart of these scientific disciplines is the unifying aim of reducing harm to non-human animals. This aim provides the foundation for common ground, culminating in the development of compassionate conservation principles that seek to provide mechanisms for achieving both conservation and welfare goals. However, environmental decision-making is not devoid of human interests, and conservation strategies are commonly employed that suit entrenched positions and commercial gain, rather than valuing the needs of the non-human animals in need of protection. The case study on the wild kangaroo harvest presents just such a dilemma, whereby a conservation strategy is put forward that can only be rationalised by ignoring difficulties in the potential for realising conservation benefits and the considerable welfare cost to kangaroos. Rather than an open debate on the ethics of killing game over livestock, in this response I argue that efforts to bring transparency and objectivity to the public debate have to date been obfuscated by those seeking to maintain entrenched interests. Only by putting aside these interests will debate about the exploitation of wildlife result in humane, compassionate, and substantive conservation benefits.     

Fear of humans as apex predators has landscape‐scale impacts from mountain lions to mice

Apex predators such as large carnivores can have cascading, landscape‐scale impacts across wildlife communities, which could result largely from the fear they inspire, although this has yet to be experimentally demonstrated. Humans have supplanted large carnivores as apex predators in many systems, and similarly pervasive impacts may now result from fear of the human ‘super predator’. We conducted a landscape‐scale playback experiment demonstrating that the sound of humans speaking generates a landscape of fear with pervasive effects across wildlife communities. Large carnivores avoided human voices and moved more cautiously when hearing humans, while medium‐sized carnivores became more elusive and reduced foraging. Small mammals evidently benefited, increasing habitat use and foraging. Thus, just the sound of a predator can have landscape‐scale effects at multiple trophic levels. Our results indicate that many of the globally observed impacts on wildlife attributed to anthropogenic activity may be explained by fear of humans.     

Forecasting the effect of land-use change on native and non-native mammalian predator distributions

Intensive land use can fragment continuous natural areas into smaller patches, which may be too small to support viable populations of native fauna and more susceptible to invasion by alien species. We demonstrate the utility of combining species occurrence models with land-use change models to identify areas where future development may differentially affect wildlife. Occurrence data for native (e.g., gray fox, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, striped skunk, raccoon) and non-native (e.g., domestic dogs, domestic cats, opossums) mammalian predators were collected from 188 remotely triggered camera locations across an oak woodland and vineyard landscape in northern California. The occurrence data were used in combination with landscape variables extracted using a geographic information system to build explanatory models of predator occurrence. These statistical models were used to derive two surfaces showing relative probability of occurrence for non-native and native predators. Then, a spatially explicit land-use change model was used to examine potential future predator distributions given potential future vineyard expansion. The probability distribution models generated hypothesized low probabilities of occurrence for native predators within large vineyard blocks, but higher probabilities within isolated vineyards and also in oak woodlands. The models suggest the highest probabilities of non-native predator occurrence fell within large blocks of vineyard. Using one possible future vineyard development scenario, the distribution models illustrate areas where probability of native predator occurrence may be reduced and where non-native predators may expand due to vineyard development. This technique could be applied to prioritize acquisition of critical wildlife habitat and maintain habitat connectivity for wildlife populations.     

Effects of Humans on Behaviour of Wildlife Exceed Those of Natural Predators in a Landscape of Fear

Background

Human disturbance can influence wildlife behaviour, which can have implications for wildlife populations. For example, wildlife may be more vigilant near human disturbance, resulting in decreased forage intake and reduced reproductive success. We measured the effects of human activities compared to predator and other environmental factors on the behaviour of elk (Cervus elaphus Linnaeus 1758) in a human-dominated landscape in Alberta, Canada.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We collected year-round behavioural data of elk across a range of human disturbances. We estimated linear mixed models of elk behaviour and found that human factors (land-use type, traffic and distance from roads) and elk herd size accounted for more than 80% of variability in elk vigilance. Elk decreased their feeding time when closer to roads, and road traffic volumes of at least 1 vehicle every 2 hours induced elk to switch into a more vigilant behavioural mode with a subsequent loss in feeding time. Other environmental factors, thought crucial in shaping vigilance behaviour in elk (natural predators, reproductive status of females), were not important. The highest levels of vigilance were recorded on public lands where hunting and motorized recreational activities were cumulative compared to the national park during summer, which had the lowest levels of vigilance.

Conclusions/Significance

In a human-dominated landscape, effects of human disturbance on elk behaviour exceed those of habitat and natural predators. Humans trigger increased vigilance and decreased foraging in elk. However, it is not just the number of people but also the type of human activity that influences elk behaviour (e.g. hiking vs. hunting). Quantifying the actual fitness costs of human disturbance remains a challenge in field studies but should be a primary focus for future researches. Some species are much more likely to be disturbed by humans than by non-human predators: for these species, quantifying human disturbance may be the highest priority for conservation.     

Trapping in predator management: catching the profile of trap users in Sweden

Many populations of wildlife, including large- and medium-sized predators are increasing in Europe. Trapping can be one way to reduce negative impacts of predators on human interests, such as game species and threatened species, but there is little knowledge of trap usage and motivation behind it. We used a mail survey in Sweden (n?=?3,886 respondents) to compare predator trappers with hunters who used other methods to kill predators, and with other hunters who did not kill predators, in regard to sociodemographics, beliefs, behaviors, and constraints. During 12 months prior to the survey 19 % of respondents had trapped any small- or medium-sized predator, while 15 % of respondents had trapped and 55 % had hunted (without using traps) red fox (Vulpes vulpes), European badger (Meles meles), or corvid birds. Reducing predator numbers was an important reason for hunting predators with traps. Of predator trappers, 97 % had hunted species that were potentially prey of the targeted predators (e.g., roe deer [Capreolus capreolus], hare [Lepus spp.], and grouse), 94 % believed that there were too many red foxes, badgers, or corvids on their main hunting ground, and 64 % believed it to be very important to reduce predator numbers to benefit other game species. We conclude that the use of traps is widespread among Swedish hunters, and that increasing wildlife populations, increased presence of wildlife in urban areas, and management of invasive species calls for effective management actions, of which trapping can be one.     

Lethal interactions among forest‐grouse predators are numerous,motivated by hunger and carcasses,and their impacts determined by the demographic value of the victims

New vertebrate communities are emerging in Europe following the recovery of multiple native predators to highly anthropized landscapes where predator control is still prevalent. While the lack of reference points for these communities creates novel challenges for conservationists and wildlife managers, they also provide opportunities to further our understanding of species interactions. Despite a growing body of evidence, many aspects of interactions among predators remain poorly understood, impairing our ability to anticipate the effects of such changes in predator communities. Through a systematic literature review, we gathered all the available evidence concerning the existence, strength, and demographic impacts of lethal predator interactions among forest‐grouse predators in Europe. We found a highly interconnected predator community, with 44 pairwise lethal interactions among 12 taxa. Three of these resulted in some degree of population suppression of the victim, while another three did not. However, most interactions (38) have not been evaluated for population suppression. Additionally, we highlight how predators interact simultaneously with a large range of other predators and identified at least two further taxa possibly suppressed through the combined impacts of multiple predators. We propose that interactions causing demographic suppression are characterized by impacts on individuals with high survival elasticity and that they are motivated by food limitation and additionally, in mammals, by competition for carcasses. Predator interactions, and our still poor understanding of them, introduce large uncertainties to conservation actions based on the management of predator abundances, which should be carefully evaluated.     

Evidence of weaker phenotypic plasticity by prey to novel cues from non‐native predators

A central question in evolutionary biology is how coevolutionary history between predator and prey influences their interactions. Contemporary global change and range expansion of exotic organisms impose a great challenge for prey species, which are increasingly exposed to invading non‐native predators, with which they share no evolutionary history. Here, we complete a comprehensive survey of empirical studies of coevolved and naive predator?prey interactions to assess whether a shared evolutionary history with predators influences the magnitude of predator‐induced defenses mounted by prey. Using marine bivalves and gastropods as model prey, we found that coevolved prey and predator‐naive prey showed large discrepancies in magnitude of predator‐induced phenotypic plasticity. Although naive prey, predominantly among bivalve species, did exhibit some level of plasticity – prey exposed to native predators showed significantly larger amounts of phenotypic plasticity. We discuss these results and the implications they may have for native communities and ecosystems.     

Increases in disturbance and reductions in habitat size interact to suppress predator body size

Food webs are strongly size‐structured so will be vulnerable to changes in environmental factors that affect large predators. However, mechanistic understanding of environmental controls of top predator size is poorly developed. We used streams to investigate how predator body size is altered by three fundamental climate change stressors: reductions in habitat size, increases in disturbance and warmer temperatures. Using new survey data from 74 streams, we showed that habitat size and disturbance were the most important stressors influencing predator body size. A synergistic interaction between that habitat size and disturbance due to flooding meant the sizes of predatory fishes peaked in large, benign habitats and their body size decreased as habitats became either smaller or harsher. These patterns were supported by experiments indicating that habitat‐size reductions and increased flood disturbance decreased both the abundance and biomass of large predators. This research indicates that interacting climate change stressors can influence predator body size, resulting in smaller predators than would be predicted from examining an environmental factor in isolation. Thus, climate‐induced changes to key interacting environmental factors are likely to have synergistic impacts on predator body size which, because of their influence on the strength of biological interactions, will have far‐reaching effects on food‐web responses to global environmental change.     

The effect of predation pressure and predator adaptive foraging on the relative importance of consumptive and non‐consumptive predator net effects in a freshwater model system

An important challenge in community ecology is identifying the functional characteristics capable of predicting the nature and strength of predator effects on food webs. We developed an individual‐based model, based on a shallow lake model system, to evaluate the total, consumptive, and non‐consumptive indirect effect that predators have on basal resources when the predators differ in their foraging types (active adaptive foraging or sedentary foraging). Overall, both predator types caused similar total indirect effects on lower trophic levels. However, the nature net effects of predators diverged between predator foraging types. Active predators caused larger non‐consumptive effects, relative to the total indirect effect, irrespective of predation pressure levels. On the other hand, sedentary predators caused larger non‐consumptive effects for lower predation pressure levels, but consumptive effects became more important as predation pressure increased. Our simulations showed that the reliance on a particular mechanism driving consumer–resource interactions is altered by predator foraging behavior and highlight the importance of both prey and predator foraging behaviors to predict the causes and consequences of cascading effects observed in food webs.     

Do wild dogs exclude foxes? Evidence for competition from dietary and spatial overlaps

Abstract The management of wild canids (wild dogs/dingoes and foxes) presents a conservation dilemma for land managers across Australia. These canids are predators of wildlife and domestic stock but dingoes are considered native and anecdotal reports suggest that they may suppress foxes such that dingo/dog conservation may have a net benefit to wildlife. This study examines dietary and spatial interactions between wild dogs and foxes in the Greater Blue Mountains region of NSW to address the possibility of suppression through competitive exclusion by dogs on foxes. Predator diets were compared using faecal analysis as well as an analysis of 19 dietary studies from similar forest habitats in eastern Australia. Spatial relationships were examined using data from an extensive canid control programme. Diets of wild dogs and foxes showed a high degree of overlap in species taken, indicating potential for competition. But there was also evidence of resource partitioning with the size and arboreality of mammalian prey differing between the two predators. Wild dogs and foxes responded to different landscape‐scale variation in the physical environment, but there was no clear evidence of large‐scale differences in their distribution. At the fine scale there was a negative association between these predators that indicated possible temporal avoidance or localized habitat shifts. Therefore, there is evidence for dietary competition and fine‐scale exclusion, but no support for landscape‐scale exclusion of foxes by wild dogs in the Blue Mountains.     

Within‐generation consequences of postsettlement mortality for trait composition in wild populations: An experimental test

There is a critical need to understand patterns and causes of intraspecific variation in physiological performance in order to predict the distribution and dynamics of wild populations under natural and human‐induced environmental change. However, the usual explanation for trait differences, local adaptation, fails to account for the small‐scale phenotypic and genetic divergence observed in fishes and other species with dispersive early life stages. We tested the hypothesis that local‐scale variation in the strength of selective mortality in early life mediates the trait composition in later life stages. Through in situ experiments, we manipulated exposure to predators in the coral reef damselfish Dascyllus aruanus and examined consequences for subsequent growth performance under common garden conditions. Groups of 20 recently settled D. aruanus were outplanted to experimental coral colonies in Moorea lagoon and either exposed to natural predation mortality (52% mortality in three days) or protected from predators with cages for three days. After postsettlement mortality, predator‐exposed groups were shorter than predator‐protected ones, while groups with lower survival were in better condition, suggesting that predators removed the longer, thinner individuals. Growth of both treatment groups was subsequently compared under common conditions. We did not detect consequences of predator exposure for subsequent growth performance: Growth over the following 37 days was not affected by the prior predator treatment or survival. Genotyping at 10 microsatellite loci did indicate, however, that predator exposure significantly influenced the genetic composition of groups. We conclude that postsettlement mortality did not have carryover effects on the subsequent growth performance of cohorts in this instance, despite evidence for directional selection during the initial mortality phase.     

Detecting predator–prey relationships in the sea

Understanding the strength and diversity of predator‐prey interactions among species is essential to understand ecosystem consequences of population‐level variation. Directly quantifying the predatory behaviour of wild fishes at large spatial scales (>100 m) in the open sea is fraught with difficulties. To date the only empirical approach has been to search for correlations in the abundance of predators and their putative prey. As an example we use this approach to search for predators of the keystone crown‐of‐thorns starfish. We show that this approach is unlikely to detect predator–prey linkages because the theoretical relationship is non‐linear, resulting in multiple possible prey responses for single given predator abundance. Instead we suggest some indication of the strength and ecosystem importance of a predator–prey relationship can be gained by using the abundance of both predators and their putative prey to parameterize functional response models.     

Differential risk effects of wolves on wild versus domestic prey have consequences for conservation

Predators play integral roles in shaping ecosystems through cascading effects to prey and vegetation. Such effects occur when prey species alter their behavior to avoid predators, a phenomenon called the risk effects of predators. Risk effects of wild predators such as wolves are well documented for wild prey, but not for free ranging domestic animals such as cattle despite their importance for ecosystem function and conservation. We compared risk effects of satellite‐collared wolves (n = 16) on habitat selection by global‐positioning‐system‐collared elk (n = 10) and cattle (n = 31). We calculated resource selection functions (RSFs) in periods before, during and after wolf visits in elk home ranges or cattle pastures. The habitat variables tested included: distance to roads and trails, terrain ruggedness, food‐quality and distance to forest. When wolves were present, elk stayed closer to forest cover and selected less for high‐quality‐food habitat. Thus, the risk effects of wolf presence on elk produced a change in the tradeoff between food and cover selection. Cattle responded by avoiding high‐quality‐food habitat and selecting areas closer to roads and trails (where people likely provided security), but these effects manifested only after wolves had left. Artificial selection in cattle may have attenuated natural anti‐predator behaviors. The effects of predators on ecosystems are likely different when mediated through risk effects on domestic compared to wild animals. Furthermore, predator control in response to livestock predation, an important conservation issue, may produce broad ecosystem effects triggered by decrease of an important predator species. Conservation planners should consider these effects where domestic herbivores are dominant species in the ecosystem.     

Epigenetics and Future Generations

Recent evidence of intergenerational epigenetic programming of disease risk broadens the scope of public health preventive interventions to future generations, i.e. non existing people. Due to the transmission of epigenetic predispositions, lifestyles such as smoking or unhealthy diet might affect the health of populations across several generations. While public policy for the health of future generations can be justified through impersonal considerations, such as maximizing aggregate well‐being, in this article we explore whether there are rights‐based obligations supervening on intergenerational epigenetic programming despite the non‐identity argument, which challenges this rationale in case of policies that affect the number and identity of future people. We propose that rights based obligations grounded in the interests of non‐existing people might fall upon existing people when generations overlap. In particular, if environmental exposure in F0 (i.e. existing people) will affect the health of F2 (i.e. non‐existing people) through epigenetic programming, then F1 (i.e. existing and overlapping with both F0 and F2) might face increased costs to address F2's condition in the future: this might generate obligations upon F0 from various distributive principles, such as the principle of equal opportunity for well being.     

Anti‐predatory behaviour of wild‐caught vs captive‐bred freshwater angelfish,Pterophyllum scalare

Environments and experiences encountered in early life stages of animals shape their adult behaviour. When environments are maintained for several generations, differential selection forces act upon individuals to select those most fit to the particular conditions. As such, differences in the behaviour of captive bred and wild caught individuals have been observed recurrently. In fish, hatchery raised individuals tend to seek refuge less, making them more vulnerable to predators. We tested the hypothesis that captive breeding induces non‐adaptive changes in behaviour of freshwater angelfish, Pterophyllum scalare. Wild‐caught and captive‐bred fish were exposed to a natural predator and measured for their anti‐predator behaviours; no differences were found in behaviour under control conditions. When exposed to a natural predator, wild‐caught fish exhibited significantly shorter freezing durations than captive‐bred fish, and took significantly shorter time to resume normal behaviour. No differences in the time taken to initiate investigations of the predator were detected. The results demonstrate that captive‐bred fish respond differently than their wild counterparts when exposed to a natural predator, and that this domestication has implications for captive rearing programmes.     

US policies on human embryonic stem cells

The United States is a federal union with separate state jurisdictions. In part owing to the sometimes heated debate about public support for human embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research, there has been restricted federal support and little central regulation of this research to date. Instead, guidelines developed by scientific organizations have set principles for oversight and good practice for this research. These guidelines are functioning well, have influenced developing state regulations and, one hopes, will affect any future federal regulation.     

Captive-born cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) respond similarly to vocalizations of predators and sympatric nonpredators

What types of cues do callitrichid primates use to detect and respond to predators? Do they respond to predator‐specific cues or to more general cues? The evidence for these questions remains conflicting. We presented captive‐born and reared cotton‐top tamarins with no previous exposure to predators (or predator cues) with vocalizations from three potential predators of cotton‐top tamarin in the wild (white hawk, jaguar, and tayra) and with vocalizations from sympatric nonpredators (black‐faced antthrush and red howler monkey). Vocalizations from predators and from nonpredator mammals elicited equivalent arousal, fear, and vocal responses. Howler monkey roars produced the strongest responses. The results suggest that predator‐naïve cotton‐top tamarins do not recognize specific predator vocalizations, but may respond to vocal qualities (low‐frequency, noisy sounds) that indicate large body size, threat, or aggression. On the other hand, tamarins responded much more strongly to the higher frequency calls from the hawk than the antthrush, suggesting another mechanism must also be involved. The failure of captive‐reared tamarins to distinguish between vocalizations of predators and nonpredator mammals has important implications for reintroduction studies. Am. J. Primatol. 70:707–710, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.