Implications of taxonomic bias for human–carnivore conflict mitigation
Carnivore population declines are a time-sensitive global challenge in which mitigating decreasing populations requires alignment of applied practice and research priorities. However, large carnivore conservation is hindered by gaps among research, conservation practice and policy formation. One pot...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2022
|
| _version_ | 1797108384324911104 |
|---|---|
| author | Hoffmann, CF Montgomery, R |
| author_facet | Hoffmann, CF Montgomery, R |
| author_sort | Hoffmann, CF |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Carnivore population declines are a time-sensitive global challenge in which mitigating decreasing populations requires alignment of applied practice and research priorities. However, large carnivore conservation is hindered by gaps among research, conservation practice and policy formation. One potential driver of this research–implementation gap is research bias towards charismatic species. Using depredation of livestock by large carnivores in sub-Saharan Africa as a case study, we examined whether taxonomic bias could be detected and explored the potential effects of such a bias on the research–implementation gap. Via a literature review, we compared the central large carnivore species in research to the species identified as the primary livestock depredator. We detected a substantial misalignment between these factors for two species. Spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta were the most common depredator of livestock (58.5% of studies), but were described as a central species among only 20.7% of the studies. In comparison, African lions Panthera leo were the most common central species (45% of studies) but were the primary depredator in just 24.4% of studies. Such patterns suggest that taxonomic bias is prevalent within this research. Although spotted hyaenas may depredate livestock most often, their low charisma in comparison to sympatric species such as the African lion and leopard Panthera pardus may be limiting research-informed conservation efforts for them. Efforts to mitigate human-carnivore conflict designed for one species may not be applicable to another co-occurring species, and thus, taxonomic bias could undermine the efficacy of interventions built to reduce livestock depredation by carnivores. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:28:25Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:1cf25d5c-f6c7-4734-9982-20954efaba77 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:28:25Z |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:1cf25d5c-f6c7-4734-9982-20954efaba772022-12-14T08:56:26ZImplications of taxonomic bias for human–carnivore conflict mitigationJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:1cf25d5c-f6c7-4734-9982-20954efaba77EnglishSymplectic ElementsCambridge University Press2022Hoffmann, CFMontgomery, RCarnivore population declines are a time-sensitive global challenge in which mitigating decreasing populations requires alignment of applied practice and research priorities. However, large carnivore conservation is hindered by gaps among research, conservation practice and policy formation. One potential driver of this research–implementation gap is research bias towards charismatic species. Using depredation of livestock by large carnivores in sub-Saharan Africa as a case study, we examined whether taxonomic bias could be detected and explored the potential effects of such a bias on the research–implementation gap. Via a literature review, we compared the central large carnivore species in research to the species identified as the primary livestock depredator. We detected a substantial misalignment between these factors for two species. Spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta were the most common depredator of livestock (58.5% of studies), but were described as a central species among only 20.7% of the studies. In comparison, African lions Panthera leo were the most common central species (45% of studies) but were the primary depredator in just 24.4% of studies. Such patterns suggest that taxonomic bias is prevalent within this research. Although spotted hyaenas may depredate livestock most often, their low charisma in comparison to sympatric species such as the African lion and leopard Panthera pardus may be limiting research-informed conservation efforts for them. Efforts to mitigate human-carnivore conflict designed for one species may not be applicable to another co-occurring species, and thus, taxonomic bias could undermine the efficacy of interventions built to reduce livestock depredation by carnivores. |
| spellingShingle | Hoffmann, CF Montgomery, R Implications of taxonomic bias for human–carnivore conflict mitigation |
| title | Implications of taxonomic bias for human–carnivore conflict mitigation |
| title_full | Implications of taxonomic bias for human–carnivore conflict mitigation |
| title_fullStr | Implications of taxonomic bias for human–carnivore conflict mitigation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Implications of taxonomic bias for human–carnivore conflict mitigation |
| title_short | Implications of taxonomic bias for human–carnivore conflict mitigation |
| title_sort | implications of taxonomic bias for human carnivore conflict mitigation |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hoffmanncf implicationsoftaxonomicbiasforhumancarnivoreconflictmitigation AT montgomeryr implicationsoftaxonomicbiasforhumancarnivoreconflictmitigation |