STORRE Collection: Electronic copies of Biological and Environmental Sciences research reports.
http://hdl.handle.net/1893/3487
Electronic copies of Biological and Environmental Sciences research reports.2024-03-18T12:18:57ZDevelopment of a population model tool to predict shooting levels of Greenland barnacle geese on Islay
http://hdl.handle.net/1893/33185
Title: Development of a population model tool to predict shooting levels of Greenland barnacle geese on Islay
Author(s): Bunnefeld, Nils; Pozo, Rocio A; Cusack, Jeremy J; Duthie, A Bradley; Minderman, Jeroen
Abstract: Background As part of the 10-year Islay Sustainable Goose Management Strategy (ISGMS), population management has been carried out on Islay based on a previous Population Viability Analysis (PVA) (Trinder 2005, 2014). However, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) now wishes to update its existing population model because intended Greenland barnacle geese (GBG) reductions during the first years of the ISGMS have proved difficult to achieve. Here, we present a new modelling approach combining data on population size, land-use, climate, and shooting effort that will enable shooting bags to be derived under quantified levels of uncertainty. Main findings - The Greenland barnacle goose (GBG) population on Islay has shown a logistic growth rate. After an initial rapid increase in population size, the population growth rate has declined. - The recent (e.g. 2003-2015) GBG Islay population fluctuates around 45,000 (± 4,082 standard deviation) individuals - The population model (PM) developed here accurately predicts the average winter population of GBG on Islay measured between November and March (inclusive) in the absence of culling on Islay. - Based on previous work, the PM assumes that both climate and the area of improved grassland (AIG) are strong predictors of the size of the GBG population on Islay. Similarly, the PM requires the inclusion of shooting bags implemented on Greenland and Iceland to estimate future population trends. Thus, all of the above (i.e. climate, AIG and shooting bags) need to be updated in the model to obtain future population predictions. - Integration of the PM into the Generalised Management Strategy Evaluation (GMSE) framework provides a tool for forecasting the dynamics of geese based on management targets and maximum allowed shooting bags. - The PM used here to inform shooting bags via the GMSE approach provides a good fit to available historic data and performs better than using the population count from the previous year alone, or using a simpler logistic growth model. - For the PM-GMSE modelling approach to work, it is expected that the user updates the value for each predictor (climate, AIG and shooting bags) in the model so that it can be re-run each year. If such data are not available, a simpler (e.g. logistic growth approximation) population model should be used. - The PM-GMSE approach produces an estimate of the future GBG mean winter count on Islay, as well as a range of shooting bags given a population target. - For an initial run of 1,000 simulated managed populations with a management target of 29,000 and a maximum per year shooting bag of 2,500, most simulations came close to the management target within 10 years. But uncertainty and stochasticity could lead to the target being achieved in a shorter or longer time period, as well as higher or lower population sizes. - Future access to individual-based datasets will allow the implementation of more sophisticated models (e.g. integral population model, IPM) able to account for demographic rates, including processes of immigration and emigration.2020-01-01T00:00:00ZThe State of Knowledge and Practice on Human-Wildlife Conflicts
http://hdl.handle.net/1893/33155
Title: The State of Knowledge and Practice on Human-Wildlife Conflicts
Author(s): Hodgson, Isla D; Redpath, Steve M; Sandstrom, Camilla; Biggs, Duan
Editor(s): O'Neill, Martin; Villat, Jessica
Abstract: Conflicts in conservation are widespread issues of global concern, seriously threatening worldwide goals of biodiversity preservation and sustainable development. As the human population rises, and wider environmental issues, such as climate change and habitat degradation, continue to escalate, conflicts are predicted to increase in both frequency and intensity. In recognition of the severity of such problems and the multiple threats they present, international organisations, governments, and research institutes alike have expanded their efforts into the understanding and resolution of conflicts. Despite this increasing attention from both academic and empirical perspectives, conflicts persist, fostering environmental, social, economic and political problems on a global scale. Scholars and experts have suggested that, in order to progress, a complete overhaul is required in how we frame, think about, and manage conflicts in conservation. However, such suggestions are yet to be translated into a more practical context. A consortium of Griffith University in Australia, the Namibian Nature Foundation, and WWF, being incubated by the Luc Hoffmann Institute, is exploring the potential for a novel initiative that will address the shortcomings of present management efforts. This initiative would involve developing and testing a new process in conflict management: the creation of a standard to guide and improve approaches to conflicts globally. This report provides the starting point for this process. From an extensive review of the literature and interviews with leading experts, we present an overview of current conflict management, associated problems. and knowledge gaps, as well as areas in which management might be improved. We then examine the possibility of combining these insights into a standardised approach to guide future management, focusing on the governance and social outcomes of conflict management.2020-01-01T00:00:00ZTowards a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector
http://hdl.handle.net/1893/29589
Title: Towards a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector
Author(s): Coad, Lauren; Fa, John E; Abernethy, Katharine; Van Vliet, Nathalie; Santamaria, Catalina; Wilkie, David; El Bizri, Hani R; Ingram, Daniel J; Cawthorn, Donna-Mareè; Nasi, Robert
Abstract: First paragraph: In this document, we use the term ‘wild meat’ to refer to terrestrial animal wildlife used for food in all parts of the world. The meat of wild animals has historically been, and still is, an essential source of protein and income for millions of indigenous peoples and local communities in tropical and subtropical regions. Invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are eaten across the world; some of them also hold an important place in traditional cultural values and practices. However, unsustainable harvesting rates are causing significant declines in many species, thus threatening the integrity of ecosystems, imperiling the food security of vulnerable households and impacting global biodiversity.2019-01-01T00:00:00ZAssessing Motivations for the Illegal Killing of Lesser White-fronted Geese at Key Sites in Kazakhstan (2017)
http://hdl.handle.net/1893/28633
Title: Assessing Motivations for the Illegal Killing of Lesser White-fronted Geese at Key Sites in Kazakhstan (2017)
Author(s): Jones, Isabel; Whytock, Robin; Bunnefeld, Nils
Abstract: The Lesser White-fronted Goose (LWfG) is a globally threatened migratory species (Jones et al., 2008). North-western Kazakhstan hosts important staging grounds for the autumn and spring LWfG migration (Cuthbert and Aarvak, 2016; Yerokhov, 2013). Hunting is a primary driver of declining LWfG populations, but the motives behind illegal LWfG hunting are currently unknown (Jones et al., 2008; Madsen et al., 2015). In September and October 2017, questionnaire surveys were developed and deployed with the Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity in Kazakhstan (ACBK). The aim was to identify the social, economic and demographic drivers for goose hunting in general and illegal hunting of LWfG in particular. Since there is also potential for accidental hunting of LWfG, this can enable conservation work to be targeted towards demographics most responsible for goose hunting. Surveys were conducted by two teams across Northern Kazakhstan and Kostanay Regions, with a total of 189 people responding in full to the questionnaires. Questionnaires employed the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT) which is an effective technique when attempting to elucidate patterns of human behaviour relating to socially sensitive activities including illegal hunting (Nuno and St. John, 2015). We assessed the ability of the UCT to detect patterns in human behaviour with low sample sizes, by testing whether goose hunting prevalence increased with goose hunting licence ownership. As expected, ownership of hunting licences was a significant predictor of increased goose hunting prevalence, and confirmed the method’s validity for asking sensitive questions regarding hunting. To investigate potential illegal goose hunting we asked if respondents had undertaken goose hunting during the spring/summer season. Waterbird hunting was banned in spring/summer from 2017, and therefore we tested compliance levels with this new legislation. We found no evidence of non-compliance among our survey respondents, and thus no evidence for illegal goose hunting during the spring/summer season. However, our sample sizes were smaller than expected and even though the validation suggested the method worked successfully, this result should be interpreted with caution. Using direct questioning we found strong evidence suggesting that there is a significant lack of knowledge regarding whether LWfG are protected or not, including respondents who owned goose hunting licences: 11 % of respondents owning a goose hunting licence did not know LWfG were protected. Given that there are an estimated 10,000 hunters in north-western Kazakhstan (Yerokhov, 2013) we therefore estimate that potentially over 1000 hunters, with goose hunting licences, may be unknowingly illegally hunting LWfG through lack of knowledge of species protection. Our analysis revealed that hunting for cash was not found to be a motivator for goose hunting. However, we stress that the majority of our survey respondents were likely to be engaging in legal goose hunting, and therefore identifying motives for illegal hunting remains a challenge mainly due to the highly dispersed nature of hunters across the landscape. We were also not able to ask questions about accidental illegal hunting of LWfG because it was deemed to be too sensitive. Future work should focus on increasing survey sample size and adding additional questions regarding self-reporting of hunting take and accidental take of LWfG. Questionnaires should also be developed across the LWfG flyway as motives for hunting will likely differ between geographic regions due to differing socio-economic and socio-ecological situations.2017-12-31T00:00:00Z