Alastair I. Ward

Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts

Human–wildlife conflicts are increasing throughout the world, principally due to a combination of human population growth, increased pressure on land and natural resources and climate change. Many human–wildlife conflicts stem from differences in objectives between various stakeholder groups, especially where the wildlife in question is a resource that can be exploited for economic or cultural benefit, or where the conservation of wildlife is at odds with human population growth or development pressure. Conflicts can be exacerbated by an incomplete understanding of their causes and/or inappropriate intervention measures. Many traditional forms of intervention are also subject to increasing scrutiny and criticism from society. Here, we highlight the potential strategic benefits that can be made by an interdisciplinary approach to human–wildlife conflict situations, by integrating knowledge and understanding across the natural and social sciences. We also stress the potential tactical benefits from combining new approaches to management with more traditional ones. We emphasise the potential contribution of more recent developments in decision-making under conditions of limited data availability and uncertainty. Finally, we recommend that monitoring should play a more prominent role, both in assessing the role of stakeholder engagement in participatory decision-making and in contributing to the evidence base that will allow competing hypotheses about specific systems to be evaluated in an iterative manner.

Farm husbandry and badger behaviour: Opportunities to manage badger to cattle transmission of Mycobacterium bovis?

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is a serious disease of cattle in the UK in terms of the economic impact on the farming industry. The disease has proven difficult to control in the cattle population and the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) is a source of infection. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the potential to employ farm husbandry and biosecurity practices to reduce bTB transmission risks. Here we review the potential routes of bTB transmission between badgers and cattle and explore the options for managing cattle and badger behaviour with a view to reducing the risks of inter-species transmission at pasture and within farm buildings. We discuss the relative merits of different cattle grazing regimes, habitat manipulations and badger latrine management in reducing the potential for badger-cattle contact at pasture. The physical exclusion of badgers from farm buildings is suggested as the simplest, and potentially most effective, method of reducing contact and opportunities for disease transmission between badgers and cattle. However, more research is required on the effectiveness, practicalities and costs of implementing such measures before specific guidance can be developed.

Farming for pests? Local and landscape-scale effects of grassland management on rabbit densities

In recent decades in the UK, there has been an increasing trend in numbers of the European wild rabbit, a significant agricultural pest typically associated with grassland habitats. However, the relationship between rabbit abundance and grassland management, in particular grazing, has not been sufficiently explained. We studied rabbit densities in seven pasture-dominated sites in north-east England between autumn and spring in two consecutive years, and used generalised linear mixed models and generalised additive models to explore relationships between habitat and management variables and rabbit abundance at local (field) and landscape scales. At the local scale high rabbit densities were significantly associated with small fields and the very short, homogeneous swards created by intensive sheep grazing during autumn and winter. At the landscape scale, high rabbit numbers were associated with sites with most field margins and a predator removal policy. Our results indicate that landscape management may play a central role in explaining rabbit abundance and distribution in grasslands. We suggest that current pasture management may create favourable conditions for high rabbit densities, and consequently boost numbers of this significant pest species.

ESTIMATING THE RISK OF CATTLE EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS POSED BY WILD DEER RELATIVE TO BADGERS IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Wild deer populations in Great Britain are expanding in range and probably in numbers, and relatively high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB, caused by infection with Mycobacterium bovis) in deer occurs locally in parts of southwest England. To evaluate the M. bovis exposure risk posed to cattle by wild deer relative to badgers in England and Wales, we constructed and parameterized a quantitative risk model with the use of information from the literature (on deer densities, activity patterns, bTB epidemiology, and pathology) and contemporary data on deer, cattle, and badger (Meles meles) distribution and abundance. The median relative risk score for each of the four deer species studied—red (Cervus elaphus), fallow (Dama dama), and roe (Capreolus capreolus) deer, and muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi)—was lower than unity (the relative risk set for badgers, the putative main wildlife reservoir of M. bovis in England and Wales). However, the 95th percentiles associated with risk estimates were large, and the upper limits for all four deer species exceeded unity. Although M. bovis exposure risks to cattle from deer at pasture are likely to be lower than those from badgers across most areas of England and Wales where cattle are affected by bTB because these areas coincide with high-density badger populations but not high-density deer populations, we predict the presence of localized areas where relative risks posed by deer may be considerable. Moreover, wherever deer are infected, risks to cattle may be additive to those posed by badgers. There are considerable knowledge gaps associated with bTB in deer, badgers, and cattle, and data available for model parameterization were generally of low quality and high variability, and consequently model output were subject to some uncertainty. Improved estimates of the proportion of time that deer of each species spend at pasture, the likelihood and magnitude of M. bovis excretion, and local badger and deer densities appear most important for improving estimates of relative risk in this system.

Options for the Control of Disease 3: Targeting the Environment

Management of wildlife disease can be targeted at pathogens, hosts or vector populations, but may also focus on the environment. As constituent elements of any given environment, resident wildlife populations, and their pathogens, may be profoundly influenced by environmental change, in terms of their abundance, distribution and behaviour. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that incorporation of environmental manipulation into a programme to control wildlife diseases may potentially result in outcomes as effective as direct intervention aimed at hosts, pathogens and vectors. Environments are not static, but are naturally dynamic, complex systems that exert strong influences on patterns of disease via their impact on hosts, pathogens, vectors and the interactions between them. Consequently, it can be difficult to identify which environmental variables are most important in influencing disease dynamics and hence which elements to target as part of a disease management programme. Nevertheless, environmental management has been used extensively to control

Mitigating impacts of roads on wildlife: an agenda for the conservation of priority European protected species in Great Britain

Global increases in road networks have been matched by traffic flows and are implicated in declines of many sensitive species. Impacts on wildlife by linear development features such as roads include mortality due to vehicle collisions and secondary effects such as preventing traditional movements or severing links between populations. European legislation requires development activities to have ‘no detriment’ to the favourable conservation status of European protected species (EPS), including great crested newts (Triturus cristatus), hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) and bats (Chiroptera). To protect these and other species, various mitigation measures are available. Within this review, we sought to identify best practice guidance for preventing and mitigating these impacts for EPS in Great Britain, evaluate the evidence underpinning these best practices and identity knowledge gaps that may impede progress in improving practices. Many current practices appear to be implemented at considerable cost despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. This is probably partly due to inadequate definition of effectiveness, which has most frequently been assessed as a reduction in absolute road mortality or increased frequency of safe road crossings. However, challenges in measuring benefits more appropriately, at spatial and temporal scales that are appropriate for population maintenance, may also have contributed. Evidence of the cost-effectiveness of mitigation works could underpin justification for the substantial investment required to implement many of the mitigation methods reviewed, could avoid the potentially wasteful use of ineffective methods and could better safeguard the conservation status of impacted EPS at local and national scales.

Facilitating permeability of landscapes impacted by roads for protected amphibians: patterns of movement for the great crested newt

Amphibian populations are highly vulnerable to road mortality and habitat fragmentation caused by road networks. Wildlife road tunnels are considered the most promising road mitigation measure for amphibians yet generally remain inadequately monitored, resulting in mixed success rates in the short-term and uncertain conservation benefits in the long-term. We monitored a complex multi-tunnel and fence system over five years and investigated the impact of the scheme on movement patterns of two newt species, including the largest known UK population of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus), a European Protected Species. We used a stage descriptive approach based on capture positions to quantify newt movement patterns. Newt species successfully used the mitigation but the system constituted a bottleneck to movements from the fences to the tunnels. Crossing rates varied widely among years and were skewed towards autumn dispersal rather than spring breeding migration. There was a substantial negative bias against adult male great crested newts using the system. This study indicates that road tunnels could partially mitigate wider connectivity loss and fragmentation at the landscape scale for newt species. However, the observed bottleneck effects and seasonal bias could have population-level effects which must be better understood, especially for small populations, so that improvements can be made. Current requirements for monitoring mitigation schemes post-implementation are probably too short to assess their effectiveness in maintaining connectivity and to adequately understand their population-level impacts.

Detectability Counts when Assessing Populations for Biodiversity Targets

Efficient, practical and accurate estimates of population parameters are a necessary basis for effective conservation action to meet biodiversity targets. The brown hare is representative of many European farmland species: historically widespread and abundant but having undergone rapid declines as a result of agricultural intensification. As a priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, it has national targets for population increase that are part of wider national environmental indicators. Previous research has indicated that brown hare declines have been greatest in pastural landscapes and that gains might be made by focussing conservation effort there. We therefore used hares in pastural landscapes to examine how basic changes in survey methodology can affect the precision of population density estimates and related these to national targets for biodiversity conservation in the UK. Line transects for hares carried out at night resulted in higher numbers of detections, had better-fitting detection functions and provided more robust density estimates with lower effort than those during the day, due primarily to the increased probability of detection of hares at night and the nature of hare responses to the observer. Hare spring densities varied widely within a single region, with a pooled mean of 20.6 hares km−2, significantly higher than the reported national average of hares in pastures of 3.3 hares km−2. The high number of encounters allowed us to resolve hare densities at site, season and year scales. We demonstrate how survey conduct can impact on data quantity and quality with implications for setting and monitoring biodiversity targets. Our case study of the brown hare provides evidence that for wildlife species with low detectability, large scale volunteer-based monitoring programmes, either species specific or generalist, might be more successfully and efficiently carried out by a small number of trained personnel able to employ methods that maximise detectability.

Risk management to prioritise the eradication of new and emerging invasive non-native species

Abstract Robust tools are needed to prioritise the management of invasive non-native species (INNS). Risk assessment is commonly used to prioritise INNS, but fails to take into account the feasibility of management. Risk management provides a structured evaluation of management options, but has received little attention to date. We present a risk management scheme to assess the feasibility of eradicating INNS that can be used, in conjunction with existing risk assessment schemes, to support prioritisation. The Non-Native Risk Management scheme (NNRM) can be applied to any predefined area and any taxa. It uses semi-quantitative response and confidence scores to assess seven key criteria: Effectiveness, Practicality, Cost, Impact, Acceptability, Window of opportunity and Likelihood of re-invasion. Scores are elicited using expert judgement, supported by available evidence, and consensus-building methods. We applied the NNRM to forty-one INNS that threaten Great Britain (GB). Thirty-three experts provided scores, with overall feasibility of eradication assessed as ‘very high’ (8 species), ‘high’ (6), ‘medium’ (8), ‘low’ (10) and ‘very low’ (9). The feasibility of eradicating terrestrial species was higher than aquatic species. Lotic freshwater and marine species scored particularly low. Combining risk management and existing risk assessment scores identified six established species as priorities for eradication. A further six species that are not yet established were identified as priorities for eradication on arrival as part of contingency planning. The NNRM is one of the first INNS risk management schemes that can be used with existing risk assessments to prioritise INNS eradication in any area.

Exclusions for resolving urban badger damage problems: outcomes and consequences

Increasing urbanisation and growth of many wild animal populations can result in a greater frequency of human-wildlife conflicts. However, traditional lethal methods of wildlife control are becoming less favoured than non-lethal approaches, particularly when problems involve charismatic species in urban areas. Eurasian badgers (Meles meles) excavate subterranean burrow systems (setts), which can become large and complex. Larger setts within which breeding takes place and that are in constant use are known as main setts. Smaller, less frequently occupied setts may also exist within the social group’s range. When setts are excavated in urban environments they can undermine built structures and can limit or prevent safe use of the area by people. The most common approach to resolving these problems in the UK is to exclude badgers from the problem sett, but exclusions suffer a variable success rate. We studied 32 lawful cases of badger exclusions using one-way gates throughout England to evaluate conditions under which attempts to exclude badgers from their setts in urban environments were successful. We aimed to identify ways of modifying practices to improve the chances of success. Twenty of the 32 exclusion attempts were successful, but success was significantly less likely if a main sett was to be excluded in comparison with another type of sett and if vegetation was not completely removed from the sett surface prior to exclusion attempts. We recommend that during exclusions all vegetation is removed from the site, regardless of what type of sett is involved, and that successful exclusion of badgers from a main sett might require substantially more effort than other types of sett.