The many faces of fear:A synthesis of methodological variation in characterizing predation risk from carnivores

Predators affect prey by killing them directly (lethal effects) and by inducing costly antipredator behaviours in living prey (risk effects). Risk effects can strongly influence prey populations and cascade through trophic systems. A prerequisite for assessing risk effects is characterizing the spatiotemporal variation in predation risk. Risk effects research has experienced rapid growth in the last several decades. However, preliminary assessments of the resultant literature suggest that researchers characterize predation risk using a variety of techniques. The implications of this methodological variation for inference and comparability among studies have not been well recognized or formally synthesized. We couple a literature survey with a hierarchical framework, developed from established theory, to quantify the methodological variation in characterizing risk using carnivore-ungulate systems as a case study. Via this process, we documented 244 metrics of risk from 141 studies falling into at least 13 distinct subcategories within three broader categories. Both empirical and theoretical work suggest risk and its effects on prey constitute a complex, multi-dimensional process with expressions varying by spatiotemporal scale. Our survey suggests this multi-scale complexity is reflected in the literature as a whole but often underappreciated in any given study, which complicates comparability among studies and leads to an overemphasis on documenting the presence of risk effects rather than their mechanisms or scale of influence. We suggest risk metrics be placed in a more concrete conceptual framework to clarify inference surrounding risk effects and their cascading effects throughout ecosystems. We recommend studies (i) take a multi-scale approach to characterizing risk; (ii) explicitly consider 'true' predation risk (probability of predation per unit time); and (iii) use risk metrics that facilitate comparison among studies and the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses. Addressing the pressing questions in risk effects research, including how, to what extent and on what scale they occur, requires leveraging the advantages of the many methods available to characterize risk while minimizing the confusion caused by variability in their application.The NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (RJM), the Michigan State University MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program (ABM), CNPq-Brasil (LA), and the University of Montana Boone and Crockett Program (JJM).http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-26562018-07-30cs2017Centre for Wildlife Managemen

Complex ways in which landscape conditions and risks affect human attitudes towards wildlife

Negative interactions between humans and wildlife (i.e. those presenting risks to human security or private property) can trigger retaliation and potential human-wildlife conflict (HWC). The nature and strength of these human responses may depend on previous interactions with wildlife and can be shaped by landscape conditions. However, the ways in which previous experiences and landscape conditions interact to shape peoples’ attitudes towards wildlife are not well-understood. We conducted our study in Tsavo Conservation Area, Kenya, which experiences some of the highest rates of HWC documented in East Africa. We explored how previous experiences with wildlife and landscape conditions interact to inform the attitudes of people towards wildlife. We conducted semi-structured surveys among 331 households and fit an ordinal mixed-effects regression model to predict human attitudes to wildlife as a function of landscape conditions and previous interactions. Respondents indicated that baboons, elephants, and lions posed the greatest risks to human security and private property. Households experiencing risks from wildlife wanted wildlife populations to decrease, whereas households depending on grazing lands outside the study area wished to see wildlife increase. Our study demonstrates that human-wildlife interactions have important social and spatial contexts, and are not uniform across households in the same area owing to location of private property. Correspondingly, for interventions to be effective, we recommend considerations of local contexts and landscape conditions of communities.The Giraffe Conservation Foundation, Leiden Conservation Foundation, Wildlife Conservation Network, African Wildlife Foundation, and National Geographic Society.https://www.conservationandsociety.org.inam2023Centre for Wildlife Managemen

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Data from: Examining disease prevalence for species of conservation concern using non-invasive spatial capture-recapture techniques

1. Non-invasive techniques have long been used to estimate wildlife population abundance and density. However, recent technological breakthroughs have facilitated non-invasive estimation of the proportion of animal populations with certain diseases. Giraffes Giraffa camelopardalisare increasingly becoming recognized as a species of conservation concern with decreasing population trajectories across their range in Africa. 2. Diseases may be an important component impacting giraffe population declines, and the emerging ‘Giraffe Skin Disease’ (GSD), characterized by the appearance of wrinkled skin and alopecic lesions on the limbs, neck, and chest of infected giraffe, may hinder movement causing increased susceptibility to predation. 3. We examined the prevalence of GSD in Tanzania's Ruaha National Park over a 4-month period in 2015, using photographic capture–recapture surveys via road-based transects. We divided the study area into five circuitous survey units, each approximately 100 km in length ($\bar x$ = 99.22 km, SD = 3.72), and surveyed for giraffes for four months. From these surveys, we developed a database of spatially-explicit giraffe photographs. 4. We processed these photos for individual identification and fitted spatial capture–recapture models to predict the spatial configuration of giraffe abundance and GSD prevalence within the study area. 5. Our results indicated that >86% of the giraffe population showed signs of GSD and that the disease was more prevalent in the northern and north-eastern portion of Ruaha National Park. 6. Synthesis and applications. Our research shows that data from non-invasive surveys can be used in spatial capture–recapture (SCR) models to estimate the proportion of a population affected by a visible disease. Researchers and conservationists can use SCR models to better examine the variation in parameters associated with these populations such as sex and age class, movement, and encounter rate, which may be linked to the prevalence of the disease, while incorporating broad spatial and temporal dimensions of the population in such areas. We discuss the implications of this research for conservation of threatened species with an emphasis on disease ecology and vulnerability to predations, and more broadly, for wildlife conservation

GSD_photo_data_JAE

Data set file with sightings records and individual giraffe dat

Appendix1

JAGS code for giraffe spatial capture-recapture mode

Quantifying the severity of giraffe skin disease via photogrammetry analysis of camera trap data

Developing techniques to quantify the spread and severity of diseases afflicting wildlife populations is important for disease ecology, animal ecology, and conservation. Giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) are in the midst of a dramatic decline, but it is not known whether disease is playing an important role in the broad-scale population reductions. A skin disorder referred to as giraffe skin disease (GSD) was recorded in 1995 in one giraffe population in Uganda. Since then, GSD has been detected in 13 populations in seven African countries, but good descriptions of the severity of this disease are not available. We photogrammetrically analyzed camera trap images from both Ruaha and Serengeti National Parks in Tanzania to quantify GSD severity. GSD afflicts the limbs of giraffes in Tanzania, and we quantified severity by measuring the vertical length of the GSD lesion in relation to the total leg length. Applying the Jenks natural breaks algorithm to the lesion proportions that we derived, we classified individual giraffes into disease categories (none, mild, moderate, and severe). Scaling up to the population level, we predicted the proportion of the Ruaha and Serengeti giraffe populations with mild, moderate, and severe GSD. This study serves to demonstrate that camera traps presented an informative platform for examinations of skin disease ecology

Examining Evident Interdisciplinarity Among Prides of Lion Researchers

Lions (Panthera leo) have experienced dramatic population declines in recent decades and today, inhabit just a fraction of their historic range. The reasons behind these declines are many, but conflict with humans, principally motivated by lion depredation of livestock, is among the most influential. Recent calls within the scientific community have identified that wicked problems like these should be addressed using interdisciplinary approaches. Here we examined the extent to which human-lion conflict research has been interdisciplinary. We conducted an extensive review of the literature and uncovered 88 papers, published between 1990 and 2015, that assessed human-lion interaction and the ecology of lions exposed to anthropogenic disturbance. While human-lion conflict research experienced near-exponential growth (y = 8E-194e0.222x, R2= 0.76) across this time period, the number of co-authors engaged in this research changed very little (x = 3.28, se = 0.19). Moreover, co-authors of this research tended to be affiliated with units from just three highly-related STEM disciplines (biology, wildlife management, and environmental science). Comparatively, co-authors affiliated with units in the humanities and social sciences occurred in < 4% of all papers examined. Our analysis also presents a novel framework that positions human-lion conflict research as having not two dimensions, as has been commonly conceptualized, but five dimensions. These dimensions include not only the human and the lion dimensions, but also the livestock, wild prey, and environmental dimensions. None of the papers that we evaluated concurrently studied all five of these dimensions to determine their impact on human-lion conflict. Furthermore, despite the fact that human-lion conflict research was primarily developed by co-authors from STEM disciplines, the most common dimension evaluated was the human dimension which requires social science and humanities expertise. Our analysis indicates that interdisciplinarity among human-lion conflict research has historically been low. These low levels of interdisciplinarity observed from 1990 to 2015 however, are not necessarily representative of the ongoing efforts to develop more inclusive research teams. Thus, we discuss the implications of this research for the development of sustainable solutions to conserve lions and preserve human well-being and identify potential avenues forward to create more interdisciplinary prides of lion researchers

Updated geographic range maps for giraffe, Giraffa spp., throughout sub‐Saharan Africa, and implications of changing distributions for conservation

Giraffe populations have declined in abundance by almost 40% over the last three decades, and the geographic ranges of the species (previously believed to be one, now defined as four species) have been significantly reduced or altered. With substantial changes in land uses, loss of habitat, declining abundance, translocations, and data gaps, the existing geographic range maps for giraffe need to be updated. We performed a review of existing giraffe range data, including aerial and ground observations of giraffe, existing geographic range maps, and available literature. The information we collected was discussed with and validated by subject‐matter experts. Our updates may serve to correct inaccuracies or omissions in the baseline map, or may reflect actual changes in the distribution of giraffe. Relative to the 2016 International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List Assessment range map, the updated geographic range maps show a 5.6% decline in the range area of all giraffe taxa combined. The ranges of Giraffa camelopardalis (northern giraffe) and Giraffa tippelskirchi (Masai giraffe) decreased in area by 37% (122432 km2) and 4.7% (20816 km2) respectively, whereas 14% (41696 km2) of the range of Giraffa reticulata (reticulated giraffe) had not been included in the original geographic range map and has now been added. The range of Giraffa giraffa (southern giraffe) showed little overall change; it increased by 0.1% (419 km2). Ranges were larger than previously reported in six of the 21 range countries (Botswana, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe), had declined in seven (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Malawi, Niger, Uganda, and Zambia) and remained unchanged in seven (Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, eSwatini, Namibia, Rwanda, Somalia, and South Africa). In Kenya, the ranges of both Giraffa tippelskirchi and Giraffa camelopardalis decreased, but the range of Giraffa reticulata was larger than previously believed. Our updated range maps increase existing knowledge, and are important for conservation planning for giraffe. However, since rapid infrastructure development throughout much of Africa is a driver of giraffe population declines, there is an urgent need for a continent‐wide, consistent and systematic giraffe survey to produce more accurate range maps, in order to inform conservation and policy planning

Examining Evident Interdisciplinarity Among Prides of Lion Researchers

Lions (Panthera leo) have experienced dramatic population declines in recent decades and today, inhabit just a fraction of their historic range. The reasons behind these declines are many, but conflict with humans, principally motivated by lion depredation of livestock, is among the most influential. Recent calls within the scientific community have identified that wicked problems like these should be addressed using interdisciplinary approaches. Here we examined the extent to which human-lion conflict research has been interdisciplinary. We conducted an extensive review of the literature and uncovered 88 papers, published between 1990 and 2015, that assessed human-lion interaction and the ecology of lions exposed to anthropogenic disturbance. While human-lion conflict research experienced near-exponential growth (y = 8E-194e0.222x, R2 = 0.76) across this time period, the number of co-authors engaged in this research changed very little (x = 3.28, se = 0.19). Moreover, co-authors of this research tended to be affiliated with units from just three highly-related STEM disciplines (biology, wildlife management, and environmental science). Comparatively, co-authors affiliated with units in the humanities and social sciences occurred in &lt;4% of all papers examined. Our analysis also presents a novel framework that positions human-lion conflict research as having not two dimensions, as has been commonly conceptualized, but five dimensions. These dimensions include not only the human and the lion dimensions, but also the livestock, wild prey, and environmental dimensions. None of the papers that we evaluated concurrently studied all five of these dimensions to determine their impact on human-lion conflict. Furthermore, despite the fact that human-lion conflict research was primarily developed by co-authors from STEM disciplines, the most common dimension evaluated was the human dimension which requires social science and humanities expertise. Our analysis indicates that interdisciplinarity among human-lion conflict research has historically been low. These low levels of interdisciplinarity observed from 1990 to 2015 however, are not necessarily representative of the ongoing efforts to develop more inclusive research teams. Thus, we discuss the implications of this research for the development of sustainable solutions to conserve lions and preserve human well-being and identify potential avenues forward to create more interdisciplinary prides of lion researchers