Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human-wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms

Livestock depredation has implications for conservation and agronomy; it can be costly for farmers and can prompt retaliatory killing of carnivores. Lethal control measures are readily available and are reportedly perceived to be cheaper, more practical and more effective than nonlethal methods. However, the costs and efficacy of lethal vs non-lethal approaches have rarely been compared formally. We conducted a 3-year study on 11 South African livestock farms, examining costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal conflict mitigation methods. Farmers used existing lethal control in the first year and switched to guardian animals (dogs Canis familiaris and alpacas Lama pacos) or livestock protection collars for the following 2 years. During the first year the mean cost of livestock protection was USD 3.30 per head of stock and the mean cost of depredation was USD 20.11 per head of stock. In the first year of non-lethal control the combined implementation and running costs were similar to those of lethal control (USD 3.08 per head). However, the mean cost of depredation decreased by 69.3%, to USD 6.52 per head. In the second year of non-lethal control the running costs (USD 0.43 per head) were significantly lower than in previous years and depredation costs decreased further, to USD 5.49 per head. Our results suggest that non-lethal methods of human–wildlife conflict mitigation can reduce depredation and can be economically advantageous compared to lethal methods of predator control.ABAX Foundation (previously the Polaris Foundation), Pick'n Pay, Woolworths, the Henry and Iris Englund Foundation, the National Lotteries Distribution Trust Fund, Arne Hanson, the Mones Michaels Trust and Royal Canin. Wits–Carnegie fellowship and Kaplan Senior Research Fellow at Pembroke College. Recanati–Kaplan Foundation, the Peoples' Trust for Endangered Species and the Swift family.http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ORXhb2016Mammal Research Institut

Whole genome sequence association analysis of fasting glucose and fasting insulin levels in diverse cohorts from the NHLBI TOPMed program

The genetic determinants of fasting glucose (FG) and fasting insulin (FI) have been studied mostly through genome arrays, resulting in over 100 associated variants. We extended this work with high-coverage whole genome sequencing analyses from fifteen cohorts in NHLBI’s Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program. Over 23,000 non-diabetic individuals from five race-ethnicities/populations (African, Asian, European, Hispanic and Samoan) were included. Eight variants were significantly associated with FG or FI across previously identified regions MTNR1B, G6PC2, GCK, GCKR and FOXA2. We additionally characterize suggestive associations with FG or FI near previously identified SLC30A8, TCF7L2, and ADCY5 regions as well as APOB, PTPRT, and ROBO1. Functional annotation resources including the Diabetes Epigenome Atlas were compiled for each signal (chromatin states, annotation principal components, and others) to elucidate variant-to-function hypotheses. We provide a catalog of nucleotide-resolution genomic variation spanning intergenic and intronic regions creating a foundation for future sequencing-based investigations of glycemic traits

War and wildlife: linking armed conflict to conservation

Armed conflict throughout the world's biodiversity hotspots poses a critical threat to conservation efforts. To date, research and policy have focused more on the ultimate outcomes of conflict for wildlife rather than on the ecological, social, and economic processes that create those outcomes. Yet the militarization that accompanies armed conflict, as well as consequent changes in governance, economies, and human settlement, has diverse influences on wildlife populations and habitats. To better understand these complex dynamics, we summarized 144 case studies from around the world and identified 24 distinct pathways linking armed conflict to wildlife outcomes. The most commonly cited pathways reflect changes to institutional and socioeconomic factors, rather than tactical aspects of conflict. Marked differences in the most salient pathways emerge across geographic regions and wildlife taxa. Our review demonstrates that mitigating the negative effects of conflict on biodiversity conservation requires a nuanced understanding of the ways in which conflict affects wildlife populations and communities