Transparency and adaptability aid in realigning the complexity of objectives, approaches, and systems in human-wildlife coexistence research

Human-wildlife interactions are situated within dynamic systems, characterized by social and ecological complexity. Human-wildlife coexistence research, however, typically focuses on one component of these systems in isolation. We inadvertently followed this norm while carrying out semi-structured interviews of livestock-owners in Northern Tanzania. As existing literature highlighted that this area was a hotspot for livestock depredation, our research questions focused on human interactions with carnivores. Interestingly, almost three quarters (72%, n = 72 of 100) of study participants independently raised African elephants (Loxodonta africana) as presenting the greatest impediments to coexistence. By centering our interviews on carnivores, we omitted vital components of this complex system. To counteract the effects of this oversimplification, we changed our intended analytical process after data collection. Instead of conducting a quantitative analysis of rates of livestock depredation and perceptions of risk posed by a suite of sympatric carnivores, we applied a grounded theory approach to assess interactions across multiple dimensions of this complex system. Through this transparent effort to realign our approaches with the complexity of the study system, we highlight the importance of designing research approaches that effectively reflect the complexities inherent to human-wildlife coexistence

Factors affecting the prey preferences of jackals (Canidae)

Prey selection by carnivores can be affected by top-down and bottom-up factors. For example, large carnivores may facilitate food resources for mesocarnivores by providing carcasses to scavenge, however mesocarnivores may hunt large prey themselves, and their diets might be affected by prey size and behaviour. We reviewed jackal diet studies and determined how the presence of large carnivores and various bottom-up factors affected jackal prey selection. We found 20 studies of black-backed jackals (Canis mesomelas) from 43 different times or places, and 13 studies of Eurasian golden jackals (Canis aureus) from 23 different times or places reporting on 3900 and 2440 dietary records (i.e. scats or stomach contents), respectively. Black-backed jackals significantly preferred small (< 30 kg) ungulate 3 species that hide their young (duiker Sylvicapra grimmia, bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus and springbok Antidorcas marsupialis), and avoided large (> 120 kg) hider species and follower species of any body size. They had a preferred and accessible prey weight range of 14-26 kg, and a predator to ideal prey mass ratio of 1:3.1. Eurasian golden jackal significantly prefer to prey on brown hare (Lepus europaeus; 4 kg), yielding a predator to preferred prey mass ratio of 1:0.6, and a preferred and accessible prey weight range of 0 – 4 kg and 0 – 15 kg, respectively. Prey preferences of jackals differed significantly in the presence of apex predators, but it was not entirely due to carrion availability of larger prey species. Our results show that jackal diets are affected by both top-down and bottom-up factors, because apex predators as well as prey size and birthing behaviour affected prey preferences of jackals. A better understanding of the factors affecting jackal prey preferences, as presented here, could lead to greater acceptance of mesocarnivores and reduced human-wildlife conflict

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

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