The effects of food waste on wildlife and humans

A reduction in the loss and waste of human food is a global issue for addressing poverty and hunger in poorer nations, and for reducing the environmental footprint of the agriculture sector. An emerging issue, however, is that food wasted by humans is often accessible to wildlife, affecting wildlife ecology and behaviour, as well as ecological processes and community dynamics. Here we highlight the extent of such impacts, drawing on examples from mammalian predators and other taxonomic groups. We then develop two conceptual models. The first shows how wildlife access to food waste can exacerbate human-wildlife conflicts. The second highlights that when food waste is removed, the effects on wildlife and ecosystem processes should be monitored. The conceptual models are important when considering that large quantities of food waste are intentionally and unintentionally provided to wildlife around the world. We conclude there is an urgent need to change the way people currently manage the food we produce

Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection

Carnivore predation on livestock often leads people to retaliate. Persecution by humans has contributed strongly to global endangerment of carnivores. Preventing livestock losses would help to achieve three goals common to many human societies: preserve nature, protect animal welfare, and safeguard human livelihoods. Between 2016 and 2018, four independent reviews evaluated >40 years of research on lethal and nonlethal interventions for reducing predation on livestock. From 114 studies, we find a striking conclusion: scarce quantitative comparisons of interventions and scarce comparisons against experimental controls preclude strong inference about the effectiveness of methods. For wise investment of public resources in protecting livestock and carnivores, evidence of effectiveness should be a prerequisite to policy making or large-scale funding of any method or, at a minimum, should be measured during implementation. An appropriate evidence base is needed, and we recommend a coalition of scientists and managers be formed to establish and encourage use of consistent standards in future experimental evaluations

Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection

Carnivore predation on livestock often leads people to retaliate. Persecution by humans has contributed strongly to global endangerment of carnivores. Preventing livestock losses would help to achieve three goals common to many human societies: preserve nature, protect animal welfare, and safeguard human livelihoods. Between 2016 and 2018, four independent reviews evaluated >40 years of research on lethal and nonlethal interventions for reducing predation on livestock. From 114 studies, we find a striking conclusion: scarce quantitative comparisons of interventions and scarce comparisons against experimental controls preclude strong inference about the effectiveness of methods. For wise investment of public resources in protecting livestock and carnivores, evidence of effectiveness should be a prerequisite to policy making or large-scale funding of any method or, at a minimum, should be measured during implementation. An appropriate evidence base is needed, and we recommend a coalition of scientists and managers be formed to establish and encourage use of consistent standards in future experimental evaluations

Predator control needs a standard of unbiased randomized experiments with cross-over design

Rapid, global changes, such as extinction and climate change, put a premium on evidence-based, environmental policies and interventions, including predator control efforts. Lack of solid scientific evidence precludes strong inference about responses of predators, people, and prey of both, to various types of predator control. Here we formulate two opposing hypotheses with possible underlying mechanisms and propose experiments to test four pairs of opposed predictions about responses of predators, domestic animals, and people in a coupled, dynamic system. We outline the design of a platinum-standard experiment, namely randomized, controlled experiment with cross-over design and multiple steps to blind measurement, analysis, and peer review to avoid pervasive biases. The gold-standard has been proven feasible in field experiments with predators and livestock, so we call for replicating that across the world on different methods of predator control, in addition to striving for an even higher standard that can improve reproducibility and reliability of the science of predator control

Species definitions shape policy

The names we assign to organisms, and why, have important ramifications for our understanding of Earth's diversity and, more practically, how it is managed. For example, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, and other canids are often considered distinct (1), but their members can, and frequently do, interbreed (2). Differing concepts of species—which might take into account morphology, ecology, behavior, genetics, or evolutionary history (3)—could describe canids as very few or many species, depending on which concepts are used and how strictly they are applied. Which definition scientists adopt can have political and ecological consequences. The dingo (Canis dingo) has traditionally been considered native in Australia, given evidence of its presence before the year 1400 (4) and indications that it has lived in Australia for at least 5000 years (5). This designation meant that Western Australia had to have a management strategy in place for the dingo, along with other native fauna. However, a recent paper (6) argues that dingoes are in fact C. familiaris because they don't satisfy zoological nomenclature protocols nor sufficiently differ genetically or morphologically from other canids, including domestic dogs. The Western Australian government cited this work in justifying its recent decision to declare the dingo a non-native species under the state's Biodiversity Conservation Act (BCA) (7). The new order removes the government requirement to manage the species. As a result, dingoes can now be killed anywhere in the state without a BCA license. A potential increase in lethal control of dingoes could have dire consequences for Australia's ecosystems. The dingo is Australia's largest terrestrial top predator [adults typically weigh 15 to 20 kg (8)], it fulfils a crucial ecological role, and it has strong cultural significance for Australia's Indigenous people (8). Taxonomy serves a critical purpose for cataloguing and conserving biodiversity, but different interpretations and applications of species concepts can affect management decisions. Policy-makers may use the interpretations that justify their preferred values, such as prioritizing livestock more than biodiversity protection. It is therefore imperative that scientists carefully engage in the policy decision-making process. Scientists must work with policy-makers to convey the multiple dimensions and values that can affect species delineation and make clear the potential consequences of applying such classifications

How scholars prioritize the competing values of conservation and sustainability

Aspirations for human-nature relationships involve values that are widely embraced, yet often compete with one another. As such, there is need to understand how individuals prioritize competing values pertaining to human-nature relationships. To quantify individuals\u27 affinity for those conservation priorities, we developed a survey instrument asking individuals to respond to forced trade-offs between pairs of competing values. Forced trade-offs are relevant to the extent one perceives that limited resources preclude satisfying all the values and interests at stake in human-nature relationships. We administered this survey to 459 scholars of conservation and sustainability. Factor analysis supports the acknowledgement of five conservation priorities. Two prioritizations lean toward non-anthropocentrism and are aptly labelled, orthodox conservation and organism-oriented conservation. Three prioritizations lean toward anthropocentrism and are aptly labelled, future generations, present-day fairness, and neoliberalism. In spite of the forced trade-offs, most individuals expressed strong affinity for multiple priorities. That result suggests that polarizing discourse about controversies in conservation is likely representative of a small portion of people. Also, specific cases in conservation involving competing values are often adjudicated by case-specific context, as opposed to the one priority most appreciated by an individual. The results are consistent with psychological evidence indicating that moral judgments (about human-nature relationships) are typically intuitive and subsequently affirmed by moral reasoning. Results also indicate that the five conservation priorities are not readily reducible to other basic values (utilitarianism, social justice)