An Integrative Approach to Modelling Human-Wildlife Coexistence Landscapes in the Northern Great Plains

Restoring wildlife populations in a human dominated world requires a deep understanding of the ecological conditions required for species persistence as well as the human social factors that influence restoration outcomes. Until recently, the majority of prior research has focused on understanding the ecological conditions and human social processes that contribution to wildlife restoration success separately, and often assign a higher value to ecological factors. I studied the human dimensions surrounding ongoing wildlife restoration efforts in the Northern Great Plains (NGP) of Montana to better understand how human social factors can affect and inform restoration efforts for a variety of wildlife species that have been repeatedly targeted for restoration across the NGP. In Chapter 1, I replicated a 1993 study to assess the long-term trends in attitudes and knowledge towards critically endangered black-footed ferrets and black-tailed prairie dogs among Montana resident representing five different stakeholder groups (local ranchers, statewide ranchers, rural residents, urban residents and members of conservation organizations) following nearly 30 years of recovery attempts. I found that stakeholder negative attitudes persisted over time despite outreach and incentive programs increasing knowledge of these species over time. Specifically, stakeholder closest to recovery sites (local ranchers and rural residents) maintained the most negative attitudes, were most knowledgeable, and had significantly lower temporal thresholds for achieving recovery goals (years). Next, in Chapter 2 I evaluated attitudes and behaviors towards a suite of species and ecological processes targeted for landscape-scale rewilding, as well as support for incentives for those species and processes. I found that there were differences in attitudes and behaviors towards species and processes as well as support for incentives among stakeholders. In particular, species perceived as threats to humans and livestock, as well as species that have the potential to limit land use practices due to associated regulatory constraints, were most negatively perceived, had a higher likelihood of negative behaviors, and had lower support for incentives. However, attitudes towards conserving migration as ecological processes were favorable among all stakeholders, suggesting the benefit of undertaking restoration of processes rather species in the future. In Chapter 3, I conducted a systematic literature search to evaluate the characteristics of variables used to describe anthropogenic impacts in connectivity and species distribution models for carnivores globally. I found that variables used to describe environmental conditions were four times more common than variables used to describe anthropogenic influences, which were more commonly used for larger bodied carnivores. However, the number of anthropogenic variables included were increasing at a rate of 3.35% a year and the spatial resolution of those variables has on average been decreasing by 53 meters per year. I also developed a recommended framework for integrating sociological data into predictive distribution and connectivity models throughout multiple steps in the modelling process based on my findings. Finally, in Chapter 4 I spatially predicted tolerance for swift fox, pronghorn, black-tailed prairie dogs, and mountain lions as a function of four landscape attributes and assessed the amount of spatial overlap between levels of tolerance and habitat suitability across three counties commonly targeted for restoration in the NGP of Montana. I found that tolerance was negatively affected by the amount of public land surrounding ranchlands and positively affected by the presence of conservation easements. I found that highly suitable habitats were in areas of medium-low tolerance for nearly all species, except swift fox which appear to have high restoration potential, suggesting the need for extensive outreach and incentive programs to achieve landscape-level restoration. My predictive maps of social tolerance and the spatial relationship with high suitability provides guidance towards priority areas for community engagement in areas with low social tolerance while simultaneously identifying potential pathways for connecting areas of high socio-ecological suitability. Collectively, my research highlights the value of using sociological information to inform approaches to multi-species restoration in working lands. Specifically, I show that variability in human social factors can limit multi-species restoration potential, but also provide guidance on developing mechanisms to increase social capacity to restore those species

Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it

Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research,education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour. Animal ethics Conservation biology Culling Factory farmingpublishedVersio

Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it

Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research,education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour. Animal ethics Conservation biology Culling Factory farmingpublishedVersio

Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT : All data associated with this article is available and contained within the article.Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research, education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour.A CIB Fellowship by the inter-institutional Centre for Invasion Biology (CIB) Centre of Excellence in South Africa, co-funded principally by the South African Department of Science and Technology through the National Research Foundation (DST-NRF).http://www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenvam2024Mammal Research InstituteZoology and EntomologyNon

Understanding the ecological impacts of timber harvesting techniques on the bat in a midwestern hardwood forest : occupancy analyses using bio-acoustics

Timber harvesting is an essential tool for bat habitat management on both public and private lands. Despite a long history of timber harvesting and forest management in the Midwest, there is a paucity of information regarding the immediate and long-term effects of these practices on forest dwelling bat species. To better understand the ecological consequences of harvesting practices on the bat community, we acoustically surveyed 108 sites across the Morgan-Monroe and Yellowwood state forests in southern Indiana during the 2016-2017 summer seasons (May August). As part of the Hardwood Ecosystem Experiment, a long-term (100 yr.) ecological study, we used paired random sampling techniques to survey bat occupancy in three different harvest types including clearcuts, shelterwoods, and single-tree selection, as well as in intact forest stands. Echolocation calls were recorded using Wildlife Acoustics SM2+ echolocation detectors and calls were classified using Bat Call ID v.2.7D (BCID) and Echoclass v.3.1. We recorded between 24,552-37,672 bat calls, of which we classified 14,039-19,690 to specific species depending on automated classifier. We used single-season false-positive occupancy models to estimate bat occupancy across a gradient of harvest intensity for single species as well as relative call frequency groups. Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), little-brown bats (Myotis lucifugus), and eastern red bats (Lasiurus borealis) showed 2 negative relationships with increasing basal area while northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) showed positive relationships with increasing basal area. Predictors of bat occupancy varied across species and included basal area, distance to nearest road, and distance to nearest wildlife pond. Overall, we found differences in occupancy in forest stands differing in basal area and limited evidence that occupancy is better predicted by single-species models than by frequency group models. Our results can be used to aid in future management decisions regarding the effects of timber harvesting on the bat communityDepartment of BiologyThesis (M.S.

Middle-out ecology: small carnivores as sentinels of global change

Species that respond to ecosystem change in a timely, measurable, and interpretable way can be used as sentinels of global change. Contrary to a pervasive view, we suggest that, among Carnivora, small carnivores are more appropriate sentinels than large carnivores. This reasoning is built around six key points: that, compared to large carnivores, small carnivores 1) are more species-rich and diverse, providing more potential sentinels in many systems; 2) occupy a wider range of ecological niches, exhibiting a greater variety of sensitivities to change; 3) hold an intermediate trophic position that is more directly affected by changes at the producer, primary consumer, and tertiary consumer levels; 4) have shorter life spans and higher reproductive rates, exhibiting more rapid responses to change; 5) have smaller home ranges and are more abundant, making it easier to investigate fine-scale management interventions; 6) are easier to monitor, manage, and manipulate. Therefore, we advocate for incorporating a middle-out approach, in addition to the established top-down and bottom-up approaches, to assessing the responses of ecosystems to global change