Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe

[Abstract]: Anthropogenic hybridization is widely perceived as a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. Nevertheless, to date, relevant policy and management interventions are unresolved and highly convoluted. While this is due to the inherent complexity of the issue, we hereby hypothesize that a lack of agreement concerning management goals and approaches, within the scientific community, may explain the lack of social awareness on this phenomenon, and the absence of effective pressure on decision-makers. By focusing on wolf x dog hybridization in Europe, we hereby (a) assess the state of the art of issues on wolf x dog hybridization within the scientific community, (b) assess the conceptual bases for different viewpoints, and (c) provide a conceptual framework aiming at reducing the disagreements. We adopted the Delphi technique, involving a three-round iterative survey addressed to a selected sample of experts who published at Web of Science listed journals, in the last 10 years on wolf x dog hybridization and related topics. Consensus was reached that admixed individuals should always be defined according to their genetic profile, and that a reference threshold for admixture (i.e., q-value in assignment tests) should be formally adopted for their identification. To mitigate hybridization, experts agreed on adopting preventive, proactive and, when concerning small and recovering wolf populations, reactive interventions. Overall, experts' consensus waned as the issues addressed became increasingly practical, including the adoption of lethal removal. We suggest three non-mutually exclusive explanations for this trend: (i) value-laden viewpoints increasingly emerge when addressing practical issues, and are particularly diverging between experts with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., ecologists, geneticists); (ii) some experts prefer avoiding the risk of potentially giving carte blanche to wolf opponents to (illegally) remove wolves, based on the wolf x dog hybridization issue; (iii) room for subjective interpretation and opinions result from the paucity of data on the effectiveness of different management interventions. These results have management implications and reveal gaps in the knowledge on a wide spectrum of issues related not only to the management of anthropogenic hybridization, but also to the role of ethical values and real-world management concerns in the scientific debate.We are grateful to experts: H. Andren, M. Apollonio, E. J. G. Fernandez, O. Liberg, S. Nowak, C. Vilà, and P. Wabakken who participated partially in this Delphi survey and contributed their time. We are grateful to Elleanor Gurr from the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) for her help in providing ideas and shaping discussions on anthropogenic hybridization. The following funding bodies are thanked by the respective authors: GC: Formas; OG: CNRS Mission pour l'Interdisciplinarité through its program Osez l'Interdisciplinarité; RG: Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (IF/00564/2012); MH: post-doctoral research grant from Estonian Research Council; CP: Aalborg Zoo Conservation Foundation (AZCF: grant number 3 and 4, 2018); MP: The Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship (RF-2017-185); US: Institutional research funding (IUT20-32) from the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research; JL: Research Council of Norway (grant 251112); AS: senior postdoctoral fellowship from Insubria University in Varese, Italy; JB: Ramon & Cajal research contract (RYC-2015-18932) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness; NM: NERC Grant/Award Number: NE/R006946/1 and Scriven fellowship. This work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council [grant number NE/R006946/1].Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia; IF/00564/2012Aalborg Zoo Conservation Foundation; 3, 4, 2018Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship; RF-2017-185Estonian Ministry of Education and Research; IUT20-32Research Council of Norway; 251112Natural Environment Research Council; NE/R006946/

Cost of Coexisting with a Relict Large Carnivore Population: Impact of Apennine Brown Bears, 2005-2015.

Human-carnivore conflicts are a major conservation issue. As bears are expanding their range in Europe's human-modified landscapes, it is increasingly important to understand, prevent, and address human-bear conflicts and evaluate mitigation strategies in areas of historical coexistence. Based on verified claims, we assessed costs, patterns, and drivers of bear damages in the relict Apennine brown bear population in the Abruzzo Lazio and Molise National Park (PNALM), central Italy. During 2005-2015, 203 ± 71 (SD) damage events were verified annually, equivalent to 75,987 ± 30,038 €/year paid for compensation. Most damages occurred in summer and fall, with livestock depredation, especially sheep and cattle calves, prevailing over other types of damages, with apiaries ranking second in costs of compensation. Transhumant livestock owners were less impacted than residential ones, and farms that adopted prevention measures loaned from the PNALM were less susceptible to bear damages. Livestock farms chronically damaged by bears represented 8 ± 3% of those annually impacted, corresponding to 24 ± 6% of compensation costs. Further improvements in the conflict mitigation policy adopted by the PNALM include integrated prevention, conditional compensation, and participatory processes. We discuss the implications of our study for Human-bear coexistence in broader contexts

Analysis of stability in time of marginal adaptation of endosequence root repair material on biological samples

Introduction: The introduction of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and bioceramic sealers increased the success rate of endodontic surgery and perforation repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal adaptation at different times of endosequence root repair material (ERMM) in order to evaluate its dimensional stability using variable pressure-scanning electron microscope (VP-SEM). Material and Methods: Fourty-eight teeth were selected shaped up to a master apical size of 25. Then a 3mm cut perpendicular to the long axis and a retrograde cavity preparation were performed. In order to obtain 2mm thick sample a second cut was done and, in this disk, ERMM was inserted. The samples were stored at 37°.The samples were divided into four time-depending groups observed with VP-SE Mat time0 (Group 1) andafter2 (Group2),7(Group 3) and 30 days (Group4) after ERRM setting. Statistical analysis with one way-ANOVA test was performed (95%). Results: None of the four groups analyzed showed a complete marginal adaptation between dentin and ERRM. Instead, in all groups ERRM exhibited a completely preserved marginal adaptation to the dentin wall in all time-dependent groups. The mean (±SD) gap value was fortime0,3.91(±2.55) mmafter2days,4.32(±2.69), after7days4.49(±2.53), and after30days4.81(±2.85) mm. No statistically significant difference was found between the four groups. Conclusions: The results of the present study demonstrate the dimensional stability over time of ERMM

Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe

Anthropogenic hybridization is widely perceived as a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. Nevertheless, to date, relevant policy and management interventions are unresolved and highly convoluted. While this is due to the inherent complexity of the issue, we hereby hypothesize that a lack of agreement concerning management goals and approaches, within the scientific community, may explain the lack of social awareness on this phenomenon, and the absence of effective pressure on decision-makers. By focusing on wolf x dog hybridization in Europe, we hereby (a) assess the state of the art of issues on wolf x dog hybridization within the scientific community, (b) assess the conceptual bases for different viewpoints, and (c) provide a conceptual framework aiming at reducing the disagreements. We adopted the Delphi technique, involving a three-round iterative survey addressed to a selected sample of experts who published at Web of Science listed journals, in the last 10 years on wolf x dog hybridization and related topics. Consensus was reached that admixed individuals should always be defined according to their genetic profile, and that a reference threshold for admixture (i.e., q-value in assignment tests) should be formally adopted for their identification. To mitigate hybridization, experts agreed on adopting preventive, proactive and, when concerning small and recovering wolf populations, reactive interventions. Overall, experts' consensus waned as the issues addressed became increasingly practical, including the adoption of lethal removal. We suggest three non-mutually exclusive explanations for this trend: (i) value-laden viewpoints increasingly emerge when addressing practical issues, and are particularly diverging between experts with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., ecologists, geneticists); (ii) some experts prefer avoiding the risk of potentially giving carte blanche to wolf opponents to (illegally) remove wolves, based on the wolf x dog hybridization issue; (iii) room for subjective interpretation and opinions result from the paucity of data on the effectiveness of different management interventions. These results have management implications and reveal gaps in the knowledge on a wide spectrum of issues related not only to the management of anthropogenic hybridization, but also to the role of ethical values and real-world management concerns in the scientific debate

Wolves, Farmers, & Capitalism: A More-Than-Human Political Ecology of Human-Wolf Relations in Italy

This doctoral thesis builds on and further develops a more-than-human political ecology, exploring the imbrication of non-human agencies with (capitalist) political economies in the coproduction of human-wildlife relations. Through a multispecies ethnography and other mixed methods, including a historical literature analysis, this work investigates the following research questions, in the context of human-wolf coexistence in Tuscany and Italy: (Q1) how are wolves affected by and responsive to human practices linked to particular political economies, in ways that influence broader human-wolf relations? (Q2) How are wolves a more-than-human force of socioecological change, including agrarian change, shaping human-wolf relations in turn? (Q3) How may caring human-wolf relations unfold, as situated within particular political-economic contexts? These questions are investigated through four empirical chapters. The first chapter, addressing especially Q1 and Q2, (re)traces the historical decline and comeback of wolves in Italy, politicising and nuancing current narratives. The second and third chapters further explore, in the more contemporary settings of rural Tuscany, the focus of Q1 and Q2, respectively. Specifically, the second chapter looks at the intersection of wolves’ mobilities with agrarian change, highlighting how wolves are changing (genetically, behaviourally, and ecologically) by dwelling in shifting agricultural contexts, and how this is affecting local wolf impacts and human-wolf relations. The third chapter explores how, within this agrarian context, wolves are an agent of change, reproducing and undercutting processes of agricultural modernisation. The fourth chapter takes a closer look at Q3, emphasising local ethical propensities for coexisting with wolves based on ‘affirmative biopolitics of living with’, which recognise wolves as subjects rather than as means to an end, but whose actualisation is in part constrained by socioeconomic hardships in the agricultural sector. The emerging picture is one in which wolves are cogent, political actors, conditioning people into implementing particular measures and policies through their affective capacities, presence, and impacts. Wolves are described as entangled in reciprocal and mutually constitutive relations with humans, (asymmetrically) co-shaping the course of socioecological change. In this process, wolf agency is conceived either as becoming channelled into the reproduction of capitalist dynamics, or as a subversive force of change that undermines the status quo and provides opportunities for the production of alternative (co)existences. Through shedding light on these aspects, this research emphasises the value and radical potential of a more-than-human political ecology, which goes beyond dualist frames without losing track of the uneven power relations pervading more-than-human societies.UKRI ESRC (ES/P000738/1)

Managing hybridization beyond the natural-anthropogenic dichotomy.

*first paragraph* (abstract not available) Hybridisation occurs when distinct populations interbreed with one another. Historically, hybrids have lacked recognition in legal conservation frameworks, mainly because they have been perceived as a threat to species’ purity and lacking conservation value (Draper et al. 2021). Twenty years ago, in a landmark paper, Allendorf and colleagues (2001) proposed distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic hybrids and argued for the protection of the former as well as the mitigation and control of the latter. Their justification for this was based on promoting what we here refer to as the evolutionary, biodiversity, ecological, and naturalness values (Table 1), along with the empirical proposition that natural hybrids promote these values whereas anthropogenic hybrids detract from them (Allendorf et al. 2001). The practice of removing anthropogenic hybrids has since been criticised by those who believe that at least some anthropogenic hybrids also ought to be actively conserved, in view of their ecological and evolutionary benefits (Stronen & Paquet 2013; vonHoldt et al. 2018). For example, Cooper and Shaffer (2021) recently found that the anthropogenic hybrids of two tiger salamander species (Ambystoma spp.) can tolerate thermal extremes better and are more resilient in the face of climate change than either of the parent populations

Cost of Coexisting with a Relict Large Carnivore Population: Impact of Apennine Brown Bears, 2005–2015

Human-carnivore conflicts are a major conservation issue. As bears are expanding their range in Europe’s human-modified landscapes, it is increasingly important to understand, prevent, and address human-bear conflicts and evaluate mitigation strategies in areas of historical coexistence. Based on verified claims, we assessed costs, patterns, and drivers of bear damages in the relict Apennine brown bear population in the Abruzzo Lazio and Molise National Park (PNALM), central Italy. During 2005–2015, 203 ± 71 (SD) damage events were verified annually, equivalent to 75,987 ± 30,038 €/year paid for compensation. Most damages occurred in summer and fall, with livestock depredation, especially sheep and cattle calves, prevailing over other types of damages, with apiaries ranking second in costs of compensation. Transhumant livestock owners were less impacted than residential ones, and farms that adopted prevention measures loaned from the PNALM were less susceptible to bear damages. Livestock farms chronically damaged by bears represented 8 ± 3% of those annually impacted, corresponding to 24 ± 6% of compensation costs. Further improvements in the conflict mitigation policy adopted by the PNALM include integrated prevention, conditional compensation, and participatory processes. We discuss the implications of our study for Human-bear coexistence in broader contexts

Neonatal diagnosis of antithrombin III congenital defect in a premature newborn

Neonatal diagnosis of antithrombin III congenital defect in a premature newbor

FORCE: A FORmation Flying SAR Based on CubEsat Assemblies

Space systems exploiting modularity, formation flying, payload distribution and fractionation concepts can be used for a variety of applications, including Earth observation and on-orbit servicing. Concerning Earth observation, in a Formation Flying SAR (FF-SAR) the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) payload is distributed among several smaller platforms to enhance performance of a monolithic SAR, by exploiting the physical separation among the receivers. In this paper, a FF-SAR concept is described that exploits a cluster of three receiving-only platforms flying with separations of a few hundred meters. The cluster is then separated of about 100 km from an illuminator of opportunity, i.e. a transmitting-receiving SAR. The system is completely passive in the meaning that it exploits the signal transmitted by an illuminator of opportunity already in orbit. The paper presents an overview of the mission concept as well as system and platform design. Each platform is 12 U and has a modular architecture, being realized by assembling subsystems or modules, each composed by a number of Cubesat Units. In the paper, the antenna, propulsion and relative navigation modules are described. In addition, FF-SAR performance are preliminary evaluated within a realistic simulation environment, including orbit and attitude propagation, scene simulation, and image synthesis