As humanity’s population grows exponentially, so does our environmental impact, and there is a need to accommodate such a large global population. Human-wildlife conflicts are expected to increase dramatically, as will human encroachment on wildlife habitats. The negative impacts of human-wildlife conflicts with tigers can vary, from lethal encounters, threats, and killing of livestock; these can obviously foster negative attitudes towards an endangered species. Negative attitudes towards tigers can lead to retaliatory killings of tigers, habitat destruction, and non-compliance with wildlife regulations. As a result, this can contribute to the tiger population’s decline and hinder conservation efforts. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of locals in the direct proximity of Chitwan National Park in Nepal to prioritize targeted conservation strategies. This research is important not only within the regional context of Nepal but also in providing insight/strategies for human-tiger coexistence in other areas of the world.

Chitwan National Park is a large forest (~1000km^2) that provides critical habitat for the endangered tiger (Panthera tigris). The national park’s buffer zone is a part of Nepal’s community forestry, allowing locals to harvest resources sustainably, such as; firewood, medicinal plants, and grazing area. It is also important for the livelihood of the locals, supporting an ecotourism industry and subsistence grazing/agriculture. The study site of the article is the westernmost part of the Chitwan district in Nepal, which borders the national park; it was broken down into “wards” (small administrative units used by Nepal), and the wards that were in the immediate vicinity of the national park where surveyed.

A stratified sample was made through the wards, where 500 individuals were randomly selected to participate in the attitudes survey. The attitudes survey included demographic information (age, gender, and ethnicity/caste) and socioeconomic information (education level, occupation, and how many livestock their household owned). It also included their tiger-related risks, such as how long they had lived in Chitwan, how often they went into the forest, and negative experiences with tigers.

The study results showed that one’s position in society shaped their attitudes more than having direct negative experiences with tigers. The researchers hypothesized that this is due to the fact that those of higher castes are more likely to be involved in the ecotourism industry, seeing the direct monetary value of tigers, instead of lower castes who are more likely to be subsidence farmers/rely on the forest products of the Chitwan national forest. Those with greater education also show more positive attitudes towards tigers, possibly because it broadens their perspective of tiger conservation and their ecological value. Those in lower castes/marginalized ethnic groups showed greater negative attitudes due to the reliance on forest products, where the presence of tigers is threatening, and how the conservation of the national forest restricts access to forest products that their livelihoods depend upon. Women also tended to have greater negative attitudes towards tigers, as they were primarily responsible for agricultural tasks/resource gathering, constraining their perception of tigers to tangible negative consequences.

There is an obvious spatial relationship between previously discussed trends, education, gender, ethnicity, and tiger exposure. Digging into this research article has expanded my perspective on the complex relationships between social structure and economics and how an individual’s experience affects wildlife conservation. Attitudes are not solely dependent on one’s experience with tigers but are deeply embedded within the context of the social/economic system one lives in. This study highlights the importance of targeting conservation strategies to various social groups within their own needs and experiences.

Carter, Neil H., et al. “Spatial Assessment of Attitudes Toward Tigers in Nepal.” AMBIO, vol. 43, no. 2, Mar. 2014, pp. 125–37. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0421-7.

There are many species considered to be pests, many typically being insects species. This study mainly focuses on corvids being a pest species due to its damage on crops. Due to the damage they cause to crops, culling is implemented to regulate their population numbers. But it many studies, culling has seem to have little to no effect to reduce numbers. Other methods have also shown to be inefficient to regulate their numbers.

There has been a increase of corvids in urban populations, which can be attributed to the increase of food and nesting site availability. The establishment of urban parks have seem to be starting point of population increasing. Another reasoning can be pinpointed towards corvids having easy access to food from waste bins or digging up for invertebrates. Whenever corvids dig up invertebrates, it causes the grass to be uprooted, leading to damage to lawn beds.

This study goes over the possibility of restricting mowing to reduced uprooting by urban corvids. The study was conducted in Jardin des Plantes, Paris, France, which contains a large urban park. The park contains a botanical garden, which includes an alpine garden and a ecological garden. The garden covers .4 ha and hosts nocturnal crow roost that an receive up to 200 individuals. The garden, Carre Lamarck portion, contains 16 lawn beds/4 bushes/12 full grass lawns.

The study focused on 12 lawn beds, which were divided up into 2 groups. One being mowed regularly, and the other being unmoved from September until February. The experiment was repeated but treatment was reversed between the two groups the following year. In each lawn, researchers created a 50 by 50 cm cells. In each lawn 4 cells measured grass height and invertebrate larva was identified. In all cells number of uprooted patches and the total damaged area was recorded.

From the results, it showed that all lawns had damage but lawns that were mown had a much higher proportion of area damaged. The probability of a lawn being damaged was higher in mown lawns. The damaged area per cell was also much higher in mown lawns. The study also showed that the unmown beds had significantly lower area uprooted. The results of the study showed that taller grass causes corvids to have a harder time to located larvae and taller grass is difficult for corvids to uproot.

I find that results of the study to be evidence that restricted mowing has a major effect on corvids in urban areas. The methods seems to be a much better one compared to others, such as culling. But in my opinion I believe that corvids shouldn’t be considered a pest due to them uprooting grass on lawns. I feel as this “aesthetic” can either be easily ignored or fixed. I fully support not managing lawns, as it increases biodiversity in ones yard. If restricted mowing prevents the culling of corvids and increases biodiversity, then I am all for it.

I wonder how this study can be implemented in places such as the United States. Would it greatly impact the mowing/lawn industry or would it be ignored? Many individuals really only like the aesthetic of how lawns look and don’t really care about the impact of how having one. I feel as this study would need more to help support the restricted mowing of lawns to convince areas as the United States.

Citation: Lequitte-Charransol, P., Jiguet, F. Restricted mowing reduces grass uprooting by urban crows. Eur J Wildl Res 67, 59 (2021). https://doi-org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1007/s10344-021-01504-3

Lövy, M., & Riegert, J. (2013). Home Range and Land Use of Urban Long-Eared Owls. The Condor, 115(3), 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2013.120017 

Certain bird species have become iconic symbols of urban areas. Rock doves are heavily associated with cities, along with some other species such as house sparrows. Most people often think of smaller and more herbivorous species. But what about larger birds of prey? This study looked at long-eared owls in České Budějovice, which is a city in the Czech Republic. The researchers specifically looked at the home ranges of the urban population, and compared them with suburban populations. The long-eared owl can be found year-round in North America, Europe, and Asia. They are nocturnal and notably have good camouflage. In the area of study, Europe, they are known to select open farmland. They commonly feed on rodents. Within the last couple of decades (in reference to 2013) there has been an increase in urban populations of the long-eared owl. The study correlates this to the number of common magpies, as long-eared owls can breed in their old nests.

The city of České Budějovice was studied from 2004-2006, which equates to three breeding seasons for the long-eared owl. The study area was 154 km^2 (95.6912 mi^2). It was 51% developed area, 17% field, 12% meadow, 7% wooded, 4% orchards, 4% lawns (defined as mowed regularly), 2% abandoned areas, and 4% water. They counted nesting opportunities by counting active magpie nests in certain areas. To determine the level of urbanization around each of those magpie nests, they defined a radius of 0.5 km^2 (0.310686 mi^2). Then, if the area was more than 50% developed it was classified as urban while less than 50% was suburban. To locate owls in the area, they would play a territorial male call. They would then only visit sites with regular responses and then use sites that only had successful breeding.

This study utilized radio telemetry. To attach transmitters to the owls, they used mist nets. The researchers used a stuffed eagle owl to attract the long-eared owls to the net. Backpack transmitters were then put on nine owls, specifically four pairs and one lone male. Two pairs (referred to as pair P and B) and the lone male (male V) were classified as urban. Two pairs (referred to as pair K and M) were classified as suburban. Antenna and receivers were used to locate the owls. The telemetry surveying took place while adults were providing for offspring. Visual tracking was also possible due to the city’s street lights. Each owl was observed for 8-12 nights which totaled 93 sessions of radio telemetry.

During the three years this study was conducted long-eared owl nests increased. Suburban nests were steady while urban nests increased from 8 to 16. They found that the home range of urban owls was significantly larger than their suburban counterparts. There was also more range overlap with the urban owls. The owls did not show a significant selection of vegetation types for establishment, but they would select specific types within their home ranges. In their home range, they selected, in order of favorability, wooded areas, meadows, abandoned areas, fields, lawns, buildings, then orchards.

This study can be used in a variety of ways. If the goal is to coexist and promote long-eared owls, this study provides many things that can be done. Firstly, magpies (or other primary nest sources) should be promoted. Common magpies, also known as Eurasian magpies, nest in crowns of tall trees or even on top of electrical pylons. Due to the risk associated with electrical pylons, the tree crown option should be promoted. More focused on owls, hunting habitat would also need to be promoted. This can overlap with lots of other wildlife, as generally forested or more “nature” areas are ideal. This research could be used in many areas. Even if the European population of long-eared owls shows slight differences, general behavior should be similar in other continents.

This study was conducted in the early 2000s, and lots of advancements have been made since then. Specifically regarding radio telemetry. I’m sure if this study took place now, they would be able to get much more precise data. The more frequent and precise data could help pinpoint the home ranges, activity times, and other aspects.

The idea of pest management has always been a topic in urban wildlife. Depending on opinion, every species known to man could be considered a nuisance animal. Canadian geese are no exception. From school yards, to neighborhood ponds, they are everywhere. Especially during the winter months in the southern United States, as that is their home range for the winter. Urban goose management is one of the biggest struggles in urban wildlife management, and the authors of this paper did their best to lay it out.

The authors laid out each individual idea of urban goose management in the paper. What the plan entails, how to carry out a successful execution of the plan, and the perceived results. They compared and contrasted several methods based on effectiveness, and legality. They also did a really good job of giving multiple different approaches to managing urban geese populations. If someone was in search of good ideas, this article would be a phenomenal place to start.

The biggest problem they laid out is the down right removal of the birds. Shooting geese in a school parking lot isn’t exactly legal, or the best idea. They laid that out really well. One thing that I have a problem with in the study is that they provide no statistical data to back up each method. Yes, they provide different methods, but there is no concrete evidence to compare and contrast with. The entire basis of science is having evidence to prove a hypothesis. The author’s intentions may not have been to make it scientific study, but there is no concrete evidence in writing that supports that claim. 

In the article there is a study included from a high school who had unsanitary conditions on their sports areas due to goose feces and feathers. They do a good job of explaining that the results of what they implemented were effective, but again no concrete evidence. This article really lacks, but it is definitely a good way to start thinking about management practices.

https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/13/1/28/6883996

Coyotes and White-Tailed Deer are two of the most “conspicuous” wildlife species in urban areas. They have constantly been in a predator-prey relationship since their ranges overlapped. Coyotes typically predate on fawns and scavenge on carrion from adults. This study hypothesized that “both deer and coyote detections will increase with distance to urban center; and decrease with housing density, road density, and human visitation” (Magle et. al, 2014). The researchers had a suspicion that human disturbance will cause more impact to the coyotes directly. The white-tail deer require quality vegetation and have to be selective on habitat traits to survive. Coyotes can have ranges that lack all green space as long as there is adequate food supply being other animals. They also hypothesized that “coyote and deer detections will increase with proximity to water, habitat-patch area, and canopy cover” (Magle et. al, 2014).

Methods

Using camera traps, the researchers followed three, 50km transects going away from Chicago’s urban center. These transects cover many forms of civilization being urban, suburban, exurban, and forest. Each transect contained 10, 5km sections that contained at least 2 stations, but not more than 4 in locations that contained potential habitat. 4 times a year a camera was deployed at each station for 30 days. They applied coyote attracting lures to each location. Using GIS, they quantified landscape attributes that can be used to understand the animals’ presence around human disturbances.

Results

1055/4679 photos were of deer and coyotes. 93 cameras total were operating during majority of the study. 22/93 of the cameras were never triggered by deer or coyotes. Deer were positively correlated to canopy cover and negatively correlated to distance to water source. Seasonal colonization of deer were negatively affected by housing density, patch area, and photos of humans and dogs on cameras. Coyotes detection had a positive correlation to season and canopy cover and distance from urban center. Coyotes displayed a negative affect when humans and dogs were reported on cameras. The presence of deer had no affect on the coyotes as to favor or not favoring their appearance. Deer did have a correlation with coyote appearance and was negatively affected if a coyote had been around recently. Urban center distance to locations where animals were reported on camera had no significant relationship. Deer were most active around dawn and dusk but coyotes were more active around midnight and miday. Hypothesis were supported by their research that both species would select patches on basic requirements. Deer appeared to show a pattern that in a habitat limited area, such as urban landscapes, they do not perceive threats as cautiously as they would in a rural environment. They are more willing to take risk to forage in urban landscapes where predators have been than they would in rural areas.

1. S. B. Magle, L. S. Simoni, E. W. Lehrer, J. S. Brown, Urban predator–prey association: Coyote and deer distributions in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Urban Ecosystems. 17, 875–891 (2014).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714002791?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=8c11bf51087b236b

Human development has affected large carnivores for centuries. As human development expands these predators have been extirpated from their once vast ranges. Cougars were once found throughout North America but are now restricted almost exclusively to the western part of the continent. Despite this, large predators have shown the ability to persist through a human-dominated landscape with many anthropogenic features. This study aimed to prove that cougars are capable of adjusting their behavior in order to survive and expand their population into these modified environments.

Over the last 20 years, Alberta, Canada has experienced gradual urbanization and population growth. Due to its rural nature and forested landscape it still supports a relatively stable cougar population in the west-central region. Researchers used telemetry collars on 42 cougars to track use of the landscape around anthropogenic features. These features included private lands, towns and industrial infrastructure from the forestry and natural gas industries. Individuals were split into two classes based on their home-range, Rural and Wilderness. Land cover maps with forest edges and continuous forest layers were generated for the landscape. Using GIS, roads, pipelines, seismic lines, and oil and gas well locations were included, buildings were added from satellite images. 

Exponential resource selection functions were used to pinpoint major landscape characteristics that influenced cougar selection. Through a 2-step approach, individual cougar responses were calculated separately and compared amongst themselves, to estimate functional response. Temporal changes were considered with runs of the model for night and day activity. Functional response was assessed through a plot of the top coefficients for each habitat type and the availability of it within each cougar’s home range. The study yielded variable results but some themes were consistent. Cougars selected most consistently for edge and avoided areas of high building density. Cougars were more likely to interact with anthropogenic features at night rather than during the day. Wilderness cougars avoided pipelines, seismic lines, and well-sites at a much higher rate than rural cougars, who may be used to them. Overall, these functional responses show that “cougars demonstrated reduced sensitivity in their selection of habitat near some anthropogenic features” in areas of high human development.

I think the classification of rural and wilderness cougars is a key highlight of this study. Animals that are more exposed to people will behave differently than more isolated species of the same species, so this is something they could not leave out. The anthropogenic features were well laid out and did a good job of describing the urban aspects of the landscape. I think agricultural infrastructure could’ve been focused on as well, especially in areas where cougars may kill livestock. The split of day and night also provides a deeper layer to the results though I am curious if they could have expanded further into exact periods such as dusk and dawn. The data analysis is well done and allowed the researchers to really justify their conclusions. 

Their discussion section does a nice job of relating their findings to those of other similar studies of cougars in other areas of the world. The study highlights that while cougars do avoid human development and activity, they may be able to adjust their selective behavior to coexist with it. The researchers suggest that ongoing conservation will only be supported if these selection thresholds are identified and kept in check. Humans must learn to live with large carnivores around them as their habitats experience increasing decline.

Knopff A.A, Knopff K.H, Boyce M.S, St. Clair C.C. 2014. Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development. Biological Conservation 178:136–145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714002791?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=8c11bf51087b236b