Reconciling livestock production and wild herbivore conservation: challenges and opportunities

Conflicts between the interests of livestock production and those wild herbivore conservation are an increasing global challenge.Addressing these conflicts is hindered by a poor understanding key underlying social ecological drivers.In particular, there need to reconcile real perceived costs–benefits livestock–wild interactions. This includes better how interactions vary across migration ranges influenced trophic network structure.In many cases, perpetuated disconnect husbandry practices scientific research on sustainable management.Addressing will require development reliable protocols for impact assessment implementation participatory processes that bring together relevant stakeholders. Increasing food security preventing further loss biodiversity two humanity’s most pressing challenges. Yet, efforts address challenges often lead situations conflict agricultural conservation. Here, we focus herbivores, which have received little attention in literature. We identify four socio-ecological such conflicts, illustrate using range case studies. argue addressing co-management approaches promote participation stakeholders monitoring, assessment, decision-making, active knowledge sharing. The intensification expansion activities feed ever-growing human population among greatest threats globally [1.Godfray H.C.J. et al.Food security: challenge feeding 9 billion people.Science. 2010; 327: 812-818Crossref PubMed Scopus (6037) Google Scholar,2.Ceballos G. al.Biological annihilation via ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled vertebrate losses declines.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2017; 114: e6089-e6096Crossref (940) Scholar]. With more than 10% currently facing insecurity [3.Food Agriculture Organization United Nations Sustainable Biodiversity, Biodiversity Agriculture. FAO, 2018Google Scholar] estimated 25% species threatened with as result anthropogenic drivers [4.Díaz al.Pervasive human-driven decline life Earth points transformative change.Science. 2019; 366eaax3100Crossref (460) Scholar], crop (hereafter, both referred ‘agriculture’) wildlife becoming widespread [5.Kehoe L. al.Global patterns land-use intensity diversity.Divers. Distrib. 2015; 21: 1308-1318Crossref (48) Scholar,6.Shackelford G.E. al.Conservation planning landscapes: hotspots agriculture nature.Divers. 357-367Crossref (49) Such pose major threat well-being health natural ecosystems, emphasising urgent develop implement strategies aimed at fostering coexistence Scholar,7.United Transforming Our World: 2030 Agenda Development. General Assembly 70 Session. UN, 2015Google Livestock accounts up 26% earth’s terrestrial surface, representing almost 3.38 hectares under permanent meadows pastures worldwide [8.Foley J.A. al.Solutions cultivated planet.Nature. 2011; 478: 337-342Crossref (4101) Today, biomass (ca. 0.06 Gt C) 0.1 surpass land mammal 0.003 [9.Bar-On Y.M. al.The distribution Earth.Proc. 2018; 115: 6506-6511Crossref (784) demand meat dairy products has resulted ~150–450% rise numbers animals produced globally. While this increase been linked industrialisation production, extensive grazing systems still dominate landscape [10.Godde C.M. al.Grazing intensification: drivers, dynamics, trade-offs.Glob. Food Sec. 16: 93-105Crossref (40) systems, from ranching nomadic pastoralism, associated large, sometimes fenced, areas left graze native vegetation. Their recognised driver change, important implications wildlife, whose access spaces resources continues be impacted Scholar,4.Díaz An consequence space occupied increased level interaction wildlife. Although can beneficial conservation, they considered framed negative [11.Ranglack D.H. al.Competition range: science vs. perception bison–cattle western USA.J. Appl. Ecol. 52: 467-474Crossref (22) Scholar,12.Schieltz J.M. Rubenstein D.I. Evidence based review: positive versus effects What do really know?.Environ. Res. Lett. 2016; 11: 113003Crossref (68) reflected exponential number studies recent years [13.Nyhus P.J. Human–wildlife coexistence.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41: 143-171Crossref (203) Much work, however, focused predation carnivores (e.g., [14.Van Eeden L.M. al.Managing large livestock.Conserv. Biol. 32: 26-34Crossref (128) Scholar,15.Redpath S.M. al.Don’t forget look down–collaborative predator conservation.Biol. 92: 2157-2163Crossref (80) Scholar]) or consumption herbivores [16.Gross E.M. al.Seasonality, type phenology influence damage Africa Asia.Biodivers. Conserv. 27: 2029-2050Crossref (15) In contrast, centred domestic largely overlooked [17.Torres D.F. al.Conflicts humans vertebrates: review.Trop. 1-15Crossref (23) despite their well-being. Wild potentially compete resources, vectors diseases, fall prey may turn attracted co-occurring [18.du Toit J.T. livestock–wildlife interface rangelands.in: Briske D.D. Rangeland Systems. Springer, 2017: 395-425Crossref different about extent populations should managed conserved [19.Riginos C. al.Lessons relationship Kenya Long-term Exclosure Experiment (KLEE).Pastoralism. 2012; 2: 10Crossref Scholar,20.Keesing F. al.Consequences integrating African savanna.Nat. Sustain. 1: 566-573Crossref These exacerbated considerable amounts uncertainty regarding ecological, social, economic aspects herbivore–livestock For example, forage remains matter debate [20.Keesing Scholar,21.Berger J. al.Globalization Cashmere market mammals Central Asia.Conserv. 2013; 679-689Crossref (93) persecution minimise competition widespread. Despite interests, domesticated continue on-going [22.Wrobel M.L. Redford K.H. Introduction: review rangeland issues uncertain future.in: du Rangelands: Conserving Wildlife Maintaining Semi-Arid Ecosystems. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: 1-12Crossref (9) Scholar,23.du Coexisting cattle.Science. 333: 1710-1711Crossref (21) contrasting South America, Europe, Asia, highlight common themes. put forward concepts tie suggest holistic promoting coexistence. Resource disease transmission primary impacts each other [12.Schieltz management mitigating proponents [23.du Scholar,24.Ogutu J.O. al.Large responses water settlements savannas.Ecol. Monogr. 80: 241-266Crossref A difficulty obtaining estimates tangible intangible costs benefits [25.Linnell J.D.C. opportunities coexisting ungulates human-dominated landscapes Europe’s Anthropocene.Biol. 2020; 244: 108500Crossref (41) including objective translation into measures societal gain producers, well potential (or benefits) protected (Box 1, Box 2). particularly characterised low intervention, vast dry landscapes, harsh climatic conditions [26.Alkemade R. al.Assessing ecosystems.Proc. 110: 20900-20905Crossref (148) where occurring extensively remain poorly understood [27.Niamir-Fuller M. al.Co-existence pastoralism rangelands: compatibility?.Pastoralism. 8Crossref hindering methods quantify 3).Box 1Guanaco sheep Chilean PatagoniaSheep (Ovis aries) farming livelihood Patagonia [83.Pedrana al.Environmental factors influencing guanaco abundance central Patagonia, Argentina.Wildl. 46: 1-11Crossref (7) historical peak 2.2 million heads 1950s [84.Iranzo E.C. al.Niche segregation Patagonia.PLoS One. 8e59326Crossref (27) steppe rangelands led (Lama guanicoe), largest area. After experiencing steady declines region during second half 20th century due poaching intense resource [85.Baldi al.High guanacos Patagonia.J. Wildl. Manag. 2004; 68: 924-938Crossref (120) Scholar,86.Moraga C.A. al.Effects Lama guanicoe density, movements habitat selection forest–grassland mosaic Tierra del Fuego, Chile.Oryx. 49: 30-41Crossref (16) recently shown signs recovery [87.Zubillaga al.Bayesian inference effect density dependence weather Chile.PLoS 2014; 9e115307Crossref (6) However, overgrazing combined overlap guanacos, rekindled stakeholder views effectiveness management. local producers concerned reduce availability consume crops grown [33.Hernández al.Rancher perspectives livestock-wildlife Southern Chile.Rangelands. 39: 56-63Crossref (10) Scholar,88.Iranzo al.¿Conflicto Real o Conflicto Percibido? Coexistencia Guanaco-Ganadería en el Entorno de un Espacio Natural Protegido. Jornadas Argentinas Mastozoología, 2017Google high diet similarity niche overlap, suggesting occur [30.Traba al.Realised changes assemblage presence livestock.Oikos. 126: 1400-1409Crossref (19) Scholar,84.Iranzo Scholar,89.Pontigo al.Midsummer Patagonian rangelands.Rangel. 73: 394-402Crossref (3) evidence indicating significant 2000, government authorised commercial harvest program sustainably regulate contribute new economy [90.Soto N. al.Conservación y manejo Magallanes, Chile: desde la recuperación poblacional revalorización mediante cosecha.GECS News. 7: 35-47Google lack consistent decision-making data made it difficult assess success plan, conflict-resolution addition, occurrence predators pumas (Puma concolor), locally seen because predate [91.Elbroch Wittmer H.U. puma specialization less abundant Mammal. 94: 259-268Crossref (55) Overall, study demonstrates value collecting levels interspecific interactions, undermines attempts implementing control programs improved (Figure 1).Box 2African buffalo northern BotswanaFoot-and-mouth (FMD) viral affects cloven-hoofed mammals, bovids. Across continent, FMD 1 5 USD, vaccination [92.Knight-Jones T.J.D. Rushton foot mouth disease–What they, big occur?.Prev. Vet. Med. 112: 161-173Crossref (394) (Syncerus caffer), listed Near Threatened IUCN Red List, main host virus [93.Brito B.P. al.Transmission foot-and-mouth SAT2 viruses wildlife–livestock transfrontier southern Africa.Front. Microbiol. 528Crossref (14) status prompted countries reliant national international markets. Botswana, involved establishment multiple cordon fences (so called ‘buffalo fences’) disease-free zones, costly subsidized industrialised beef [94.Kock al.Livestock caffer) interfaces Africa: ecology development.in: Melletti Burton Ecology, Evolution Behaviour Cattle Implication Conservation. Cambridge University Press, 2014: 431-445Crossref significantly reduced frequency outbreaks buffalo–cattle had migratory behaviour species, blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), red hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama), zebra (Equus quagga). Furthermore, failed concerns subsistence risk was found factor explaining attitudes perceptions 74% households surveyed Okavango delta [95.Mogomotsi P.K. al.Factors community conservation.Hum. Dimens. 25: its affect gaps remain, direction transmission, carrier concern elephant Loxodonta africana), contribution dynamics Scholar, 94.Kock 95.Mogomotsi uncertainties managing 3Wild cashmere goat MongoliaPastoralism dominant form Mongolia today, country being dependent [96.United Development Programme Human Report 2003 - Urban-Rural Disparities Mongolia. UNDP, 2003Google Mongolian also [e.g., gazelle (Procapra gutturosa), black tailed (Gazella subgutturosa), saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica mongolica)] several grey wolf (Canis lupus), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), snow leopards (Panthera uncia)] [97.Reading R.P. al.Conserving area pastoral uses.in: USDA Forest Service Proceedings. 2006: 1-17Google decades, cashmere-producing goats undergone fivefold herders responded strong demands fibre [21.Berger Coupled warming climate, overgrazed degraded able support Scholar,98.Hilker T. al.Satellite observed grasslands overgrazing.Glob. Chang. 20: 418-428Crossref (159) context, dietary presented [99.Wingard G.J. al.Argali habits Ikh Nart Nature Reserve, Mongolia.J. Arid 75: 138-145Crossref (31) carnivores, wolves leopards, hunted sporadic illustrates incentives markets transition traditional intensive forms thereby impacting ecosystems exacerbating herbivores. highlights vulnerability internationally decreasing 1). Sheep Foot-and-mouth im