ReviewEvaluating the efficacy of predator removal in a conflict-prone world
Introduction
Predators can influence ecosystems through top-down control of the distribution and abundance of other species (Estes et al., 2011; Mills et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2017; Pace et al., 1999). The loss of predators can therefore have profound ecological effects in certain contexts, including disease outbreaks, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem state changes (Myers et al., 2007; Ripple et al., 2014). There is evidence to suggest that ecological communities can exhibit dramatic shifts following the loss of predators (Crooks and Soulé, 1999; Pech et al., 1992; Ritchie and Johnson, 2009; Wallach et al., 2010), including changes at other trophic levels (Anthony et al., 2008; Atwood et al., 2015; Suraci et al., 2016). Although predators occur among diverse animal taxa (e.g., arthropods, molluscs, teleosts, raptors, canids, mustelids, etc.), vertebrate predators frequently conflict with humans, and many species are threatened (Ripple et al., 2014); they are therefore the focus of this paper.
Many predatory vertebrates are vulnerable to disturbances because they generally have slower life histories, higher investment in parental care, lower abundances, and patchy distributions (Purvis et al., 2000). Yet, predators are challenged by a perception of being a threat to human interests or safety. Indeed, predators can be considered hazardous to domesticated animals (Gusset et al., 2009; Mishra, 1997; Oli et al., 1994), prey species of economic importance (Dalla Rosa and Secchi, 2007; Henschel et al., 2011; Weise and Harvey, 2005), or human safety via direct conflict (Dickman, 2010; Gore et al., 2005; Löe and Röskaft, 2004; Penteriani et al., 2016). Consequently, predators are often negatively perceived and persecution of vertebrate predators has a long a history (Bergstrom et al., 2014; Kruuk, 2002; Reynolds and Tapper, 1996; Treves and Naughton-Treves, 1999). Competition with predators yielded many institutionalized campaigns against them dating back to ancient Greece and Rome, a trend that pervaded through medieval Europe and was exported to North America with emigrants in the 1700s (Reynolds and Tapper, 1996 and references therein). Today, state, regional, and agency-led programs to systematically control predator populations exist. Predator removal is carried out systematically via a number of methods and across various geographic scales (Bergstrom et al., 2014; Reynolds and Tapper, 1996), including poison baiting, trapping, hunting, and culling or via bounty or reward systems in public hunting or fishing events, but may also be more haphazard as retaliation for encroachment or interaction with humans or their property (e.g., farmer killing a wolf encroaching on their herds; e.g. Bergstrom et al., 2014; Treves and Karanth, 2003).
The significance of predators in ecosystems is well established yet their removal remains a component of the management toolbox. Owing to a lack of clarity pertaining to how and when removal can be expected to be successful, it may be difficult for management agencies to decide whether to proceed with predator removal when confronted with a problem. Furthermore, there is mounting opposition from advocacy groups (especially animal rights) and conservation-aware citizens that provide social inertia and pressure on animal control (van Eeden et al., 2017), which may complicate and influence decision-making (see Wallach et al., 2015). The science of predator removal therefore could benefit from an objective evaluation to identify successes and failures to both inform decision-making and identify lingering research gaps across multiple taxa (Treves et al., 2016; Eklund et al., 2017). Syntheses of this topic have focused on using meta-analysis, particularly for nesting birds (Côté and Sutherland, 1997; Smith et al., 2010, Smith et al., 2011), but it is challenging to apply such an approach across taxa and research paradigms (i.e., motivations). In this review, we evaluated these two competing hypotheses by considering of the available evidence for predator removal to determine whether predator removal is successful for wildlife conservation and management. We reviewed relevant literature and evaluated outcomes. In doing so, we propose a definition of success that can be applied to predator removal programs and we provide examples of success and failure in predator removals based on the following motivations 1) protection of domestic species, 2) preservation of prey species (e.g. economically important species or species at risk), and 3) mitigating risks of direct human-wildlife conflict. We conclude by considering evidence for the costs of failure in predator removal and a discussion of alternatives to predator removal. Although there are social and economic motivations associated with predator removal (Reynolds and Tapper, 1996; Engeman et al., 2002; Eklund et al., 2017; Swan et al., 2017), we focus on the ecological motivations aiming to synthesize perspectives on this practice. In this context, we refer to removal interchangeably with killing or lethal control. Removal may also refer to translocation, however, translocating predators has generally been demonstrated as ineffective for reducing conflicts (Athreya et al., 2011; Linnell et al., 1997; but see Hazin and Afonso, 2014). We focus on examples of aquatic and terrestrial vertebrate predators and ecosystems that include urban and rural areas. Moreover, we restrict the scope of this review to native predators. Invasive species are a global threat to biodiversity (Doherty et al., 2016) and the problems associated with biological invasions, although not necessarily unique or distinct from the problems that create nuisance predator conflict, are sufficiently different from a conservation and management perspective (see Doherty and Ritchie, 2016). Specifically, we incorporated evidence from published and gray literature on a variety of predatory taxa and from studies with varied predator removal motivations.
Section snippets
Approach
Based on preliminary searches and our perceptions regarding the quality of the evidence base (i.e., most studies had replication or included appropriate controls) we opted to conduct a qualitative literature review rather than a systematic review. Because the scope of our paper was broad, we used general search terms of the title, keywords, and abstract of papers in the Scopus search engine: “predator remov*”, “cull”, and “predator control” to identify relevant literature (asterisks are
Synthesis
Our searches identified 141 empirical studies in which predator removal was studied by haphazardly culling predators with traps, guns, or poisons (N = 87), selectively removing predators (N = 10), controlled removal (i.e. a pre-specified number; N = 21), observing a natural decrease (N = 1), or in a simulation (N = 10). Studies were conducted on data from 1 to 78 years (mean ± SD = 9 ± 12 years). Most studies (N = 104) were conducted to evaluate whether predator removal could improve prey
Resulting in success
A prevailing hypothesis is that predator removal can be implemented to achieve wildlife management objectives. We predicted that predator removal would be successful in some contexts, specifically, when implemented as a solution for short-term conservation challenges in which the return or replacement of the predator population in the long-term is not necessarily relevant to success (see Table 1).
Discussion
We evaluated the two opposing hypotheses considering the (a) success or (b) failure of predator removal as in the conservation and management of ecosystems. We selected a qualitative approach to testing these hypotheses by searching for published evidence of success and failure. We identified examples of success but ultimately found much more consistent evidence for failure (Table 1). Evidence that removing predators achieved conservation-sound outcomes was context-specific (see Section 4.1).
Conclusion
Human-wildlife conflict will persist with direct impacts on ecosystems globally. Desire to manage predator populations will therefore continue in spite of growing conservation concern for many predators (and in some cases, recovery of their populations; Curtis et al., 2014).
Our review suggests that the success of predator removal depends on the motivation and design of the effort because of the variability in success identified across studies. More research is needed to determine whether
References (256)
Large predators in the Alps: the fall and rise of man's competitors
Biol. Conserv.
(1998)- et al.
Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2016) - et al.
Prey dynamics under generalist predator culling in stage structured models
Math. Biosci.
(2017) - et al.
The damage-conservation interface illustrated by predation on domestic livestock in central Italy
Biol. Conserv.
(1996) - et al.
Predicting the patterns, perceptions and causes of human–carnivore conflict in and around Machiara National Park, Pakistan
Biol. Conserv.
(2009) - et al.
An economic analysis of predator removal approaches for protecting marine turtle nests at Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge
Ecol. Econ.
(2002) Coexisting with sharks: a response to Carter and Linnell
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2016)- et al.
Human–predator–prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management
Biol. Conserv.
(2005) Wild dog control impacts on calf wastage in extensive beef cattle enterprises
Anim. Prod. Sci.
(2014)Demographic and functional responses of wild dogs to poison baiting
Ecol. Manag. Restor.
(2015)
Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
The effects of predator removal on Mallard production and population change in northeastern North Dakota
J. Wildl. Manag.
Public perception of large carnivores in Latvia
Ursus
Seals and Sealing in Canada: Report of the Royal Commission N-3. Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada, Montreal, PQ
Bald eagles and sea otters in the Aleutian archipelago: indirect effects of trophic cascades
Ecology
Ecology of conflict: marine food supply affects human-wildlife interactions on land
Sci. Rep.
Translocation as a tool for mitigating conflict with leopards in human-dominated landscapes of India
Conserv. Biol.
Predators help protect carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems
Nat. Clim. Chang.
The effect of predator culling on livestock losses: caracal control in Cooper Hunting Club, 1976–1981
Cent. Soc. Sci. Res.
Does culling reduce fox (Vulpes vulpes) density in commercial forests in Wales, UK?
Eur. J. Wildl. Res.
Stochasticity in natural forage production affects use of urban areas by black bears: implications to management of human-bear conflicts
PLoS One
The significance and prediction of predation in marine fisheries
ICES J. Mar. Sci.: J. Cons.
Carnivore-livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry
Conserv. Biol.
Carnivore conservation: shifting the paradigm from control to coexistence
J. Mammal.
License to kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function
Conserv. Lett.
Strong effects of weak interactions in ecological communities
Nature
Experimental predator removal causes rapid salt marsh die-off
Ecol. Lett.
Human dimensions of wolf (Canis lupus) conflicts in Finland
Eur. J. Wildl. Res.
Evaluation of wolf control to reduce cattle predation in Alberta
J. Range Manag.
The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation
J. Wildl. Manag.
Prey preferences of free-ranging cheetahs on farmland: scat analysis versus farmers' perceptions
Afr. J. Ecol.
Absence of effects of predator control on nesting success of Northern Lapwings Vanellus vanellus: implications for conservation
Ibis
Increases in moose, caribou, and wolves following wolf control in Alaska
J. Wildl. Manag.
The effects of culling on attacks by yellow-legged gulls (Larus cachinnans) upon three species of herons
Colon. Waterbirds
Marine mammal culling programs: review of effects on predator and prey populations
Mammal Rev.
Seasonal compensation of predation and harvesting
Oikos
Effects of wolf removal on livestock depredation recurrence and wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming
J. Wildl. Manag.
Managing wolf depredation in the United States: past, present, and future
Sheep Goat Res. J.
Research and management viewpoint: why compensating wildlife damages may be bad for conservation
J. Wildl. Manag.
The economic costs of wildlife predation on livestock in Gokwe communal land, Zimbabwe
Afr. J. Ecol.
Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore
Proc. R. Soc. Biol.
Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's human-dominated landscapes
Science
Food habits of wolves in relation to livestock depredations in northwestern Minnesota
Am. Midl. Nat.
Human–carnivore coexistence in Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) Nature Reserve, China: patterns and compensation
Biol. Conserv.
The effect of predator removal on pheasant reproductive success
J. Wildl. Manag.
Removing American crows and duck nesting success
Can. J. Zool.
The effect of predator culling on livestock losses: Ceres, South Africa, 1979–1987
Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.
Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis
Ecology
The effectiveness of removing predators to protect bird populations
Conserv. Biol.
What doesn't kill you makes you wary? Effect of repeated culling on the behaviour of an invasive predator
PLoS One
Cited by (79)
First evidence of widespread positivity to anticoagulant rodenticides in grey wolves (Canis lupus)
2024, Science of the Total EnvironmentStress in the city? Coyote hair cortisol varies with intrinsic and extrinsic factors within a heavily urbanized landscape
2023, Science of the Total EnvironmentPerspective: Why might removing carnivores maintain or increase risks for domestic animals?
2023, Biological ConservationProtecting prey by deceiving predators: A field experiment testing chemical camouflage and conditioned food aversion
2022, Biological ConservationEffectiveness of interventions for managing human-large carnivore conflicts worldwide: Scare them off, don't remove them
2022, Science of the Total EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :We compiled a database of 103 articles matching these criteria, for a total of 143 “case studies” (19 articles presented several distinct case studies, sometimes involving multiple zones, species, issues/situations, interventions). Many definitions and criteria have been used to characterize the success of large carnivore management interventions (e.g., translocations costs or reproduction outputs; Massei et al., 2010; Weise et al., 2015b; Lennox et al., 2018), although not all are relevant to our research question. We defined success as the durable (preferably months or years before a new occurrence; Khorozyan and Waltert, 2019; Rossler et al., 2012 Shivik et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2016; Bangs et al., 2006) reduction of the negative consequences resulting from human-large carnivore co-occurrence after the implementation of the intervention.