Advertisement

Is diversionary feeding a useful tool to avoid human-ungulate conflicts? A case study with the aoudad

  • Roberto Pascual-RicoEmail author
  • Juan Manuel Pérez-García
  • Esther Sebastián-González
  • Francisco Botella
  • Andrés Giménez
  • Sergio Eguía
  • José Antonio Sánchez-Zapata
Original Article

Abstract

Diversionary feeding (i.e. supplementary feeding used to mitigate damage to human activities) is a management tool widely employed to avoid human-wildlife conflicts, which could alter the spatial behaviour of target species and can also affect other species present in the area, among other effects. We evaluated the effect of diversionary feeding in the spatial behaviour of the aoudad (Ammotragus lervia), an exotic ungulate associated with crop damage in the area, and we assessed the use of diversionary feeding stations (DFS) by non-target species. Nine aoudads were tracked with GPS/GSM collars. We compared their core home ranges and number of GPS locations in the DFS before and meanwhile food was available on them. Eight DFS were monitored with cameras to identify which species used the feeding sites. The home ranges changed for some individuals, but this variation was not related to supplementary feeding. Just five out of the nine tracked aoudads used DFS, and the number of GPS locations in the DFS by aoudad increased when food was available. DFS were used by fifteen non-target species of birds and mammals, and especially by the wild boar. Aoudads and wild boars segregated temporally but not spatially in their use of the DFS. Our study suggests that diversionary feeding had a limited effect on the spatial behaviour of the aoudad, suggesting that its effectiveness to reduce crop damage may be restricted.

Keywords

Ammotragus lervia Co-occurrence Wildlife management Home range Non-target species 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the veterinary (F. Escribano), public gamekeepers (C. Esteban, J. J. Rodríguez, F. Yepes), rangers (Evaristo) and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment of Murcia Region. RPR was supported by a pre-doctoral grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education (FPU13/05460), and the study was partially supported by MINECO and ERDF (projectCGL2015-66966-C2-1-R). JMPG and ESG were supported by a Juan de la Cierva research contract by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (FJCI-2015-25632 and IJCI-2015-24947). GPS collars were partially supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) of the European Union (P.O. 2007/2013).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal studies

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

10344_2018_1226_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. Agencia Estatal de Meteorología (2015) Informe estacional climatológico verano 2015. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  2. Agencia Estatal de Meteorología (2016) Informe anual 2015. Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  3. Amici A, Serrani F, Rossi CM, Primi R (2012) Increase in crop damage caused by wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): the “refuge effect”. Agron Sustain Dev 32:683–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anadón JD, Pérez-García JM, Pérez I, Royo J, Sánchez-Zapata JA (2018) Disentangling the effects of habitat, connectivity and interspecific competition in the range expansion of exotic and native ungulates. Landsc Ecol 33:597–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergmüller R, Taborsky M (2010) Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. Trends Ecol Evol 25:504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergvall UA, Schäpers A, Kjellander P, Weiss A (2011) Personality and foraging decisions in fallow deer, Dama dama. Anim Behav 81:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanco G, Lemus JA, García-Montijano M (2011) When conservation management becomes contraindicated: impact of food supplementation on health of endangered wildlife. Ecol Appl 21:2469–2477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bleier N, Lehoczki R, Újváry D, Szemethy L, Csányi S (2012) Relationships between wild ungulates density and crop damage in Hungary. Acta Theriol (Warsz) 57:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowman B, Belant JL, Beyer DE Jr, Martel D (2015) Characterizing non target species use at bait sites for white-tailed deer. Hum Wildl Interact 9:110–118Google Scholar
  12. Calenge C (2006) The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassinello J (1998) Ammotragus lervia: a review on systematics, biology, ecology and distribution. Ann Zool Fennici 35:149–162Google Scholar
  14. Colino-Rabanal V, Bosch J, Muñoz MJ, Peris SJ (2012) Influence of new irrigated croplands on wild boar (Sus scrofa) road kills in NW Spain. Anim Biodivers Conserv 35:247–252Google Scholar
  15. Corcoran MJ, Wetherbee BM, Shivji MS, Potenski MD, Chapman DD, Harvey GM (2013) Supplemental feeding for ecotourism reverses diel activity and alters movement patterns and spatial distribution of the southern stingray, Dasyatis americana. PLoS ONE 8:e59235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cortés-Avianza A, Blanco G, DeVault TL, Markandya A, Virani MZ, Brandt J, Donázar JA (2016) Supplementary feeding and endangered avian scavengers: benefits, caveats and controversies. Front Ecol Environ 14:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diamond M (1975) Assembly of species communities. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities. Belknap Press, Cambridge, pp 342–444Google Scholar
  18. Dunkley L, Cattet MRL (2003) A comprehensive review of the ecological and human social effects of artificial feeding and baiting of wildlife. Can Coop Wildl Health Centre Newslett Publ 21:1–68Google Scholar
  19. Eguía S, Botella F, Giménez A, Sánchez-Zapata JA, Pascual R, García-Martínez Noguera EJ, Fuertes F, Pérez-Morales A, Morell M (2015) Elaboración del Plan de Gestión del Arruí en la Región de Murcia. Consejería de Agua, Agricultura y Medioambiente, Región de MurciaGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox J, Bouchet-Valat M (2017) Rcmdr: R commander. R package version, vol 2, pp 3–2Google Scholar
  21. Geisser H, Reyer HU (2004) Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars. J Wildl Manag 68:939–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. González LM, Margalida A, Sánchez R, Oria J (2006) Supplementary feeding as an effective tool for improving breeding success in the Spanish imperial eagle (Aquila adalberti). Biol Conserv 129:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. González-Candela M (2002) Epidemiología de sarna sarcóptica (Sarcoptes scabiei) en la población de arruí (Ammotragus lervia) del Parque Regional de Sierra Espuña (Murcia). Doctoral thesis. Universidad de MurciaGoogle Scholar
  24. Gortázar C, Acevedo P, Ruiz-Fons F, Vicente J (2006) Disease risks and overabundance of game species. Eur J Wildl Res 52:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffith DM, Veech JA, Marsh CJ (2016) Cooccur: probabilistic species co-occurrence analysis in R. J Stat Softw 69:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gundersen H, Andreassen HP, Storaas T (2004) Supplemental feeding of migratory moose Alces alces: forest damage at two spatial scales. Wildl Biol 10:213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris S, Cresswell WJ, Forde PG, Trewhella WJ, Woollard T, Wray S (1990) Home-range analysis using radio-tracking data: a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals. Mamm Rev 20:97–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Inslerman RA, Miller JE, Baker DL, Kennamer JE, Cumberland R, Stinson ER, Doerr P, Williamson SJ (2006) Baiting and supplemental feeding of game wildlife species. Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  29. Krofel M, Jerina K (2016) Mind the cat: conservation management of a protected dominant scavenger indirectly affects an endangered apex predator. Biol Conserv 197:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kubasiewicz LM, Bunnefeld N, Tulloch AIT, Quine CP, Park KJ (2016) Diversionary feeding: an effective management strategy for conservation conflict? Biodivers Conserv 25:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Langley RB (1999) Dilution of precision. In: GPS World, vol 10, pp 52–59Google Scholar
  32. Langvatn R, Albon SD, Burkey T, Clutton-Brock TH (1996) Climate, plant phenology and variation in age of first reproduction in a temperate herbivore. J Anim Ecol 65:653–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. López-Bao JV, Rodríguez A, Palomares F (2008) Behavioural response of a trophic specialist, the Iberian lynx, to supplementary food: patterns of food use and implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 141:1857–1867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Margalida A, Pérez-García JM, Moreno-Opo R (2017) European policies on livestock carcasses management did not modify the foraging behavior of a threatened vulture. Ecol Indic 80:66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Milner JM, Van Beest FM, Schmidt KT, Brook RK, Storaas T (2014) To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. J Wildl Manag 78:1322–1334Google Scholar
  36. Miranda M, Sicilia M, Bartolomé J, Molina-Alcaide E, Gálvez-Bravo L, Cassinello J (2012) Contrasting feeding patterns of native red deer and two exotic ungulates in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Wildl Res 39:171–182Google Scholar
  37. Miranda M, Cristóbal I, Díaz L, Sicilia M, Molina-Alcaide E, Bartolomé J, Fierro Y, Cassinello J (2015) Ecological effects of game management: does supplemental feeding affect herbivory pressure on native vegetation? Wildl Res 42:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muñoz PM, Boadella M, Arnal M, de Miguel MJ, Revilla M, Martínez D, Vicente J, Acevedo P, Oleaga A, Ruiz-Fons F, Marín CM, Prieto JM, de la Fuente J, Barral M, Barberán M, de Luco D, Blasco JM, Gortázar C (2010) Spatial distribution and risk factors of brucellosis in Iberian wild ungulates. BMC Infect Dis 10:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oja R, Zilmer K, Valdmann H (2015) Spatiotemporal effects of supplementary feeding of wild boar (Sus scrofa) on artificial ground nest depredation. PLoSONE 10:e0135254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Orams MA (2002) Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: a review of issues and impacts. Tour Manag 23:281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostfeld RS, Keesing F (2000) Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 15:232–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pascual-Rico R, Morugán-Coronado A, Botella F, García-Orenes F, Sánchez-Zapata JA (2018) Soil properties in relation to diversionary feeding stations for ungulates on a Mediterranean mountain. Appl Soil Ecol 127:136–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pedersen S, Mathisen KM, Gorini L, Andreassen HP, Røskaft E, Skarpe C (2014) Small mammal responses to moose supplementary winter feeding. Eur J Wildl Res 60:527–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Piper SE (2005) Supplementary feeding programs: how necessary are they for the maintenance of numerous and healthy vultures populations? In: Houston DC, Piper SE (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on conservation and management of vulture populations. Natural History Museum of Crete & WWF Greece, Thessaloniki, pp 41–50Google Scholar
  45. Putman RJ, Staines BW (2004) Supplementary winter feeding of wild red deer Cervus elaphus in Europe and North America: justifications, feeding practice and effectiveness. Mamm Rev 34:285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams WM, Sutherland WJ, Whitehouse A, Amar A, Lambert RA, Linnell JDC, Watt A, Gutiérrez RJ (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:100–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robb GN, McDonald RA, Chamberlain DE, Bearhop S (2008) Food for thought: supplementary feeding as a driver of ecological change in avian populations. Front Ecol Environ 6:476–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sahlsten J, Bunnefeld N, Månsson J, Ericsson G, Bergström R, Dettki H (2010) Can supplementary feeding be used to redistribute moose Alces alces? Wildl Biol 16:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Selva N, Berezowska-Cnota T, Elguero-Claramunt I (2014) Unforeseen effects of supplementary feeding: ungulate baiting sites as hotspots for ground-nest predation. PLoSONE 9:e90740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Snow NP, Porter WF, Williams DM (2015) Underreporting of wildlife-vehicle collisions does not hinder predictive models for large ungulates. Biol Conserv 181:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sorensen A, van Beest FM, Brook RK (2014) Impacts of wildlife baiting and supplemental feeding on infectious disease transmission risk: a synthesis of knowledge. Prev Vet Med 113:356–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Veech JA (2013) A probabilistic model for analysing species co-occurrence. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Velamazán M, San Miguel A, Escribano R, Perea R (2017) Threatened woody flora as an ecological indicator of large herbivore introductions. Biodivers Conserv 26:917–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Velamazán M, San Miguel A, Escribano R, Perea R (2018) Use of firebreaks and artificial supply points by wild ungulates: effects on fuel load and woody vegetation along a distance gradient. For Ecol Manag 427:114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilson ADM, McLaughlin RL (2007) Behavioural syndromes in brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis: prey-search in the field corresponds with space use in novel laboratory situations. Anim Behav 74:689–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson ADM, Stevens ED (2005) Consistency in context-specific measures of shyness and boldness in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Ethol 111:849–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization in home-ranges studies. Ecol 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang LH, Bastow JL, Spence KO, Wright AN (2008) What can we learn from resource pulses? Ecol 89:621–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Pascual-Rico
    • 1
    Email author
  • Juan Manuel Pérez-García
    • 1
    • 2
  • Esther Sebastián-González
    • 1
  • Francisco Botella
    • 1
  • Andrés Giménez
    • 1
  • Sergio Eguía
    • 3
  • José Antonio Sánchez-Zapata
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied BiologyUniversidad Miguel Hernández de ElcheAlicanteSpain
  2. 2.Department of Animal ProductionUniversidad de LleidaLleidaSpain
  3. 3.Mendijob S.L.El PalmarSpain

Personalised recommendations