Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter?
- Autores
- Cassini, Marcelo Hernan
- Año de publicación
- 2022
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- Conservation biologists have divided wildlife in two antagonist categories—native and introduced populations—because they defend the hypothesis that the latter acquires or expresses harmful qualities that a population that remains in its original environment does not possess. Invasion biology has emerged as a branch of conservation biology dedicated exclusively to conflicts between introduced wildlife and human interest, including the protection of biodiversity. For invasion biology, the damage caused by native species is different and must be managed differently. However, the consensus around this native–introduced dichotomy is not universal, and a debate has intensified in recent years. The objective of this work was to compare the impacts of native and introduced species of terrestrial vertebrates of the United States using the dataset provided by Wildlife Services (WS), which depend upon the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture. Annually, they receive thousands of reports and complaints of human–wildlife conflicts. I analyzed the WS databases and found, against expectations, that native species produce significantly more damage than nonnative ones, especially regarding damage to agriculture, property and health and safety. In the category of impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems, the differences were minor. I discuss several potential explanations of these patterns in the results. I also discuss the ecological foundations of the native–introduced dichotomy hypothesis.
Fil: Cassini, Marcelo Hernan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; Argentina - Materia
-
CONSERVATION
INVASIVE SPECIES
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
.jpg)
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/215954
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
| id |
CONICETDig_4366734efb160ed527ba3ef0cd1358af |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/215954 |
| network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
| repository_id_str |
3498 |
| network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| spelling |
Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter?Cassini, Marcelo HernanCONSERVATIONINVASIVE SPECIESWILDLIFE MANAGEMENThttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Conservation biologists have divided wildlife in two antagonist categories—native and introduced populations—because they defend the hypothesis that the latter acquires or expresses harmful qualities that a population that remains in its original environment does not possess. Invasion biology has emerged as a branch of conservation biology dedicated exclusively to conflicts between introduced wildlife and human interest, including the protection of biodiversity. For invasion biology, the damage caused by native species is different and must be managed differently. However, the consensus around this native–introduced dichotomy is not universal, and a debate has intensified in recent years. The objective of this work was to compare the impacts of native and introduced species of terrestrial vertebrates of the United States using the dataset provided by Wildlife Services (WS), which depend upon the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture. Annually, they receive thousands of reports and complaints of human–wildlife conflicts. I analyzed the WS databases and found, against expectations, that native species produce significantly more damage than nonnative ones, especially regarding damage to agriculture, property and health and safety. In the category of impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems, the differences were minor. I discuss several potential explanations of these patterns in the results. I also discuss the ecological foundations of the native–introduced dichotomy hypothesis.Fil: Cassini, Marcelo Hernan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; ArgentinaMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute2022-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/215954Cassini, Marcelo Hernan; Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter?; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; Animals; 12; 20; 10-2022; 1-102076-2615CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3390/ani12202872info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-22T11:38:10Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/215954instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-22 11:38:10.493CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter? |
| title |
Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter? |
| spellingShingle |
Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter? Cassini, Marcelo Hernan CONSERVATION INVASIVE SPECIES WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT |
| title_short |
Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter? |
| title_full |
Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter? |
| title_fullStr |
Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter? |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter? |
| title_sort |
Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter? |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Cassini, Marcelo Hernan |
| author |
Cassini, Marcelo Hernan |
| author_facet |
Cassini, Marcelo Hernan |
| author_role |
author |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
CONSERVATION INVASIVE SPECIES WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT |
| topic |
CONSERVATION INVASIVE SPECIES WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT |
| purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
| dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
Conservation biologists have divided wildlife in two antagonist categories—native and introduced populations—because they defend the hypothesis that the latter acquires or expresses harmful qualities that a population that remains in its original environment does not possess. Invasion biology has emerged as a branch of conservation biology dedicated exclusively to conflicts between introduced wildlife and human interest, including the protection of biodiversity. For invasion biology, the damage caused by native species is different and must be managed differently. However, the consensus around this native–introduced dichotomy is not universal, and a debate has intensified in recent years. The objective of this work was to compare the impacts of native and introduced species of terrestrial vertebrates of the United States using the dataset provided by Wildlife Services (WS), which depend upon the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture. Annually, they receive thousands of reports and complaints of human–wildlife conflicts. I analyzed the WS databases and found, against expectations, that native species produce significantly more damage than nonnative ones, especially regarding damage to agriculture, property and health and safety. In the category of impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems, the differences were minor. I discuss several potential explanations of these patterns in the results. I also discuss the ecological foundations of the native–introduced dichotomy hypothesis. Fil: Cassini, Marcelo Hernan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; Argentina |
| description |
Conservation biologists have divided wildlife in two antagonist categories—native and introduced populations—because they defend the hypothesis that the latter acquires or expresses harmful qualities that a population that remains in its original environment does not possess. Invasion biology has emerged as a branch of conservation biology dedicated exclusively to conflicts between introduced wildlife and human interest, including the protection of biodiversity. For invasion biology, the damage caused by native species is different and must be managed differently. However, the consensus around this native–introduced dichotomy is not universal, and a debate has intensified in recent years. The objective of this work was to compare the impacts of native and introduced species of terrestrial vertebrates of the United States using the dataset provided by Wildlife Services (WS), which depend upon the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture. Annually, they receive thousands of reports and complaints of human–wildlife conflicts. I analyzed the WS databases and found, against expectations, that native species produce significantly more damage than nonnative ones, especially regarding damage to agriculture, property and health and safety. In the category of impacts on biodiversity and natural ecosystems, the differences were minor. I discuss several potential explanations of these patterns in the results. I also discuss the ecological foundations of the native–introduced dichotomy hypothesis. |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-10 |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/215954 Cassini, Marcelo Hernan; Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter?; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; Animals; 12; 20; 10-2022; 1-10 2076-2615 CONICET Digital CONICET |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/215954 |
| identifier_str_mv |
Cassini, Marcelo Hernan; Human–Wildlife Conflicts: Does Origin Matter?; Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; Animals; 12; 20; 10-2022; 1-10 2076-2615 CONICET Digital CONICET |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3390/ani12202872 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/ |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/ |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
| _version_ |
1846782036327530496 |
| score |
12.982451 |