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
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/215954

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