130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

Recommendations

Info

Box 1. Return and urbanization of wildlife: a disease risk? Wildlife, livestock, inadequate biosecurity and poor animal husbandry have been increasingly implicated as a major contributor to disease in wildlife, livestock and humans worldwide [1–3] . The implications of this are currently seen in the case of Badgers, cattle and bovine tuberculosis in the UK: culling of Badgers is currently underway in two trial areas to reduce TB in cattle [4] , despite protests and an ongoing controversy about the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a cull on reducing TB incidence, the humaneness of the approach and its legality given European wildlife legislation [5–7] . Similarly, there is growing concern about the introduction of highly pathogenic disease from livestock into wildlife populations, such as the transmission of highly virulent strains of avian influenza from farmed to wild birds, and issues of disease in wild meat consumption [8] . Return of wildlife to vast tracts of land which are managed for livestock production is likely to increase the scope for direct and indirect disease transmission between wildlife and livestock, since many diseases are able to infect multiple species [9] . Wildlife also plays a role in providing a reservoir for disease vectors. For example, both Lyme’s disease and tick-borne encephalitis have relatively high prevalence in Central Europe [10, 11] . Areas with high deer density are generally also considered high-risk areas for these tick-borne diseases [12] , although climatic effects are also implicated in the northward expansion of diseases such as tick-borne encephalitis [11] . In Sweden, for example, the spread of the disease due to climatic factors is likely to have been compounded by the marked increase in Roe deer numbers since the 1980s [13] . Also, in Denmark, density of Roe deer and incidence of neurological manifestations of Lyme’s disease are correlated in both space and time [14] . Some species have the capacity to use altered habitats and food sources created by humans and adapt their behaviour to new environments and pressures [15] . As a result, urban wildlife populations have been on the increase, such as Gulls, Foxes, Badgers, Wild boar, Deer, etc. and conflicts have started to emerge [16–19] . Urban wildlife populations are likely to increase further, and apart from structural damage to human property, this has also raised the issue of zoonotic disease spread in urban environments (e.g. leptospirosis in urban Wild boar [20] ; alveolar echinococcosis in urban foxes [21, 22] ) so that effective disease surveillance and education on disease prevention is necessary to avoid spread of zoonoses. However, it has also been suggested that declines in biodiversity will cause an increase in disease transmission and number of emerging disease events. West Nile Virus primarily replicates in birds, but is transmitted via mosquitos to mammals including humans, with recent zoonotic outbreaks of the disease in parts of the eastern USA. Recent research found that incidence of West Nile Virus in humans was lower where bird diversity was higher [23] . Therefore, despite the possibility that biodiversity may serve as a source for disease, current evidence overall suggests that preserving intact, naturally functioning ecosystems and associated biodiversity should generally reduce the prevalence of infectious diseases [24] . References 1. Daszak, P., Cunningham, A.A. & Hyatt, A.D. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife – threats to biodiversity and human health. Science, 287 443–449. 2. Dobson, A. & Foufopoulos, J. 2001. Emerging infectious pathogens of wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 356 1001–1012. 3. Cleaveland, S., Laurenson, M.K. & Taylor, L.H. 2001. Diseases of human and their domestic mammals: pathogen characteristics, host range and the risk of emergence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 356 991–999. 4. BBC News 2013. Badger cull begins in Somerset in attempt to tackle TB. [cited 4th September 2013]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ uk-england-23845851. 5. Donnelly, C.A. & Woodroffe, R. 2012. Epidemiology: Reduce uncertainty in UK badger culling. Nature, 485 (7400): 582. 6. BBC News 2012. Badger culls ‘could increase TB levels’. [cited 4th September 2013]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19939393. 7. BBC News 2012. Cull ‘not good deal’ for taxpayer, says UK expert. [cited 4th September 2013]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ science-environment-19981171. 8. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) 2011. Wildlife disease and migratory species. 9. Böhm, M., White, P.C.L., Hunter, J., et al. 2007. Wild deer as a source of infection for livestock and humans in the UK. The Veterinary Journal, 174 260–276. 10. Lindgren, E. & Jaenson, T.G.T. 2006. Lyme borreliosis in Europe: influences of climate and climate change, epidemiology, ecology and adaptation measures. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark. 11. Randolph, S.E. 2001. The shifting landscape of tick-borne zoonoses: tick-borne encephalitis and Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 356 (1411): 1045–1056. 12. Pichon, B., Mousson, L., Figureau, C., et al. 1999. Density of deer in relation to the prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi sl in Ixodes ricinus nymphs in Rambouillet forest, France. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 23 267–275. 13. Lindgren, E., Talleklint, L. & Polfeldt, T. 2000. Impact of climatic change on the northern latitude limit and population density of the disease-transmitting European tick Ixodes ricinus. J. Natl. Inst. Environ. Hlth. Sci., 108 119–123. 14. Jensen, P.M. & Frandsen, F. 2000. Temporal risk assessment for Lyme borreliosis in Denmark. Scand. J. Infect. Dis., 35 539–544. 15. Podgorski, T., Bas, G., Jedrzejewska, B., et al. 2013. Spatiotemporal behavioral plasticity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) under contrasting conditions of human pressure: primeval forest and metropolitan area. Journal of Mammalogy, 94 (1): 109–119. 16. Belant, J.L. 1997. Gulls in urban environments: landscape-level management to reduce conflict. Landscape and Urban Planning, 38 (3–4): 245–258. 17. Delahay, R.J., Davison, J., Poole, D.W., et al. 2009. Managing conflict between humans and wildlife: trends in licensed operations to resolve problems with badgers Meles meles in England. Mammal Review, 39 53–66 18. Gloor, S., Bontadina, F., Hegglin, D., et al. 2001. The rise of urban fox populations in Switzerland. Mammalian Biology, 66 155–164. 19. Kotulski, Y. & König, A. 2008. Conflict, crises and challenges: wild boar in the Berlin City – a social empirical and statistical survey. Natura Croatica, 17 (4): 233–246. 20. Jansen, A., Luge, E., Guerra, B., et al. 2007. Leptospirosis in urban wild boars, Berlin, Germany. Emerging Infectious Diseases, DOI: 10.3201/ eid1305.061302 21. Deplazes, P., Hegglin, D., Gloor, S., et al. 2004. Wilderness in the city: the urbanization of Echinococcus multilocularis. Trends in Parasitology, 20 (2): 77–84. 22. König, A. 2008. Fears, attitudes and opinions of suburban residents with regards to their urban foxes. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54 (1): 101–109. 23. Swaddle, J.P. & Calos, S.E. 2008. Increased avian diversity is associated with lower incidence of human West Nile infection: observation of the dilution effect. PLos ONE, 3 (6): e2488. 24. Keesing, F., Belden, L.K., Daszak, P., et al. 2010. Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases. Nature, 468 (7324): 647–652. 292
Grey seals (Halichoerus grypus)] and many bat species migrate large distances across Europe, and international agreements have been signed to ensure their protection [94–97] . Trans-national efforts have been initiated to establish a viable metapopulation network via reintroductions for some depleted populations [e.g. Bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus) [98] ]. Where species are wide-ranging, reintroductions in one country and subsequent dispersal of individuals can lead to human-wildlife conflict in another. In these cases, successful wildlife comeback relies on the concerted effort of range states to protect existing populations whilst allowing expansions into new territories. There is also a need for a trans-national strategy to deal with damage caused by wildlife in order for countries to equally share the benefits and costs of wildlife comeback. A prominent example and worldwide media event, bear JJ1, popularly called “Bruno” – reintroduced into the Italian Alps and subsequently dispersing to Austria and Germany, thus becoming the first Brown bear recorded in Germany since 1835 – was shot in Bavaria, Germany, in May 2006 following reports of livestock predation [99] . The incident led to discussions on how to manage bears at the trans-boundary level [100] . In efforts to develop transboundary wildlife conservation and management plan, it is important to remember legal obligations imposed by international and European nature conservation legislation, such as laid out in the Bern Convention and EU Birds and Habitats Directives [101] . Dealing with wildlife damage As recovering species are set to come into closer contact with humans, their settlements, livestock and crops, it is inevitable that wildlife will cause some damage (see also Box 1). In the past this has led to high levels of persecution of the implicated wildlife, causing historical population declines and at present slowing the restoration of some species of wildlife, particularly large carnivores, across Europe [102, 103] . It is important that we learn from past and present experiences to select the most appropriate measures to ensure that wildlife and humans can co-exist across Europe. Predation of livestock by large carnivores is most often a symptom of depleted populations of natural prey. For example, in some parts of its range where wild prey abundance is low and livestock is abundant, wolves primarily or almost exclusively feed on livestock [e.g. Northern Portugal [104] , Greece (Table 1)]. However, in areas of high wild prey abundance and low livestock numbers, livestock may make up only a small percentage of prey biomass of wolves (e.g. around 1% in central and western Poland; [105] and 3% in the western Carpathians of southern Poland [106] ; Table 1). Encouraging increases in prey species in conjunction with those of large predators is therefore paramount to establish natural predator-prey systems across Europe. In central Europe, Eurasian lynx are implicated in conflict with humans less often than larger carnivores [107] , probably because they generally prey on smaller species, such as lagomorphs, rather than intensively farmed livestock (Table 1). On the other hand, high levels of predation on Reindeer make the lynx the most costly of all predators in Scandinavia (Table 1). Other prominent examples of predation on livestock or game are Hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) preying on Red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scotica) in Scotland, and Red kites on rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in Spain, creating conflict between conservationists and hunters [108, 109] . Otters, Grey herons (Ardea cinerea) and Great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo) have affected stocks on unprotected fish farms [110–112] , and depredation of apiaries is a prominent source of conflict with bears [113] (Table 1). Herbivory by large ungulates shapes the composition of plant communities and vice versa [117, 118] . Large ungulates are therefore an integral part of natural European landscapes. However, where they occur at high densities, damage to agricultural crops by ungulates or waterfowl by far exceeds damage from livestock predation. For example, the level of agricultural damage caused by wildlife [(mainly Wild boar (Sus scrofa)] in Arezzo province, Italy, was seven times higher than the mean annual value of wolf compensation payments [119] . Large herbivores can cause damage to crops via grazing and browsing, but also via trampling and alteration of environmental factors such as nutrients and light [120–122] . Grazing and browsing can also damage commercial forestry and regeneration of trees of conservation importance [123, 124] , however, the relationships between herbivore densities, tree species composition and damage are often complex [125–127] . Even higher are compensation costs incurred for crop damage by geese, e.g. in the Netherlands, where on average €7 million is spent as crop damage money annually, with an additional €8–10 million spent as compensation money for farmers compared to less than €1 million per year for crop damage and compensation for mammal species (2008–2012 [128] ). Preventing conflicts between humans and wildlife altogether presents the most difficult challenge, effectively requiring a reduction in the spatial overlap between wildlife and human interests (e.g. via zoning of protected areas for different activity levels, including core protection zones [129] , as in UNESCO biosphere reserves [130] ). Establishment of core protection zones presents a 293
Page 1 and 2:
Stefanie Deinet Christina Ieronymid
Page 3 and 4:
Wildlife comeback in Europe The rec
Page 5 and 6:
Table of contents Foreword . . . .
Page 7:
Foreword Shifting baselines In Euro
Page 10 and 11:
The Adriatic coastline of the Veleb
Page 12 and 13:
96 year old olive farmer with his d
Page 14 and 15:
12
Page 16 and 17:
Limitations of population trend dat
Page 18 and 19:
Constructing historical distributio
Page 20 and 21:
Red deer at the Oostvaardersplassen
Page 22 and 23:
Table 2. Definitions of classificat
Page 24 and 25:
22
Page 26 and 27:
3.1. European bison Bison bonasus S
Page 28 and 29:
Table 2. Latest population estimate
Page 30 and 31:
Figure 1c. Map highlighting areas o
Page 32 and 33:
Rank Reason for change Description
Page 34 and 35:
3.2. Alpine ibex Capra ibex Summary
Page 36 and 37:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Alpine i
Page 38 and 39:
% change 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Fig
Page 40 and 41:
3.3. Iberian ibex Capra pyrenaica S
Page 42 and 43:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Iberian
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
3.4. Southern chamois Rupicapra pyr
Page 48 and 49:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Southern
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
3.5. Northern chamois Rupicapra rup
Page 54 and 55:
Scale Status Population trend Justi
Page 56 and 57:
% change 80 60 40 20 0 and Italy [2
Page 58 and 59:
Subspecies balcanica Exploitation B
Page 60 and 61:
3.6. Eurasian elk Alces alces Summa
Page 62 and 63:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Eurasian
Page 64 and 65:
Poland [10] and Estonia [28] . It i
Page 66 and 67:
References 1. Geist, V. 1998. Deer
Page 68 and 69:
3.7. Roe deer Capreolus capreolus S
Page 70 and 71:
Estimate Year assessed Reference Gl
Page 72 and 73:
Figure 2. Change in Roe deer popula
Page 74 and 75:
Recent developments As discussed ab
Page 76 and 77:
3.8. Red deer Cervus elaphus Summar
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
% change 750 600 450 300 150 0 Figu
Page 82 and 83:
lineages for the local area and min
Page 84 and 85:
3.9. Wild boar Sus scrofa Summary T
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Abundance and distribution: changes
Page 90 and 91:
References 1. IUCN 2011a. The IUCN
Page 92 and 93:
3.10. Golden jackal Canis aureus Su
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Recent developments Table 3. Major
Page 98 and 99:
3.11. Grey wolf Canis lupus Summary
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Drivers of recovery Figure 2. Distr
Page 104 and 105:
References 1. Mech, L.D. & Boitani,
Page 106 and 107:
3.12. Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx Summa
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
% change 750 600 450 300 150 0 Figu
Page 112 and 113:
Figure 3. Map of recent development
Page 114 and 115:
3.13. Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus Su
Page 116 and 117:
Figure 1a. Distribution of the Iber
Page 118 and 119:
Table 3. Major reasons for positive
Page 120 and 121:
18. IUCN 2011b. European Red List.
Page 122 and 123:
3.14. Wolverine Gulo gulo Summary T
Page 124 and 125:
Figure 1a. Distribution of Wolverin
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
3.15. Grey seal Halichoerus grypus
Page 130 and 131:
Estimate assessed Reference Global
Page 132 and 133:
% change 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 Fi
Page 134 and 135:
3.16. Harbour seal Phoca vitulina S
Page 136 and 137:
east coast, the distribution is res
Page 138 and 139:
% change 200 150 100 50 0 populatio
Page 140 and 141:
Figure 3. Map of recent development
Page 142 and 143:
3.17. Brown bear Ursus arctos Summa
Page 144 and 145:
Table 2. Latest population estimate
Page 146 and 147:
144
Page 148 and 149:
Recent developments % change 200 15
Page 150 and 151:
mation, e.g. between Slovenia and C
Page 152 and 153:
3.18. Eurasian beaver Castor fiber
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
% change 20,000 16,000 12,000 200 1
Page 158 and 159:
Table 3. Major reasons for change i
Page 160 and 161:
158
Page 162 and 163:
4.1. Pink-footed goose Anser brachy
Page 164 and 165:
Table 2. Major threats that drove P
Page 166 and 167:
4.2. Barnacle goose Branta leucopsi
Page 168 and 169:
Figure 2. Current breeding and wint
Page 170 and 171:
Table 3. Conservation actions in pl
Page 172 and 173:
4.3. Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus Sum
Page 174 and 175:
Threat Description Impact Hunting a
Page 176 and 177:
4.4. White-headed duck Oxyura leuco
Page 178 and 179:
No. of individuals 5000 4500 4000 3
Page 180 and 181:
educing the population in the count
Page 182 and 183:
4.5. White stork Ciconia ciconia Su
Page 184 and 185:
Country No. of breeding pairs Trend
Page 186 and 187:
Action Description Impact Monitorin
Page 188 and 189:
4.6. Eurasian spoonbill Platalea le
Page 190 and 191:
Country No. of breeding pairs No. o
Page 192 and 193:
Threat Description Impact Residenti
Page 194 and 195:
4.7. Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus cr
Page 196 and 197:
194
Page 198 and 199:
Table 3 Major threats that drove th
Page 200 and 201:
4.8. Lesser kestrel Falco naumanni
Page 202 and 203:
Figure 2. Current distribution of L
Page 204 and 205:
Action Description Impact Livelihoo
Page 206 and 207:
4.9. Saker falcon Falco cherrug Sum
Page 208 and 209:
Table 2. Latest Saker falcon popula
Page 210 and 211:
Action Description Impact Planning
Page 212 and 213:
4.10. Peregrine falcon Falco peregr
Page 214 and 215:
No. of breeding pairs 1,600 1,200 8
Page 216 and 217:
Action Description Impact Legislati
Page 218 and 219:
4.11. Red kite Milvus milvus Summar
Page 220 and 221:
Country No. of breeding pairs Trend
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
4.12. White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus
Page 226 and 227:
Country No. of breeding pairs Year
Page 228 and 229:
References 1. Bijleveld, M. 1974 Bi
Page 230 and 231:
4.13. Bearded vulture Gypaetus barb
Page 232 and 233:
Figure 2. Current distribution of B
Page 234 and 235:
4.14. Griffon vulture Gyps fulvus S
Page 236 and 237:
Figure 2. Current distribution of G
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
4.15. Cinereous vulture Aegypius mo
Page 242 and 243:
Figure 2. Current distribution of C
Page 244 and 245: 4.16. Spanish imperial eagle Aquila
Page 246 and 247: Threat Description Impact Transport
Page 248 and 249: Drivers of recovery The spectacular
Page 250 and 251: 4.17. Eastern imperial eagle Aquila
Page 252 and 253: Figure 2. Current distribution of E
Page 254 and 255: 252
Page 256 and 257: 4.18. Common crane Grus grus Summar
Page 258 and 259: Figure 2. Current breeding and wint
Page 260 and 261: Action Monitoring and planning Site
Page 262 and 263: 4.19. Roseate tern Sterna dougallii
Page 264 and 265: Threat Description Impact Human int
Page 266 and 267: 264
Page 268 and 269: 337,539 2,000 20,000 >163,750 % abu
Page 270 and 271: 1950s 1980s Present 50km grid Speci
Page 272 and 273: No. of species 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 6 No.
Page 274 and 275: 272
Page 276 and 277: A Range change B Range change C Ran
Page 278 and 279: Reason for positive change Species
Page 280 and 281: Dalmatian pelicans at the Kerkini L
Page 282 and 283: 280
Page 284 and 285: The comeback of large and charismat
Page 286 and 287: A safari group in the Velebit mount
Page 288 and 289: The view from a bear watching hide
Page 290 and 291: species [44] [45] and if animals be
Page 292 and 293: One of the challenges around increa
Page 296 and 297: Table 1. Livestock damage by mammal
Page 298 and 299: key tool for wildlife population in
Page 300 and 301: Some of the over 500,000 visitors a
Page 302 and 303: Box 2. The native versus alien spec
Page 304 and 305: References 1. Navarro, L.M. and H.M
Page 306 and 307: 113. Potena, G., et al., Brown Bear
Page 308 and 309: Appendix 1. Sources of distribution
Page 310: Acknowledgements This study on wild
show all

130925-studie-wildlife-comeback-in-europe

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?