View Item 

Show simple item record

Predation services: quantifying societal effects of predators and their prey
dc.contributor.authorGilbert, Sophie
dc.contributor.authorCarter, Neil
dc.contributor.authorNaidoo, Robin
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-02T21:05:55Z
dc.date.available2022-07-02 17:05:54en
dc.date.available2021-06-02T21:05:55Z
dc.date.issued2021-06
dc.identifier.citationGilbert, Sophie; Carter, Neil; Naidoo, Robin (2021). "Predation services: quantifying societal effects of predators and their prey." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (5): 292-299.
dc.identifier.issn1540-9295
dc.identifier.issn1540-9309
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/167774
dc.publisherUS Fish and Wildlife Service
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.titlePredation services: quantifying societal effects of predators and their prey
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScience
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167774/1/fee2336.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167774/2/fee2336-sup-0001-PanelS1.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167774/3/fee2336-sup-0002-TableS1.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167774/4/fee2336_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/fee.2336
dc.identifier.sourceFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTosi G, Chirichella R, Zibordi F, et al. 2015. Brown bear reintroduction in the Southern Alps: to what extent are expectations being met? J Nat Conserv 26: 9 – 19.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTreves A and Karanth KU. 2003. Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv Biol 17: 1491 – 99.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan Eeden LM, Crowther MS, Dickman CR, et al. 2017. Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock. Conserv Biol 32: 26 – 34.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFarber SC, Costanza R, and Wilson MA. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41: 375 – 92.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFisher B and Naidoo R. 2011. Concerns about extrapolating right off the bat. Science 333: 287 – 88.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFisher B, Naidoo R, and Ricketts TH. 2015. A field guide to economics for conservationists. Greenwood Village, CO: Roberts and Company Publishers.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGilbert SL, Sivy KJ, Pozzanghera CB, et al. 2016. Socioeconomic benefits of large carnivore recolonization through reduced wildlife–vehicle collisions. Conserv Lett 10: 431 – 39.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhorozyan I, Ghoddousi A, Soofi M, and Waltert M. 2015. Big cats kill more livestock when wild prey reaches a minimum threshold. Biol Conserv 192: 268 – 75.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMuhly TB and Musiani M. 2009. Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching economy in the northwestern US. Ecol Econ 68: 2439 – 50.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNaidoo R, Weaver LC, Diggle RW, et al. 2016. Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia. Conserv Biol 30: 628 – 38.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO’Bryan CJ, Braczkowski AR, Beyer HL, et al. 2018. The contribution of predators and scavengers to human well‐being. Nature Ecol Evol 2: 229 – 36.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePenteriani V, del Mar Delgado M, Pinchera F, et al. 2016. Human behaviour can trigger large carnivore attacks in developed countries. Sci Rep‐UK 6: 20552.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerino A, Pereira HM, Navarro LM, et al. 2019. Rewilding complex ecosystems. Science 364: eaav5570.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePutman R, Langbein J, Green P, and Watson P. 2011. Identifying threshold densities for wild deer in the UK above which negative impacts may occur. Mammal Rev 41: 175 – 96.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRanglack DH and du Toit JT. 2015. Bison with benefits: towards integrating wildlife and ranching sectors on a public rangeland in the western USA. Oryx 50: 1 – 6.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReid JL. 2016. Knowledge and experience predict indiscriminate bat‐killing intentions among Costa Rican men. Biotropica 48: 394 – 404.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichardson L and Loomis J. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta‐analysis. Ecol Econ 68: 1535 – 48.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobinson JG. 1993. The limits of caring: sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity. Conserv Biol 7: 20 – 28.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeoraj‐Pillai N and Pillay N. 2017. A meta‐analysis of human–wildlife conflict: South African and global perspectives. Sustainability 9: 1 – 21.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBowyer RT, Bleich VC, Stewart KM, et al. 2014. Density dependence in ungulates: a review of causes, and concepts with some clarifications. J Wildlife Manage 100: 550 – 72.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBleier N, Lehoczki R, Újváry D, et al. 2012. Relationships between wild ungulates density and crop damage in Hungary. Acta Theriol 57: 351 – 59.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBautista C, Bautista C, Revilla E, et al. 2019. Large carnivore damage in Europe: analysis of compensation and prevention programs. Biol Conserv 235: 308 – 16.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoyle KJ, Roach B, Waddington DG, et al. 1998. 1996 net economic values for bass, trout and walleye fishing, deer, elk and moose hunting, and wildlife watching: addendum to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife‐Associated Recreation. Arlington, VA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoyles JG, Cryan PM, McCracken GF, and Kunz TH. 2011. Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science 332: 41 – 42.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBraczkowski AR, O’Bryan CJ, Stringer MJ, et al. 2018. Leopards provide public health benefits in Mumbai, India. Front Ecol Environ 16: 176 – 82.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarter NH and Linnell JDC. 2016. Co‐adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol Evol 31: 575 – 78.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarter NH, Riley SJ, and Liu J. 2012. Utility of a psychological framework for carnivore conservation. Oryx 46: 525 – 35.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarter NH, Bruskotter JT, Vucetich J, et al. 2019. Towards human–wildlife coexistence through the integration of human and natural systems. In: Frank B, Glikman JA, and Marchini S (Eds). Human–wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChen F. 2016. Poachers and snobs: demand for rarity and the effects of antipoaching policies. Conserv Lett 9: 65 – 69.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCôté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J, et al. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 35: 113 – 47.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDee LE, Cowles J, Isbell F, et al. 2019. When do ecosystem services depend on rare species? Trends Ecol Evol 34: 746 – 58.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDickman AJ, Macdonald EA, and Macdonald DW. 2011. A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 13937 – 44.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDoherty TS, Glen AS, Nimmo DG, et al. 2016. Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss. P Natl Acad Sci USA 113: 11261 – 65.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEberhardt LL. 1998. Applying difference equations to wolf predation. Can J Zool 76: 380 – 86.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceElbroch ML, Feltner J, and Quigley H. 2017. Human–carnivore competition for antlered ungulates: do pumas select for bulls and bucks? Wildlife Res 44: 523 – 33.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEstes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, et al. 2011. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333: 301 – 06.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
fee2336.pdf
Size:
2.417MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
fee2336-sup-0001-PanelS1.pdf
Size:
459.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
fee2336-sup-0002-TableS1.pdf
Size:
430.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
fee2336_am.pdf
Size:
704.6KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.