Review


Implications of taxonomic bias for human–carnivore conflict mitigation


CLA IRE F. HOFFMANN and ROBE R T A. MONTGOMERY


Abstract Carnivore population declines are a time-sensitive global challenge in which mitigating decreasing populations requires alignment of applied practice and research prior- ities. However, large carnivore conservation is hindered by gaps among research, conservation practice and policy for- mation. One potential driver of this research–implementa- tion gap is research bias towards charismatic species. Using depredation of livestock by large carnivores in sub-Saharan Africa as a case study, we examined whether taxonomic bias could be detected and explored the potential effects of such a bias on the research–implementation gap. Via a literature review, we compared the central large carnivore species in research to the species identified as the primary livestock depredator. We detected a substantial misalignment be- tween these factors for two species. Spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta were the most common depredator of livestock (58.5% of studies), but were described as a central species among only 20.7% of the studies. In comparison, African lions Panthera leo were the most common central species (45% of studies) but were the primary depredator in just 24.4% of studies. Such patterns suggest that taxonomic bias is prevalent within this research. Although spotted hyaenas may depredate livestock most often, their low charisma in comparison to sympatric species such as the African lion and leopard Panthera pardus may be limiting research-informed conservation efforts for them. Efforts to mitigate human–carnivore conflict designed for one species may not be applicable to another co-occurring spe- cies, and thus, taxonomic bias could undermine the efficacy of interventions built to reduce livestock depredation by carnivores.


Keywords Charisma, Crocuta crocuta, human–carnivore conflict, livestock depredation, research–implementation gap, sub-Saharan Africa, taxonomic bias


Supplementary material for this article is available at doi.org/10.1017/S0030605321000582


Introduction L


arge carnivores are of conservation concern globally. More than 75% of the remaining large carnivore species


have declining population trajectories (Chapron et al., 2014; Ripple et al., 2014; Eklund et al., 2017). Furthermore, the majority of these species are categorized as threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered) on the IUCN Red List, with some experiencing .90% range con- traction over the last century (Ripple et al., 2016; Wolf & Ripple, 2017). Widespread concerns relating to carnivore conservation are reflected in the literature; publication of peer-reviewed research has increased exponentially in the last 3 decades (Krafte Holland et al., 2018; Montgomery et al., 2018a,b; Lozano et al., 2019). This literature has iden- tified a number of drivers of carnivore population declines, including habitat loss, prey depletion, disease and climate change (Inskip & Zimmermann, 2009; Estes et al., 2011; Ripple et al., 2016;Wolf&Ripple, 2017).However, retaliation for livestock depredation is consistently cited as one of the primary threats to carnivore population persistence (Inskip &Zimmermann, 2009; Tumenta et al., 2013;Ripple et al., 2014; Krafte Holland et al., 2018; van Eeden et al., 2018a,b). As funds for conservation work are limited, each con-


CLAIRE F. HOFFMANN (Corresponding author, orcid.org/0000-0001-7312-


4459, clairefhoffmann@gmail.com) Research on the Ecology of Carnivores and their Prey Laboratory, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Room 13, Natural Resources Building, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA


ROBERT A. MONTGOMERY Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Tubney, Oxon, UK


Received 16 September 2020. Revision requested 26 January 2021. Accepted 12 April 2021. First published online 9 February 2022.


servation project needs to use resources efficiently, to maxi- mize positive on-the-ground impacts (Balmford et al., 2003; Brambilla et al., 2013;Eklund et al., 2017). To do so, research must be interpretable by conservation practitioners and pol- icymakers (Balmford et al., 2003; Knight et al., 2008; Bennett et al., 2015;Ripple etal., 2016). However, even after extensive calls for improvement, significant gaps between research and conservation implementation remain (Knight et al., 2008; Eklund et al., 2017; Krafte Holland et al., 2018; Montgomery et al., 2018a,b;Gray et al., 2019). Factors contributing to this research–implementation gap include limited inter- disciplinarity within research teams, scale discordance, and limited actionability of research (Montgomery et al., 2018a,b; Gray et al., 2019). Another factor that may be influential in this context is taxonomic bias. Taxonomic bias is prevalent throughout conservation re-


search, and describes a tendency for research effort, funding, and public interest to focus on a small subset of species


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 917–926 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000582


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164