924 C. F. Hoffmann and R. A. Montgomery
to the literature on human–carnivore interactions by help- ing to improve the conservation impact of future research in this field. Our findings indicate that current patterns of research prioritization are resulting in a misalignment between the drivers of human–carnivore conflict and research on that topic. Consequently, conflict intervention practices founded upon that research may be limited in their ability to mitigate declines in large carnivore popula- tions. Solutions for this global conservation challenge may be better served by alternate prioritization schemes that pro- mote species-specific knowledge and more comprehensive understanding of the patterns of livestock depredation. We advocate increased incentivization of the study of live- stock depredation by less charismatic carnivore species, in- cluding the spotted hyaena. This will facilitate the explicit examination of the effectiveness of conflict mitigation efforts. The call for research on less charismatic species is often
based upon the conservation status of those species, where their relative omission from the literature may be increasing their risk of extinction (Seddon et al., 2005; Brambilla et al., 2013). Here, we provide evidence for an additional motive for addressing this bias, as the underrepresentation of spot- ted hyaenas is unlikely to put the species itself at risk of extinction. Instead, we show that in the case of livestock depredation, and subsequent human–carnivore conflict, this bias may be negatively impacting the conservation of other depredating species as well. As taxonomic bias is widespread in conservation, further examination is likely to reveal similar trends in other regions and fields of study. Our study suggests that increased examination of current patterns of funding and research effort is needed to bridge the existing gap between conservation priorities and conservation research.
Acknowledgements We thank J.M. Beck for insightful comments. CFH is supported by the University Fellowship Program at Michigan State University, but this research received no specific grant from any funding agency, or commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author contributions Analysis, writing: all authors. Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
ALBERT, C., LUQUE, G.M. & COURCHAMP,F. (2018) The twenty most charismatic species. PLOS ONE, 13,e0199149.
AMORI, G., GIPPOLITI,S.&HELGEN, K.M. (2008) Diversity, distribution, and conservation of endemic island rodents. Quaternary International, 182, 6–15.
ANDELMAN, S.J. & FAGAN,W.F. (2000) Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 5954–5959.
ANON.(2007) The great divide. Nature, 450, 135–136. BALMFORD, A., GASTON, K.J., BLYTH, S., JAMES,A. & KAPOS,V. (2003) Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 1046–1050.
BAYNES-ROCK,M.(2013) Local tolerance of hyena attacks in East Hararge Region, Ethiopia. Anthrozoös, 26, 421–433.
BEDNAREK,M.&CAPLE,H.(2014) Why do news values matter? Towards a new methodological framework for analysing news discourse in critical discourse analysis and beyond. Discourse & Society, 25, 135–158.
BENNETT, J.R.,MALONEY,R.&POSSINGHAM, H.P. (2015) Biodiversity gains from efficient use of private sponsorship for flagship species conservation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282, 20142693.
BONNET, X., SHINE,R.&LOURDAIS,O. (2002) Taxonomic chauvinism. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17, 1–3.
BRAMBILLA, M., GUSTIN,M.&CELADA,C. (2013) Species appeal predicts conservation status. Biological Conservation, 160, 209–213.
BROCKINGTON,D.& SCHOLFIELD,K.(2010a) The conservationist mode of production and conservation NGOs in sub-Saharan Africa. Antipode, 42, 551–575.
BROCKINGTON,D.& SCHOLFIELD,K.(2010b) Expenditure by conservation nongovernmental organizations in sub-Saharan Africa. Conservation Letters, 3, 106–113.
BRUSKOTTER, J.T. &WILSON, R.S. (2014) Determining where the wild things will be: using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters, 7, 158–165.
CARO, T., ENGILIS, A., FITZHERBERT,E.&GARDNER,T. (2004) Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Animal Conservation, 7, 63–70.
CHAPRON, G.,KACZENSKY, P., LINNELL, J.D.C., VON ARX, M.,HUBER, D.,ANDRÉN,H. et al. (2014) Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science, 346, 1517–1519.
CLARK, J.A. & MAY, R.A. (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science, 297, 191–192.
COURCHAMP, F., ANGULO, E., RIVALAN, P., HALL, R.J., SIGNORET, L., BULL,L.&MEINARD,Y.(2006) Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic Allee effect. PLOS Biology, 4, 2405–2410.
COURCHAMP, F., JARIC, I., ALBERT, C.,MEINARD, Y., RIPPLE,W.J. & CHAPRON,G. (2018) The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLOS Biology, 16,e2003997.
CURTIN,P.&PAPWORTH,S.(2020) Coloring and size influence preferences for imaginary animals, and can predict actual donations to species-specific conservation charities. Conservation Letters, 13,e12723.
DAVIES, T.,COWLEY, A., BENNIE, J., LEYSHON, C., INGER, R.,CARTER, H. et al. (2018) Popular interest in vertebrates does not reflect extinction risk and is associated with bias in conservation investment. PLOS ONE, 13,e0203694.
DE PINHO, J.R.,GRILO, C., BOONE, R.B.,GALVIN, K.A.&SNODGRASS, J.G. (2014) Influence of aesthetic appreciation of wildlife species on attitudes towards their conservation in Kenyan Agropastoralist communities. PLOS ONE, 9, 88842.
DI MARCO, M., CHAPMAN, S., ALTHOR, G., KEARNEY,S. &WATSON, J.E.M. (2017) Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. Global Ecology and Conservation, 10, 32–42.
DI MININ, E., FRASER, I., SLOTOW,R.&MACMILLAN, D.C. (2013) Understanding heterogeneous preference of tourists for big game species: implications for conservation and management. Animal Conservation, 16, 249–258.
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
