↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
145 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock
Published in
Conservation Biology, July 2017
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12959
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lily M. van Eeden, Mathew S. Crowther, Chris R. Dickman, David W. Macdonald, William J. Ripple, Euan G. Ritchie, Thomas M. Newsome

Abstract

Large carnivores are persecuted globally because they threaten human industries and livelihoods. How this conflict is managed has consequences for the conservation of large carnivores and biodiversity more broadly. Mitigating human-predator conflict should be evidence-based and accommodate people's values while also protecting carnivores. Despite much research into human-large carnivore coexistence strategies, there have been limited attempts to document the success of conflict mitigation strategies on a global scale. We present a meta-analysis of global research on conflict mitigation between large carnivores and humans, focusing on conflicts that arise from the threat that large carnivores pose to livestock industries. Overall, research effort and focus varied between continents, aligning with the different histories and cultures that shaped livestock production and attitudes towards carnivores. Of the studies that met our criteria, livestock guardian animals were most effective at reducing livestock losses, followed by lethal control, although the latter exhibited the widest variation in success and the two were not significantly different. Financial incentives have promoted tolerance in some settings, reducing retaliatory killings. In future, coexistence strategies should be location-specific, incorporating cultural values and environmental conditions, and designed such that return on financial investment can be evaluated. Improved monitoring of mitigation measures is urgently required to promote effective evidence-based policy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 145 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 255 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Unknown 253 99%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 <1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Unknown 253 99%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 125. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2019.
All research outputs
#107,002
of 12,606,327 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#53
of 2,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,270
of 265,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,606,327 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,314 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.