Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and consequences for red deer management.

Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biology, University of Oslo, PO Box 1066 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Impact Factor: 5.68). 05/2007; 274(1612):995-1002. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0038
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Reintroductions are important tools for the conservation of individual species, but recently more attention has been paid to the restoration of ecosystem function, and to the importance of carrying out a full risk assessment prior to any reintroduction programme. In much of the Highlands of Scotland, wolves (Canis lupus) were eradicated by 1769, but there are currently proposals for them to be reintroduced. Their main wild prey if reintroduced would be red deer (Cervus elaphus). Red deer are themselves a contentious component of the Scottish landscape. They support a trophy hunting industry but are thought to be close to carrying capacity, and are believed to have a considerable economic and ecological impact. High deer densities hamper attempts to reforest, reduce bird densities and compete with livestock for grazing. Here, we examine the probable consequences for the red deer population of reintroducing wolves into the Scottish Highlands using a structured Markov predator-prey model. Our simulations suggest that reintroducing wolves is likely to generate conservation benefits by lowering deer densities. It would also free deer estates from the financial burden of costly hind culls, which are required in order to achieve the Deer Commission for Scotland's target deer densities. However, a reintroduced wolf population would also carry costs, particularly through increased livestock mortality. We investigated perceptions of the costs and benefits of wolf reintroductions among rural and urban communities in Scotland and found that the public are generally positive to the idea. Farmers hold more negative attitudes, but far less negative than the organizations that represent them.

  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Both predation and individual variation in life history traits influence population dynamics. Recent results from laboratory predator-prey systems suggest that differences between individuals can also influence predator-prey dynamics when different genotypes experience different predation-associated mortalities. Despite the growing number of studies in this field, there is no synthesis identifying the overall importance of the interactions between predation and individual heterogeneity and their role in shaping the dynamics of free-ranging populations of vertebrates. We aim to fill this gap with a review that examines how individual variability in prey susceptibility, in predation costs, in predator selectivity, and in predatory performance, might influence prey population dynamics. Based on this review, it is clear that (1) predation risk and costs experienced by free-ranging prey are associated with their phenotypic attributes, (2) many generalist predator populations consist of individual specialists with part of the specialization associated with their phenotypes, and (3) a complete understanding of the population dynamic consequences of predation may require information on individual variability in prey selection and prey vulnerability. Altogether, this work (1) highlights the importance of maintaining long-term, detailed studies of individuals of both predators and prey in contrasting ecological conditions, and (2) advocates for a better use of available information to account for interactive effects between predators and their prey when modelling prey population dynamics.
    Oecologia 07/2011; 167(2):305-14. · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: At Booderee National Park, south-eastern Australia, the intensive control of the introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes) resulted in a major increase in the abundance of a browsing macropod, the swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolor). This has led to a major decrease in the abundance and biomass of a range of palatable plant species. Fox control has also started a trophic cascade that has resulted in a decline in the abundance of the greater glider (Petauroides volans) a folivorous arboreal marsupial, mediated either through increased predation by owls or increased competition with common brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). We identified five potential scenarios for managing the effects of over-abundant swamp wallabies on the ecosystem as a whole. These were (1) the present scenario of continued intensive fox control and four possible scenarios to redress the problem: (2) ceasing fox control; (3) intensive fox control and intensive wallaby control; (4) introducing dingoes and ceasing fox control; and (5) introducing dingoes and maintaining fox control. We used an ecosystem modelling approach based on a fuzzy cognitive map (FCM) to predict relative estimates of abundance for each scenario for a wide range of taxa in the Booderee National Park ecosystem likely to be affected by each scenario. We addressed uncertainty in our knowledge of the interactions between species by creating alternative models of the system by removing one or more of the uncertain links between species and varying the strength of the remaining interactions in the FCM and aggregated predictions from 100,000 models to estimate the effect of uncertainty on the predictions from our FCM model. In comparison with the current scenario of intensive fox control, scenario 3 had the greatest likelihood of improving the status of palatable plants. Scenarios 2 and 4 reduced the abundance of a range of medium-sized mammals but improved the status of greater gliders, whereas the predicted effects of scenario 5 were uncertain. The FCM modelling approach developed here provided a valuable tool for managers to learn about the potential ecosystem wide effects of management actions while incorporating the likely effects of uncertain knowledge on system outcomes.
    Ecosystems 01/2012; 15(8). · 3.17 Impact Factor


Available from