dc.creatorGuerisoli, Maria de Las Mercedes
dc.creatorLuengos Vidal, Estela Maris
dc.creatorCaruso, Nicolás
dc.creatorGiordano, Antony J.
dc.creatorLucherini, Mauro
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-26T18:52:37Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-15T09:55:43Z
dc.date.available2021-02-26T18:52:37Z
dc.date.available2022-10-15T09:55:43Z
dc.date.created2021-02-26T18:52:37Z
dc.date.issued2020-10-24
dc.identifierGuerisoli, Maria de Las Mercedes; Luengos Vidal, Estela Maris; Caruso, Nicolás; Giordano, Antony J.; Lucherini, Mauro; Puma-livestock conflicts in the Americas: a review of the evidence; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Mammal Review; 50; 4; 24-10-2020; 1-19
dc.identifier0305-1838
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/126849
dc.identifierCONICET Digital
dc.identifierCONICET
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/4372853
dc.description.abstractLoss of livestock is one of the greatest sources of conflict between humans and large felids worldwide. The puma Puma concolor is the most widespread apex predator in the Americas, and conflicts between this felid and humans are common throughout its geographical range. In response to predation on livestock, humans persecute and hunt pumas. We identified the main environmental and anthropogenic variables that define puma–livestock conflict areas in the Americas as 12 conflict predictor variables, and explored the techniques proposed to mitigate conflicts between the puma and livestock producers. We conducted a systematic search and subsequent review of the scientific literature and found 92 publications on puma–livestock conflicts. Through single-variable analyses and generalised linear models (GLM), we identified which of the 12 conflict predictors were most predictive of the occurrence of predation. The single-variable analyses showed that high livestock density (goat, sheep, and cattle), low latitudes, low habitat steepness, low co-predator richness, high distance to habitat (shrub), and high distance to roads characterised areas with conflict. The binomial GLM indicated that areas with conflicts were primarily located in the temperate southern hemisphere and characterised by densities of livestock. The most frequently cited conflict mitigation techniques were ‘improving livestock management’, ‘predator control’, and the ‘use of fencing’. Although our knowledge about the puma and its relationships with human communities has improved, there are wide geographical gaps, and many facets of puma–livestock conflicts are still little understood. Scientists should work with local stakeholders to generate reliable information regarding the ecological and societal consequences of puma–livestock conflicts, and to develop conflict mitigation techniques that could facilitate the coexistence of pumas and humans.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherWiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mam.12224
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mam.12224
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subjectAMERICAN CONTINENT
dc.subjectCONFLICT MITIGATION
dc.subjectCOUGAR
dc.subjectHUMAN–WILDLIFE
dc.subjectLARGE FELIDAE
dc.subjectLIVESTOCK DEPREDATION
dc.subjectPUMA CONCOLOR
dc.titlePuma-livestock conflicts in the Americas: a review of the evidence
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución