CIVIL ENGINEERING 365 ALL ABOUT CIVIL ENGINEERING


  • 1.

    Sathyakumar, S. & Viswanath, S. Observations on food habits of Asiatic black bear in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, India: preliminary evidence on their role in seed germination and dispersal. Ursus 14, 99–103 (2003).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 2.

    Barua, M. Mobilizing metaphors: the popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 1427–1440 (2011).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 3.

    Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V. D., Pătroescu, M. & Chişamera, G. The potential of large carnivores as conservation surrogates in the Romanian Carpathians. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 561–579 (2011).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    Ratnayeke, S. & van Manen, F. T. Assessing sloth bears as surrogates for carnivore conservation in Sri Lanka. Ursus 23, 206–217 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 5.

    Can, Ö. E., D’Cruze, N., Garshelis, D. L., Beecham, J. & Macdonald, D. W. Resolving human-bear conflict: a global survey of countries, experts, and key factors. Conserv. Lett. 7, 501–513 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    Di Minin, E. et al. Global priorities for national carnivore conservation under land use change. Sci. Rep. 6, 23814. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23814 (2016).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 7.

    Linnell, J. D. C. et al. Border security fencing and wildlife: the end of the transboundary paradigm in Eurasia? PLoS Biol. 14, e1002483. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002483 (2016).

    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 8.

    Wolf, C. & Ripple, W. J. Range contractions of the world’s large carnivores. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170052. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170052 (2017).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 9.

    Chapron, G. et al. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519 (2014).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020–1. https://www.iucnredlist.org (2020).

  • 11.

    Linnell, J. D. C., Swenson, J. E. & Andersen, R. Conservation of biodiversity in Scandinavian boreal forests: large carnivores as flagships, umbrellas, indicators, or keystones? Biodivers. Conserv. 9, 857–868 (2000).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    Fredrikkson, G. Human-sun bear conflicts in East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Ursus 16, 130–137 (2005).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Smith, T. S., Herrero, S., Debruyn, T. D. & Wilder, J. M. Efficacy of bear deterrent spray in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 72, 640–645 (2008).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    Kobashikawa, S., Trentin, B. & Koike, S. The benefit of wrapping trees in biodegradable material netting to protect against bark stripping by bears extends to surrounding stands. Forest Ecol. Manage. 437, 134–138 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 15.

    Woodroffe, R., Frank, L. G., Lindsey, P. A., ole Ranah, S. M. K. & Romañach, S. Livestock husbandry as a tool for carnivore conservation in Africa’s community rangelands: a case-control study. Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 1245–1260 (2007).

  • 16.

    Davidson-Nelson, S. J. & Gehring, T. M. Testing fladry as a nonlethal management tool for wolves and coyotes in Michigan. Hum-Wildl. Interact. 4, 87–94 (2010).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    Iliopoulos, Y. et al. Tools for co-existence: fladry corrals efficiently repel wild wolves (Canis lupus) from experimental baiting sites. Wildl. Res. 46, 484–498 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    Andelt, W. F. & Hopper, S. N. Livestock guard dogs reduce predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. J. Range Manage. 53, 259–267 (2000).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    Papworth, S. K. et al. Bear-proof fences reduce livestock losses in the Tibetan Autonomous Region China. Conserv. Evid. 11, 8–11 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 20.

    Otto, T. E. & Roloff, G. J. Black bear exclusion fences to protect mobile apiaries. Hum-Wildl. Interact. 9, 78–86 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 21.

    Di Vittorio, M., Costrini, P., Rocco, M., Bragalanti, N. & Borsetta, M. Assessing the efficacy of electric fences to prevent bear damage in Italy. Carnivore Damage Prevent. News 12, 31–37 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 22.

    Yamazaki, K. Effects of pruning and brush clearing on debarking within damaged conifer stands by Japanese black bears. Ursus 14, 94–98 (2003).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 23.

    Zimmermann, B., Wabakken, P. & Dötterer, M. Brown bear-livestock conflicts in a bear conservation zone in Norway: are cattle a good alternative to sheep? Ursus 14, 72–83 (2003).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 24.

    Gore, M. L., Knuth, B. A., Scherer, C. W. & Curtis, P. D. Evaluating a conservation investment designed to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Conserv. Lett. 1, 136–145 (2008).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 25.

    Breck, S. W. et al. Domestic calf mortality and producer detection rates in the Mexican wolf recovery area: implications for livestock management and carnivore compensation schemes. Biol. Conserv. 144, 930–936 (2011).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 26.

    Kavčič, I., Adamič, M., Kaczensky, P., Krofel, M. & Jerina, K. Supplemental feeding with carrion is not reducing brown bear depredations on sheep in Slovenia. Ursus 24, 111–119 (2013).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 27.

    Alldredge, M. W., Walsh, D. P., Sweanor, L. L., Davies, R. B. & Trujillo, A. Evaluation of translocation of black bears involved in human-bear conflicts in south-central Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 39, 334–340 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 28.

    Bromley, C. & Gese, E. M. Surgical sterilization as a method of reducing coyote predation on domestic sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. 65, 510–519 (2001).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 29.

    Hawley, J. E. et al. Developing a new shock-collar design for safe and efficient use on wild wolves. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 37, 416–422 (2013).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 30.

    Hamr, J., Popp, J. N., Brown, D. L. & Mallory, F. F. Problem behaviour of black bears (Ursus americanus) in central Ontario: the effects of hunting and natural food availability. Anim. Biol. 65, 151–161 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 31.

    Breck, S. W., Lance, N. & Callahan, P. A shocking device for protection of concentrated food sources from black bears. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34, 23–26 (2006).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 32.

    Miller, J. R. B. et al. Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large carnivores. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 40, 806–815 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 33.

    Treves, A., Krofel, M. & McManus, J. Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 380–388 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 34.

    Eklund, A., López-Bao, J. V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G. & Frank, J. Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Sci. Rep. 7, 2097. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02323-w (2017).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 35.

    Van Eeden, L. M. et al. Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock. Conserv. Biol. 32, 26–34 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 36.

    Khorozyan, I. & Waltert, M. A framework of most effective practices in protecting human assets from predators. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 24, 380–394 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 37.

    Khorozyan, I. & Waltert, M. How long do anti-predator interventions remain effective? Patterns, thresholds and uncertainty. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190826. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190826 (2019).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 38.

    Blackwell, B. F. et al. No single solution: application of behavioural principles in mitigating human-wildlife conflict. Anim. Behav. 120, 245–254 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 39.

    Blumstein, D. T. Habituation and sensitization: new thoughts about old ideas. Anim. Behav. 120, 255–262 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 40.

    Wooldridge, D. R. Polar bear electronic deterrent and detection systems. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 5, 264–269 (1983).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 41.

    Beckmann, J. P., Lackey, C. W. & Berger, J. Evaluation of deterrent techniques and dogs to alter behavior of “nuisance” black bears. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32, 1141–1146 (2004).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 42.

    Obbard, M. E. et al. Relationships among food availability, harvest, and human-bear conflict at landscape scales in Ontario, Canada. Ursus 25, 98–110 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 43.

    Sagør, J. T., Swenson, J. E. & Røskaft, E. Compatibility of brown bear Ursus arctos and free-ranging sheep in Norway. Biol. Conserv. 81, 91–95 (1997).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 44.

    Morehouse, A. T. & Boyce, M. S. Evaluation of intercept feeding to reduce livestock depredation by grizzly bears. Ursus 28, 66–80 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 45.

    Riley, S. J., Aune, K., Mace, R. D. & Madel, M. J. Translocation of nuisance grizzly bears in northwestern Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 9, 567–573 (1994).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 46.

    Wooldridge, D. R. & Belton, P. Natural and synthesized aggressive sounds as polar bear repellents. Bears Biol. Manag. 4, 85–91 (1980).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 47.

    Huygens, O. C. & Hayashi, H. Using electric fences to reduce Asiatic black bear depredation in Nagano Prefecture, central Japan. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27, 959–964 (1999).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 48.

    Levin, M. Electrical fences against large predators. Carnivore Damage Prevent. News 2, 6–7 (2000).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 49.

    Clark, J. D. et al. American black bears and bee yard depredation at Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia. Ursus 16, 234–244 (2005).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 50.

    Seijas, J. M. et al. Effectiveness of brown bear damage protection measures to protect apiaries in the Cantambrian Mountains. Carnivore Damage Prevent. News 12, 26–30 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 51.

    Parish, J. A. & Rheinhart, J. D. Calving season selection considerations. Mississippi State University Extension. Publication 2501 (POD-10–15). https://extension.msstate.edu (2015).

  • 52.

    Landa, A., Gudvangen, K., Swenson, J. E. & Røskaft, E. Factors associated with wolverine Gulo gulo predation on domestic sheep. J. Appl. Ecol. 36, 963–973 (1999).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 53.

    Anderson, C. R., Ternent, M. A. & Moody, D. S. Grizzly bear-cattle interactions on two grazing allotments in northwest Wyoming. Ursus 13, 247–256 (2002).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 54.

    Smith, T. S., Herrero, S., Layton, C. S., Larsen, R. T. & Johnson, K. R. Efficacy of firearms for bear deterrence in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 76, 1021–1027 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 55.

    Miller, G. D. Field tests of potential polar bear repellents. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 7, 383–390 (1987).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 56.

    Rauer, G., Kaczensky, P. & Knauer, F. Experiences with aversive conditioning of habituated brown bears in Austria and other European countries. Ursus 14, 215–224 (2003).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 57.

    Knarrum, V. et al. Brown bear predation on domestic sheep in central Norway. Ursus 17, 67–74 (2006).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 58.

    Leigh, J. Effects of aversive conditioning on behavior of nuisance Louisiana black bears. MSc thesis. (Louisiana State University, 2007).

  • 59.

    Mazur, R. L. Does aversive conditioning reduce human-black bear conflict? J. Wildl. Manage. 74, 48–54 (2010).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 60.

    Meadows, L. E. & Knowlton, F. F. Efficacy of guard llamas to reduce canine predation on domestic sheep. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28, 614–622 (2000).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 61.

    Hansen, I. & Smith, M. E. Livestock-guarding dogs in Norway. Part II: different working regimes. J. Range Manage. 52, 312–316 (1999).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 62.

    Barrett, M. A., Telesco, D. J., Barrett, S. E., Widness, K. M. & Leone, E. H. Testing bear-resistant trash cans in residential areas of Florida. Southeast. Nat. 13, 26–39 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 63.

    Johnson, H. E., Lewis, D. L., Lischka, S. A. & Breck, S. W. Assessing ecological and social outcomes of a bear-proofing experiment. J. Wildl. Manage. 82, 1102–1114 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 64.

    Ziegltrum, G. J. Efficacy of black bear supplemental feeding to reduce conifer damage in western Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 68, 470–474 (2004).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 65.

    Stringham, S. F. & Bryant, A. Distance-dependent effectiveness of diversionary bear bait sites. Hum-Wildl. Interact. 9, 229–235 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 66.

    Landriault, L. J., Brown, G. S., Hamr, J. & Mallory, F. F. Age, sex and relocation distance as predictors of return for relocated nuisance black bears Ursus americanus in Ontario, Canada. Wildl. Biol. 15, 155–164 (2009).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 67.

    Treves, A., Kapp, K. J. & MacFarland, D. M. American black bear nuisance complaints and hunter take. Ursus 21, 30–42 (2010).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 68.

    Lennox, R. J., Gallagher, A. J., Ritchie, E. G. & Cooke, S. J. Evaluating the efficacy of predator removal in a conflict-prone world. Biol. Conserv. 224, 277–289 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 69.

    Goldstein, I. et al. Andean bear-livestock conflicts: a review. Ursus 17, 8–15 (2006).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 70.

    Debata, S., Swain, K. K., Sahu, H. K. & Palei, H. S. Human-sloth bear conflict in a human-dominated landscape of northern Odisha, India. Ursus 27, 90–98 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 71.

    Herrero, S. & Higgins, A. Field use of capsicum spray as a bear deterrent. Ursus 10, 533–537 (1998).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 72.

    Andelt, W. F. Relative effectiveness of guarding-dog breeds to deter predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27, 706–714 (1999).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 73.

    Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I. C. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82, 591–605 (2007).


    Google Scholar
     



  • Source link

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *