Mar. 7, 2013 ? African lions and villagers would benefit from fences to protect them from each other, according to a new study by University of Minnesota researcher Craig Packer published online by Ecology Letters on March 5.
Fencing has long been anathema to most conservationists, but Packer said it offers the best hope for saving iconic African wildlife, an undertaking that will require sweeping measures rather than piecemeal efforts. In an interview, he called for an international "Marshall Plan" to erect fences where possible to protect people, lions, elephants and other threatened wildlife species.
Most African governments don't have the resources to protect people and wildlife from each other, but without a massive increase in conservation funding nearly half of unfenced lion populations could decline to near extinction over the next 20-40 years. And in the long run, it would be more cost-effective to maintain lion populations in fenced reserves.
For the study, Packer and 57 colleagues compared population densities and management practices across 42 sites in 11 countries. Fenced reserves maintained lions at 80 percent of their potential population capacity on annual management budgets of about $500 per square kilometer, while unfenced populations required an average of $2,000 per square kilometer each year to remain at just 50 percent of their capacity.
"Even though lion habitat has been reduced by at least 75 percent over the last century, more still remains than can possibly be conserved," said Packer, a professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. "Several of Africa's most famous wildlife areas involve large-scale migrations of wildebeest and zebra that could never be enclosed within a fenced reserve, so the lions' last stand should be thought out carefully in terms of those places that can safely be fenced and those that will be worth the enormous monetary investments because they can't be fenced."
As encroaching civilization has brought people and lions into much closer proximity the incidence of lion attacks on humans and livestock has increased substantially. Not surprisingly, villagers retaliate by killing lions to protect their families and their livestock.
"We must never lose sight of the fact that the costs of lion conservation ultimately derive from the need to protect people from these animals," said Packer. And lions are not alone in causing widespread human misery. "Elephants are in crisis, too, and although they are largely being decimated by ivory poachers, there's little support for elephant conservation in rural villages because of the enormous damage they cause to crops. A fence that is lion-proof is also elephant-proof, so a well-designed policy of fencing would protect more than just lions."
Because the findings from the Ecology Letters paper present such an enormous challenge for African governments and conservationists, the best hope may be to advocate for a "Marshall Plan" for African wildlife conservation, Packer said.
"If we're serious about this, it means establishing fences around very large areas, such as the Selous Game Reserve, which is home to the largest remaining lion population in the world. Fencing the Selous, which covers an area of about 17,000 square miles, would cost something like $30 million. None of the world's conservation agencies could afford that, but perhaps a global funding agency for developing countries would do it because fencing would protect humans as well as lions."
Packer's own research has focused on lions in Serengeti National Park for the past 35 years.
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Minnesota.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Journal Reference:
- C. Packer, A. Loveridge, S. Canney, T. Caro, S.T. Garnett, M. Pfeifer, K.K. Zander, A. Swanson, D. MacNulty, G. Balme, H. Bauer, C.M. Begg, K.S. Begg, S. Bhalla, C. Bissett, T. Bodasing, H. Brink, A. Burger, A.C. Burton, B. Clegg, S. Dell, A. Delsink, T. Dickerson, S.M. Dloniak, D. Druce, L. Frank, P. Funston, N. Gichohi, R. Groom, C. Hanekom, B. Heath, L. Hunter, H.H. DeIongh, C.J. Joubert, S.M. Kasiki, B. Kissui, W. Knocker, B. Leathem, P.A. Lindsey, S.D. Maclennan, J.W. McNutt, S.M. Miller, S. Naylor, P. Nel, C. Ng'weno, K. Nicholls, J.O. Ogutu, E. Okot-Omoya, B.D. Patterson, A. Plumptre, J. Salerno, K. Skinner, R. Slotow, E.A. Sogbohossou, K.J. Stratford, C. Winterbach, H. Winterbach, S. Polasky. Conserving large carnivores: dollars and fence. Ecology Letters, 2013; DOI: 10.1111/ele.12091
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
westminster bonnaroo 2012 lineup twisted metal sea lion si swimsuit 2012 westminster dog show abe lincoln vampire hunter
News broke out today that Spotify would be making a beta version of its web player available to all of its users in the UK, with the promise that a full release would come later this year. I?m not complaining that I?ll soon be able to access Spotify through my browser. But why is Spotify, well established streaming music juggernaut that it is, using its resources to make this happen??In other words, does Spotify need a web player? It isn?t as if there are a growing number of Chromebook users out there that are just itching to get their streaming music action on. A new report released Monday revealed that Chromebooks accounted for only 0.07% of desktop and laptop web traffic. The fruit there isn’t ripe for picking. In fact, the fruit there hasn?t even started growing at all. Spotify?s main competitor in this space, Rdio, runs completely off desktop, mobile, and web applications. But the notion that Rdio is scaring Spotify into making a play in this web player space is laughable. AppData?s monthly estimates peg Rdio?s active monthly users at over 300,000. In comparison, Spotify currently boasts around 20 million. And yet, of course Spotify needs a web application. Having Spotify on the browser isn?t just about appeasing a few Chromebook users or sticking it in the face of Rdio. It?s about accessibility anywhere on the world on any platform with an Internet connection. Spotify has already squashed its competitors in the music streaming world. Next, it?s setting its sights on the web. For example, take Spotify?s Play Button. The Play Button is a widget that can be embedded in any news site to provide easy access to Spotify?s tracks and playlists. You?ve probably come across it yourself plenty of times since we detailed its functions last April. But for users without Spotify?s desktop application, clicking on the Play Button simply redirects to Spotify?s download page. Well then, why is that a problem? After all, the app is a free download and if you don?t mind ads, you can stream music for free too. The limitations of having Spotify accessible only from desktop and mobile applications stretch well beyond Chromebook and Linux users. As our very own Josh Constine noted in his hands on of the Spotify web player beta, there are plenty of work, school, and other public computers that you can?t install software on. With a
