Explore the vast range of titles available.

The ongoing refugee crisis in Europe has seen many countries rush to construct border security fencing to divert or control the flow of people. This follows a trend of border fence construction across Eurasia during the post-9/11 era. This development has gone largely unnoticed by conservation biologists during an era in which, ironically, transboundary cooperation has emerged as a conservation paradigm. These fences represent a major threat to wildlife because they can cause mortality, obstruct access to seasonally important resources, and reduce effective population size.We summarise the extent of the issue and propose concrete mitigation measures.

We tested six hypotheses to explain expected geographical differences in body masses of 1,771 brown bears (Ursus arctos) from northern and southern Europe (Sweden and Norway compared with Slovenia and Croatia): Bergmann's rule, the fasting endurance hypothesis, and the dietary meat hypothesis, which predicted larger bears in the north; and hypotheses stressing the role of high primary productivity, high population density, low seasonality, and length of the growing season, which predicted larger bears in the south. Although brown bear populations in North America vary greatly in body mass, we found no significant difference in body mass between the two European populations using a new analytical approach incorporating modeled age-standardized body masses in linear models, when correcting for sex and season. The greater variation in North America may be due primarily to the presence of large bears that feed on salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), which does not occur in Europe. Asymptotic body masses were 115 ± 9 (SE) kg in spring and 141 ± 9 kg in autumn for southern females, 248 ± 25 and 243 ± 24 kg for southern males, 96 ± 2 and 158 ± 4 kg for northern females, and 201 ± 4 and 273 ± 6 kg for northern males, respectively. Northern bears gained more body mass before hibernation and lost more during hibernation than southern bears, probably because hibernation was twice as long in the north. Northern bears gained and southern bears lost mass during the spring, perhaps due to the greater availability and use of protein-rich food in spring in the north. As reproductive success in bears is correlated with adult female body mass in interpopulation comparisons, brown bears may have relatively similar reproductive rates throughout Europe, although minimum age at primiparity and litter interval are lower in the south.

The Balkan Peninsula and the Dinaric Mountains possess extraordinary biodiversity and support one of the largest and most diverse wolf (Canis lupus) populations in Europe. Results obtained with diverse genetic markers show west‐east substructure, also seen in various other species, despite the absence of obvious barriers to movement. However, the spatial extent of the genetic clusters remains unresolved, and our aim was to combine fine‐scale sampling with population and spatial genetic analyses to improve resolution of wolf genetic clusters. We analyzed 16 autosomal microsatellites from 255 wolves sampled in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH), and Serbia and documented three genetic clusters. These comprised (1) Slovenia and the regions of Gorski kotar and Lika in Croatia, (2) the region of Dalmatia in southern Croatia and BIH, and (3) Serbia. When we mapped the clusters geographically, we observed west‐east genetic structure across the study area, together with some specific structure in BIH–Dalmatia. We observed that cluster 1 had a smaller effective population size, consistent with earlier reports of population recovery since the 1980s. Our results provide foundation for future genomic studies that would further resolve the observed west‐east population structure and its evolutionary history in wolves and other taxa in the region and identify focal areas for habitat conservation. They also have immediate importance for conservation planning for the wolves in one of the most important parts of the species’ European range. In this manuscript, we analyzed microsatellites from 255 wolves sampled in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH), and Serbia and documented three genetic clusters as follows: (1) Slovenia and the regions of Gorski kotar and Lika in Croatia, (2) the region of Dalmatia in southern Croatia and BIH, and (3) Serbia. When we mapped the clusters geographically, we observed west‐east genetic structure across the study area, together with some specific structure in BIH—Dalmatia. Our results provide foundation for future genomic studies that would further resolve the observed west‐east population structure and its evolutionary history in wolves and other taxa in the region and identify focal areas for habitat conservation. They also have immediate importance for conservation planning for the wolves in one of the most important parts of the species’ European range.

In this study we aimed to provide a neuroanatomy atlas derived from cross-sectional and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the encephalon of the brown bear (Ursus arctos). A postmortem brain analysis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI – 1,5T; a high-resolution submillimeter three-dimensional T1-3D FFE) and cross-sectional macroscopic anatomy methods revealed major embryological and anatomical subdivisions of the encephalon, including the ventricular system. Most of the internal structures were comparably identifiable in both methods. The tractus olfactorius medialis, corpus subthalamicum, brachium colliculi rostralis, fasciculus longitudinalis medialis, nuclei vestibulares, velum medullare rostrale, nucleus fastigii, fasciculi cuneatus et gracilis were identified entirely by cross-sectional macroscopic analysis. However, the glandula pinealis, lemniscus lateralis and nuclei rhaphe were visualized only with MRI. Gross neuroanatomic analysis provided information about sulci and gyri of the cerebral hemispheres, components of the vermis and cerebellar hemispheres, and relative size and morphology of constituents of the rhinencephalon and cerebellum. Similarities and discrepancies in identification of structures provided by both methods, as well as hallmarks of the structures facilitating identification using these methods are discussed. Finally, we compare the brown bear encephalon with other carnivores and discuss most of the identified structures compared to those of the domestic dog, the domestic cat, Ursidae and Mustelidae families and Pinnipedia clade.

The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.

Studying how animals interact with their environment is fundamental to informing conservation and management efforts, especially when examining large, wide-ranging carnivores in human-dominated landscapes. We hypothesized that the home ranges of bears are configured to exploit supplemental food (corn) and avoid people. In 2004–2016, we tracked 10 brown bears from the Dinaric-Pindos population using GPS telemetry, then used Brownian bridge movement models to estimate their home ranges. We related seasonal home range size to circadian period and density of supplemental feeding sites using generalized linear mixed-effect models. We also used ecological-niche factor analysis to study habitat composition within home range core areas in study areas characterized by different levels of human encroachment. We found that home range size was inversely related to density of supplemental feeding sites, and bears had larger home ranges at night (x̄ = 103.3 ± 72.8 km2) than during the day (x̄ = 62.3 ± 16.6 km2). Our results also revealed that bears living in more human-influenced areas concentrated their use far from human settlements and agricultural lands but stayed close to supplemental feeding sites. Our data suggest that bears alter their space-use patterns at the home range level in response to anthropogenic land use and food availability.

1. Wildlife damage to human property threatens human-wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from wildlife damage in intensively managed landscapes often undermine conservation efforts, making damage mitigation and compensation of special concern for wildlife conservation. However, the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of damage and claims at large scales are still poorly understood. 2. Here, we investigated the patterns of damage caused by brown bears Ursus arctos and its ecological and socio-economic correlates at a continental scale. We compiled information about compensation schemes across 26 countries in Europe in 2005-2012 and analysed the variation in the number of compensated claims in relation to (i) bear abundance, (ii) forest availability, (iii) human land use, (iv) management practices and (v) indicators of economic wealth. 3. Most European countries have a posteriori compensation schemes based on damage verification, which, in many cases, have operated for more than 30 years. On average, over 3200 claims of bear damage were compensated annually in Europe. The majority of claims were for damage to livestock (59%), distributed throughout the bear range, followed by damage to apiaries (21%) and agriculture (17%), mainly in Mediterranean and eastern European countries. 4. The mean number of compensated claims per bear and year ranged from 0-1 in Estonia to 8-5 in Norway. This variation was not only due to the differences in compensation schemes; damage claims were less numerous in areas with supplementary feeding and with a high proportion of agricultural land. However, observed variation in compensated damage was not related to bear abundance. 5. Synthesis and applications. Compensation schemes, management practices and human land use influence the number of claims for brown bear damage, while bear abundance does not. Policies that ignore this complexity and focus on a single factor, such as bear population size, may not be effective in reducing claims. To be effective, policies should be based on integrative schemes that prioritize damage prevention and make it a condition of payment of compensation that preventive measures are applied. Such integrative schemes should focus mitigation efforts in areas or populations where damage claims are more likely to occur. Similar studies using different species and continents might further improve our understanding of conflicts arising from wildlife damage.

Human–bear conflicts resulting from livestock depredation and crop use are a common threat to the brown bear Ursus arctos throughout its range. Understanding these conflicts requires the recording and categorization of incidents, assessment of their geographical distribution and frequency, and documentation of the financial costs and the presence of any preventative measures. Damage compensation schemes can help mitigate conflicts and, in some cases, improve acceptance of bears. This study aims to elucidate the major factors determining the patterns of damage caused by bears, examine the effectiveness of preventative measures in reducing such damage, and identify bear damage hotspots in Croatia. Our analysis is based on damage reports provided by hunting organizations to the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture during 2004–2014. The highest number of claims were made for damage to field crops and orchards. Damage to livestock, agricultural crops and beehives resulted in the highest total cost to farmers. Damage to beehives and to automatic corn feeders for game species incurred the highest cost per damage event. We identified a hotspot for bear damage claims in Croatia, located near Risnjak National Park and the border with Slovenia. Damage appears higher in areas that have more villages closer to protected areas and a greater per cent of forest cover, indicating a synergistic effect of protected environments that facilitate bear movements and the presence of human activities that provide easily accessible food for bears.

The recovery of wolves ( Canis lupus ) across Europe is a notable conservation success in a region with extensive human alteration of landscapes and high human population densities. We provide a comprehensive update on wolf populations in Europe, estimated at over 21,500 individuals by 2022, representing a 58% increase over the past decade. Despite the challenges of high human densities and significant land use for agriculture, industry, and urbanization, wolves have demonstrated remarkable adaptability and increasing population trends in most European countries. Improved monitoring techniques, although varying in quality and scope, have played a crucial role in tracking this recovery. Annually, wolves kill approximately 56,000 domestic animals in the EU, a risk unevenly distributed and differently handled across regions. Damage compensation costs 17 million EUR every year to European countries. Positive economic impacts from wolf presence, such as those related to reducing traffic accidents with wild ungulates or supporting wildlife tourism, remain under studied. Wolf recovery in Europe is supported by diverse policy and legal instruments such as LIFE programs, stakeholder platforms, as well as the EU Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Coexisting with newly established wolf populations in Europe entails managing impacts on human activities, including livestock depredation, competition for game, and fear of attacks on humans, amidst varying social and political views on wolf recovery. Sustainable coexistence continues to operate in evolving and complex social, economic, and political landscapes, often characterized by intense debates regarding wolf policies.