Explore the vast range of titles available.

Wolf ( Canis lupus ) populations have recovered and expanded across many parts of the world thanks to conservation efforts, including improved legal status and restoration of their prey. Concurrently, public concerns regarding the risk of wolf attacks on humans and livestock are increasing as wolves occupy human-dominated landscapes. We examined a unique case in Europe allegedly involving wolves in the death of a female British tourist, aged 64, in northern Greece in September 2017. This incident received extensive international media attention and yet many fundamental details of the case area are lacking, including whether local livestock guarding dogs played a role. To assist in resolving the case, we conducted an extensive literature review which documented 13 criteria linked to the risk of either a wolf and/or a dog attacking a human. We also conducted a camera trap survey (October to December 2017) soon after the fatal attack to calculate the activity overlap among humans, dogs and wolves. Sufficient data were available for assessing 11 of the 13 criteria. For the remaining two, the required data were either not analysed (i.e. canid DNA collected from the attack site), not appropriately collected (i.e. DNA from the mouths of suspected dogs) or were collected, but misinterpreted (i.e. the post-consumption patterns of the victim’s corpse). Via this combination of evidence, we conclude that this case involved a fatal dog attack. This assertion is supported by evidence such as the: a) high dog-human activity overlap at the attack site which peaked during the attack time as opposed to near zero wolf-human activity overlap at the same time, b) presence of a large pack of unsupervised dogs, c) high ratio of male dogs in the dog pack, d) close vicinity of the attack site to dog owner’s property and e) previous documented aggression of these dogs towards humans. The consumption patterns, time scale and location of the victim’s remains indicate a posthumous consumption of the corpse possibly by the same dogs and/or by wild scavengers including wolves. A multidisciplinary approach, such as this one, in the assessment of putative wildlife attacks on humans can reduce misidentifications of the responsible species by forensic authorities and, therefore, prevent unfounded decrease in public tolerance for large carnivores.

Hunting dog depredation by wolves triggers retaliatory killing, with negative impacts on wildlife conservation. In the wider area of the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park, reports on such incidents have increased lately. To investigate this conflict, we interviewed 56 affected hunters, conducted wolf trophic analysis, analyzed trends for 2010–2020, applied MAXENT models for risk-map creation, and GLMs to explore factors related to depredation levels. Losses averaged approximately one dog per decade and hunter showing a positive trend, while livestock depredations showed a negative trend. Wolves preyed mainly on wild prey, with dogs consisting of 5.1% of the winter diet. Low altitude areas, with low to medium livestock availability favoring wolf prey and game species, were the riskiest. Dogs were more vulnerable during hare hunting and attacks more frequent during wolf post-weaning season or in wolf territories with reproduction. Hunter experience and group hunting reduced losses. Wolves avoided larger breeds or older dogs. Making noise or closely keeping dogs reduced attack severity. Protective dog vests, risk maps, and enhancing wolf natural prey availability are further measures to be considered, along with a proper verification system to confirm and effectively separate wolf attacks from wild boar attacks, which were also common.

In human‐dominated landscapes, connectivity is crucial for maintaining demographically stable mammalian populations. Here, we provide a comprehensive noninvasive genetic study for the brown bear population in the Hellenic Peninsula. We analyze its population structuring and connectivity, estimate its population size throughout its distribution, and describe its phylogeography in detail for the first time. Our results, based on 150 multilocus genotypes and on 244‐bp sequences of the mtDNA control region, show the population is comprised by three highly differentiated genetic clusters, consistent with geographical populations of Pindos, Peristeri, and Rhodope. By detecting two male bears with Rhodopean ancestry in the western demes, we provide strong evidence for the ongoing genetic connectivity of the geographically fragmented eastern and western distributions, which suggests connectivity of the larger East Balkan and Pindos‐Dinara populations. Total effective population size (Ne) was estimated to be 199 individuals, and total combined population size (NC) was 499, with each cluster showing a relatively high level of genetic variability, suggesting that migration has been sufficient to counteract genetic erosion. The mtNDA results were congruent with the microsatellite data, and the three genetic clusters were matched predominantly with an equal number of mtDNA haplotypes that belong to the brown bear Western mitochondrial lineage (Clade 1), with two haplotypes being globally new and endemic. The detection of a fourth haplotype that belongs to the Eastern lineage (Clade 3a1) in three bears from the western distribution places the southernmost secondary contact zone between the Eastern and Western lineages in Greece and generates new hypotheses about postglacial maxima migration routes. This work indicates that the genetic composition and diversity of Europe's low‐latitude fringe population are the outcome of ancient and historical events and highlight its importance for the connectivity and long‐term persistence of the species in the Balkans. Using microsatellites and mtDNA, we reveal the genetic structure, diversity, population size of the brown bear in Greece, and its detailed phylogeography for the first time, revealing a new matrilinear contact zone

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.

In wolves, most offspring mortality occurs within the first 6–8 months of their life. As wolf pups pass this entire period at either the den or rendezvous sites, their selection by wolf packs may affect pup survival and recruitment. Rendezvous sites are important for pup survival as they are used during summer and early autumn, when intense human activity may increase pup mortality. Adult wolves and pups can be killed by livestock guarding dogs during summer and intentionally or accidentally during large game hunting in autumn. This study describes factors related to rendezvous site selection in order to enhance their protection and management. We studied the rendezvous site selection of 30 wolf packs in central and northern Greece between 1998 and 2010, after locating 35 sites using the simulated howling survey method and telemetry. We considered a series of environmental and anthropogenic predictors of wolf rendezvous site selection at two spatial scales. At the landscape-population scale, wolves selected rendezvous sites below 1,200 m asl, with large inter-site distance (mean, 12.9 km), and avoided partially forested or open habitats, indicating preference for covered, spaced areas with seasonally stable resources. At the home range scale, wolves selected rendezvous sites away from forest roads and villages, close to water sources, and in areas with low forest fragmentation, indicating avoidance of human presence and disturbance. In the summer of 2011, we used an ensuing resource selection model (RSF, AUC = 0.818) to successfully locate seven new rendezvous sites outside our previous survey area, verifying the utility of prediction maps (all new sites were at areas with 0.8–1 model probability). Rendezvous prediction maps can be used to reduce field effort when monitoring wolf populations, assess livestock predation risk, design protected areas, and reduce human disturbance on reproductive wolf packs.

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.

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.

Managers of recovering wolf (Canis lupus) populations require knowledge regarding the potential impacts caused by the loss of territorial, breeding wolves when devising plans that aim to balance population goals with human concerns. Although ecologists have studied wolves extensively, we lack an understanding of this phenomenon as published records are sparse. Therefore, we pooled data (n = 134 cases) on 148 territorial breeding wolves (75 M and 73 F) from our research and published accounts to assess the impacts of breeder loss on wolf pup survival, reproduction, and territorial social groups. In 58 of 71 cases (84%), ≥1 pup survived, and the number or sex of remaining breeders (including multiple breeders) did not influence pup survival. Pups survived more frequently in groups of ≥6 wolves (90%) compared with smaller groups (68%). Auxiliary nonbreeders benefited pup survival, with pups surviving in 92% of cases where auxiliaries were present and 64% where they were absent. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the number of adult-sized wolves remaining after breeder loss, along with pup age, had the greatest influence on pup survival. Territorial wolves reproduced the following season in 47% of cases, and a greater proportion reproduced where one breeder had to be replaced (56%) versus cases where both breeders had to be replaced (9%). Group size was greater for wolves that reproduced the following season compared with those that did not reproduce. Large recolonizing (>75 wolves) and saturated wolf populations had similar times to breeder replacement and next reproduction, which was about half that for small recolonizing (≤75 wolves) populations. We found inverse relationships between recolonizing population size and time to breeder replacement (r = −0.37) and time to next reproduction (r = −0.36). Time to breeder replacement correlated strongly with time to next reproduction (r = 0.97). Wolf social groups dissolved and abandoned their territories subsequent to breeder loss in 38% of cases. Where groups dissolved, wolves reestablished territories in 53% of cases, and neighboring wolves usurped territories in an additional 21% of cases. Fewer groups dissolved where breeders remained (26%) versus cases where breeders were absent (85%). Group size after breeder loss was smaller where groups dissolved versus cases where groups did not dissolve. To minimize negative impacts, we recommend that managers of recolonizing wolf populations limit lethal control to solitary individuals or territorial pairs where possible, because selective removal of pack members can be difficult. When reproductive packs are to be managed, we recommend that managers only remove wolves from reproductive packs when pups are ≥6 months old and packs contain ≥6 members (including ≥3 ad-sized wolves). Ideally, such packs should be close to neighboring packs and occur within larger (≥75 wolves) recolonizing populations.

Sharing space with large carnivores on a human-dominated continent like Europe results in multiple conflictful interactions with human interests, of which depredation on livestock is the most widespread. Wildlife management agencies maintain compensation programs for the damage caused by large carnivores, but the long-term effectiveness of such programs is often contested. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms driving large carnivore impact on human activities is necessary to identify key management actions to reduce it. We conducted an analysis of the impact by all four European large carnivores on sheep husbandry in 10 European countries, during the period 2010-2015. We ran a hierarchical Simultaneous Autoregressive model, to assess the influence of ecological and anthropogenic factors on the spatial and temporal patterns in the reported depredation levels across the continent. On average, about 35,000 sheep were compensated in the ten countries as killed by large carnivores annually, representing about 0.5% of the total sheep stock. Of them, 45% were recognized as killed by wolves, 24% by wolverines, 19% by lynx and 12% by bears. At the continental level, we found a positive relationship between wolf distribution and the number of compensated sheep, but not for the other three species. Impact levels were lower in the areas where large carnivore presence has been continuous compared to areas where they disappeared and recently returned. The model explained 62% of the variation in the number of compensated sheep per year in each administrative unit. Only 13% of the variation was related to the ecological components of the process. Synthesis and Applications: Large carnivore distribution and local abundance alone are poor predictors of large carnivore impact on livestock at the continental level. A few individuals can produce high damage, when the contribution of environmental, social and economic systems predisposes for it, whereas large populations can produce a limited impact when the same components of the system reduce the probability that depredations occur. Time seems to play in favour of a progressive reduction in the costs associated with coexistence, provided that the responsible agencies focus their attention both on compensation and co-adaptation. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.