Explore the vast range of titles available.

As wolves in Europe are expanding in range, their impact on economic activities through predation on livestock is increasing. In this context, the effectiveness of damage compensation programs is being debated and requires adequate assessment. With this aim, we performed a survey of wolf depredation on livestock in Italy during the years 2010 − 2014, comparing regions of historical and more recent wolf occurrence. We collected data on livestock depredations, prevalent husbandry practices and the main features of compensation schemes. We investigated the effect of several ecological and management-related variables on the extent of wolf impact. On average, 3274 (± 195.2 SD) wolf depredation events were compensated across Italy each year, comprising 7809 (± 1278.9 SD) livestock heads, and corresponding to € 1,450,814 (± € 184,762 SD) annual compensation costs. Regions recently recolonized by wolves reported lower and decreasing levels of impact compared to those with historical wolf presence. Half of all depredations occurred in 121 municipalities (9.7% of the total), which emerged as hotspots of impact and economic cost for the system. The proportion of farms with chronically recurring damage increased by 80% in the southern Apennines, where wolves never disappeared, whereas it declined by 100% in the Alps, due to effective prevention measures implemented following wolf recolonization in the mid-1990s. Long-term human-wolf coexistence does not necessarily correspond to lower damage levels and effective conflict management, casting doubts on the effectiveness and sustainability of compensation programs, if applied without reference to a context of adaptive management.

Representing a form of anthropogenic hybridization, wolf–dog interbreeding may potentially compromise the ecological and evolutionary traits of local wolf populations and corrode social tolerance towards wolves. However, estimates of the extent of wolf–dog hybridization in wolf populations are scarce, especially at a multi-pack scale and in human-dominated landscapes. Using non-invasive (n = 215) and invasive (n = 25) samples of wolf-like canids collected in the Province of Grosseto (central Italy, 2012–2014), we assessed the extent of wolf–dog hybridization based on multi-locus genotypes (16 and 49 loci for non-invasive and invasive samples, respectively) and Bayesian clustering techniques. Based on a total of 72 genotypes, the minimum proportion of admixed individuals in our sample was 30.6%, comprising 8 out of the 13 surveyed packs; however, by correcting for the proportion of admixed individuals undetected using the 16-loci compared with the 49-loci marker set (26.7%), we suspect the rate of recent admixture could be closer to 50%. While we did not detect any F1 hybrid, four admixed individuals had a non-negligible probability of being first-generation backcrosses, one of which likely derived from a backcross of a F1 hybrid into the dog population. Complementary genetic markers (i.e., Y-haplotype and K-locus) or anomalous morphological traits further indicated widespread occurrence of admixed individuals of older generations of backcross. This high level of admixture raises serious wolf conservation concerns and exemplifies the expected dynamics of wolf–dog hybridization if left unmanaged in human-dominated landscapes. The implications of our findings need to be urgently upscaled for the implementation of management interventions that cannot be procrastinated any longer at the regional and national scale.

Estimating demographic parameters for wide‐ranging and elusive species living at low density is challenging, especially at the scale of an entire country. To produce wolf distribution and abundance estimates for the whole south‐central portion of the Italian wolf population, we developed an integrated spatial model, based on the data collected during a 7‐month sampling campaign in 2020–2021. Data collection comprised an extensive survey of wolf presence signs, and an intensive survey in 13 sampling areas, aimed at collecting non‐invasive genetic samples (NGS). The model comprised (i) a single‐season, multiple data‐source, multi‐event occupancy model and (ii) a spatially explicit capture‐recapture model. The information about species' absence was used to inform local density estimates. We also performed a simulation‐based assessment, to estimate the best conditions for optimizing sub‐sampling and population modelling in the future. The integrated spatial model estimated that 74.2% of the study area in south‐central Italy (95% CIs = 70.5% to 77.9%) was occupied by wolves, for a total extent of the wolf distribution of 108,534 km2 (95% CIs = 103,200 to 114,000). The estimate of total population size for the Apennine wolf population was of 2557 individuals (SD = 171.5; 95% CIs = 2127 to 2844). Simulations suggested that the integrated spatial model was associated with an average tendency to slightly underestimate population size. Also, the main contribution of the integrated approach was to increase precision in the abundance estimates, whereas it did not affect accuracy significantly. In the future, the area subject to NGS should be increased to at least 30%, while at least a similar proportion should be sampled for presence‐absence data, to further improve the accuracy of population size estimates and avoid the risk of underestimation. This approach could be applied to other wide‐ranging species and in other geographical areas, but specific a priori evaluations of model requirements and expected performance should be made. To produce wolf distribution and abundance estimates for the whole south‐central portion of the Italian wolf population, we developed an integrated spatial model, based on an occupancy and a spatially explicit capture‐recapture model. The estimate of total population size for the Apennine wolf population was of 2557 individuals (SD = 171.5; 95% CIs = 2127 to 2844). This approach could be applied to other wide‐ranging species and in other geographical areas, but specific a priori evaluations of model requirements and expected performance should be made.

Management of damage caused by wolf to domestic livestock is a crucial measure that must be part of an integrated management strategy. Despite the existence of responsible authorities for tackling such aspects, resources are often insufficient for addressing the complex issues. LIFE Nature projects represent a valid tool for the implementation of measures for wolf conservation as the species is included in the Annexes of the Habitat Directive as a priority species. In the last ten years, over 30 LIFE Nature projects targeting wolf conservation were financed by the EU. Measures adopted in the projects were largely consistent and coherent with the Action plan for the Conservation of Wolf in Europe published by the Council of Europe in 2000. The LIFE COEX project was implemented in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Croatia from 2004 to 2008, and represented an excellent example of international collaboration and amplification of knowledge and experiences of management measures adopted at different levels. Adapted to local conditions, the measures implemented achieved extremely positive results, particularly in areas where wolves are expanding. As an example, after installation of electric fences, the damage suffered by holdings from wolf attacks decreased by 100\\% in Portugal, 99% in Spain and 58% in Italy. In France and Croatia measures were adopted for intersectoral involvement (tourism and agriculture), which have contributed to the development of a participatory approach for wolf management. The experiences acquired during the COEX project are in the process of being transferred to other places through the implementation of the LIFE EX-TRA and LIFE WOLFNET projects. The former involves Italy, Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, while the latter is implemented in three national parks in Italy. The results obtained are encouraging and future LIFE Nature Projects should capitalise on the experiences done, making use of studies and researches that will allow the maximisation of efficacy of adopted management measures.

Range expansion by large carnivores in semi-agricultural landscapes represents a serious challenge for managing human-carnivore conflicts. By focusing on an area of recent re-colonization by wolves in central Italy, where livestock owners lost traditional husbandry practices to cope with wolves, we assessed an ex post and a subsequent insurance-based compensation program implemented from 1999 to 2013. We cross checked official depredation statistics and compensation records from various registries, complementing them with a questionnaire survey of sheep owners. Compared to ex post compensation (1999–2005), under the insurance program (2006–2013) compensation paid annually dropped on average by 81.1 %, mostly reflecting that only 4.6 (±0.7 SD) % of sheep owners stipulated the insurance annually. Officially, only 5.5 % of active sheep owners were annually afflicted by wolf depredation during the insurance scheme, but we estimated this proportion to be as high as 34.3 % accounting for the proportion of affected sheep owners who did not officially claim depredations. Coupled with substantial retaliatory killing (minimum of five wolves killed/year), this large amount of cryptic conflict is a symptom of distrust by livestock owners of past and current conflict mitigation policies, despite more than two decades of compensation. We conclude that compensation may fail to improve tolerance toward carnivores unless it is integrated into participatory processes and that lack of reliable data on depredations and damage mitigation strategies exacerbates the conflict. Being advocates of the evidence-based paradigm in management, scientists share a key responsibility in providing objective data concerning progress of conflict management.

Social conflicts around large carnivores are increasing in Europe, often associated to the species expansion into human-modified and agricultural landscapes. Large carnivores can be seen as an added value by some but as a source of difficulties by others, depending on different values, attitudes, livelihoods, and everyday activities. Therefore, the effective involvement of the different interest groups is important to identify and shape tailored solutions that can potentially be implemented, complementing top-down approaches that might, on their own, result in lack of implementation and buy-in. To improve dialogue in conflictual situations, as part of a European project promoted by the European Parliament, we assessed the practical implementation of participatory processes in three sample areas in Europe where wolves and bears have recently been increasingly impacting human activities. Our results demonstrate that collaboration among different and generally contrasting groups is possible. Even in situations where large-carnivore impacts were seen as unsatisfactorily managed for many years, people were still willing and eager to be involved in alternative discussion processes hoping this would lead to concrete solutions. An important and common highlight among the three study areas was that all the management interventions agreed upon shared the general scope of improving the conditions of the groups most impacted by large carnivores. The process showed the importance of building trust and supporting dialogue for knowledge co-production and mitigation of conflicts between stakeholders and that controversial environmental issues have the potential to trigger a meaningful dialogue about broader societal issues. The direct involvement and support of competent authorities, as well as the upscaling of this process at larger administrative and social scales, remain important challenges.

Biodiversity conservation are increasingly focused on involving stakeholder engagement, making power a key concept in understanding its success and failure. Power is often conceptualized as unidimensional and coercive, but a multidimensional view better reflects structural power, as well as its productive and enabling potential. This paper investigates how different dimensions of power in participatory processes affect biodiversity conservation objectives. Six case studies from Europe and Asia‐Pacific were analysed using an adapted framework that explores the interlinkages between ‘power over’ and ‘transformative power’, looking at the scale and space in which power occurs, and analysing in which arenas of power and under which form of expression it appears. The framework distinguishes between the different ways to exert influence (‘power to’, ‘power with’, ‘power within’, ‘power for’), as well as the dynamics of domination and resistance observed in decision‐making (visible power), hidden biases and exclusionary experiences (hidden power), and actions that either reinforce or resist social norms and beliefs (invisible and systematic power). Focusing on biodiversity, the different arenas of power allow us to go deeper than the surface issues and conflicting interests of diverse participants, regarding for example wildlife, to question underlying power dynamics. Different expressions of power, more specifically the ‘power for’ dimension, allow an understanding of how participants integrate nature and biodiversity in their aspirations. The different levels of power also highlight the need to focus not only on the local level but to analyse how participatory processes are embedded in national, or even international governance in a globalized world. Finally, they shed light on two challenges in participatory processes regarding biodiversity: the representation of non‐human interests (designated here as ‘beyond‐human’ voices), and the integration of multiple forms of knowledge systems. Synthesis and applications: Integrating power into biodiversity issues involves deconstructing normalized discourses that focus solely on certain more powerful human agents, their interests and scientific knowledge, and creating new narratives, knowledge and embodied practice of learning and action to encompass a wider diversity of voices and views. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Résumé La conservation de la biodiversité implique de plus en plus l'engagement des parties prenantes, faisant du pouvoir un concept clé pour comprendre son succès et son échec. Si le pouvoir est souvent conceptualisé comme unidimensionnel et coercitif, une vision multidimensionnelle reflète mieux le niveau structurel auquel il peut s'exprimer et donne la possibilité d'explorer son potentiel productif et facilitateur. Cet article étudie comment les différentes dimensions du pouvoir dans les processus participatifs affectent les objectifs de conservation de la biodiversité. Six études de cas situées en Europe et Asie‐Pacifique ont été analysées à l'aide d'un cadre théorique adapté qui explore les liens entre le “pouvoir sur” et le “pouvoir transformateur”, en examinant à à quelle échelle et dans quel espace le pouvoir se manifeste, dans quelles arènes (visible, caché, invisible et systématique) et sous quelle forme il s'exprime (‘pouvoir de’, ‘pouvoir avec’, ‘pouvoir intérieur’, ‘pouvoir pour’). Les différentes arènes du pouvoir nous permettent d'analyser plus en profondeur les problèmes liés à la conservation de la biodiversité et les intérêts conflictuels des divers participants pour remettre en question les dynamiques de pouvoir sous‐jacentes. Les différentes expressions du pouvoir, et plus particulièrement la dimension du “pouvoir pour”, permettent de comprendre comment les participants intègrent la nature et la biodiversité dans leurs aspirations. Les différents niveaux de pouvoir soulignent également la nécessité de ne pas se concentrer uniquement sur le niveau local, mais d'analyser la manière dont les processus participatifs sont intégrés dans des processus de gouvernance au niveau national voire international dans un monde toujours plus globalisé. Enfin, ils mettent en lumière deux défis auxquels les processus participatifs de conservation de la biodiversité doivent faire face: la représentation des non humains et l'intégration de multiples formes de savoirs. Intégrer le pouvoir dans les questions relatives à la conservation de la biodiversité implique de déconstruire les discours normalisés qui se concentrent uniquement sur la puissance de certains acteurs, leurs intérêts et leurs savoirs scientifiques. Au lieu de cela, nous devons développer de nouveaux récits, connaissances, façons d'apprendre et d'agir qui incluent un plus large éventail de voix et de perspectives. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

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 Near Threatened maned wolf Chrysocyon brachyurus is a South American endemic canid occurring mainly in grassland-dominated regions. We compiled and mapped recent and historical data to compare the species’ present and historical distributions and propose hypotheses for range shifts. There has been recent range expansion in eastern Brazil associated with the deforestation of the Atlantic Forest and conversion of habitat to grasslands for cattle range. The northern, north-eastern and eastern sectors of the species’ range have not yet experienced significant modifications, and the species persists in central Brazil, northern and eastern Bolivia, and south-eastern Peru. The largest range contractions have occurred at the species’ southern limits but maned wolves are still present in north-eastern, central and eastern Argentina, and there are a few records of the species' occurence from Uruguay and north-eastern and southern Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. Historically the species occupied nearly all of Rio Grande do Sul, Uruguay and south to at least the 38th parallel in Argentina. The probable causes of the southern range loss are intense anthropogenic pressure combined with limiting abiotic factors such as temperature and humidity. We highlight the need to revise the view of how habitat modifications are influencing the range of C. brachyurus so as to improve and coordinate range-wide conservation strategies.

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.