Browsing by Author "Santangeli, Andrea"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Prevalence and drivers of poison use by South African commercial farmers and perceptions of alternative livestock protection measuresPublication . Brink, Christiaan Willem; Thomson, Robert Leslie; Amar, Arjun; Girardello, Marco; Santangeli, AndreaThe use of poison to eliminate predators is causing African vulture populations to collapse. To understand the prevalence and motivations of this practice we conducted an extensive survey with South African commercial farmers. Using a specialised questioning technique and ad hoc quantitative methods we found that an estimated 22% and 31% of farmers used poison over a 1-year and 5-year period, respectively. Poison use hotspots generally coincided with small stock farming areas. The strongest predictor of poison use was whether farmers believed the practice to be common amongst their peers. Our results suggest that farmers' attitudes to vultures are primarily positive, and farmers are less likely to use poisons if they frequently encounter vultures on their farm. Overall, our findings provide an understanding on poison use that provides leverage points to change farmers' behaviour and help avert the African vulture crisis and possible cascading ecosystem impacts.
- The representation potential of raptors for globally important nature conservation areasPublication . Santangeli, Andrea; Girardello, MarcoStemming from a pervasive lack of knowledge on biodiversity, important areas for conservation are typically identified using a subset of well known species, commonly termed surrogate or indicator groups. Birds have been commonly used as biodiversity surrogates due to the good level of knowledge on their taxonomy, ecology and distribution. Raptors in particular have been often proposed as an effective surrogate for other biodiversity based on their dietary diversity, being at the top of the food chain, their preference for highly productive areas, their generally threatened status and high public appeal. However, so far the surrogacy effectiveness of raptors has been largely studied locally or using a narrow selection of surrogate and surrogated taxa. Here we use a spatial conservation planning tool to quantify the surrogacy performance of raptors, overall and by different raptor groups (hawks and eagles, falcons, vultures, owls) to represent important biodiversity areas (such as IUCN protected areas and key biodiversity areas), wilderness areas and the worlds ecoregions. We compared the above surrogacy performance with that of all other non-raptor avian species. We show that raptors perform marginally worse than all other avian species in representing important biodiversity areas and ecoregions. However, raptors representation for wilderness areas was similar or slightly better compared to that of using all non-raptor birds. We also report a large variation in the representation performance by the four raptor groups. Falcons had a particularly high potential in representing protected areas and wilderness areas, equaling or largely surpassing the representation potential provided by all raptors and all other non-raptor birds. Overall, the results suggest that raptors, and particularly falcons, can perform relatively well in representing some important areas for conservation, such as protected areas and wilderness areas, but are relatively poor surrogates for key biodiversity areas and ecoregions. These rather contrasting results call for caution on the use of raptors as global surrogates of wider biodiversity.
- Towards evidence‐based conservation of subterranean ecosystemsPublication . Mammola, Stefano; Meierhofer, Melissa B.; Borges, Paulo A. V.; Colado, Raquel; Culver, David C.; Deharveng, Louis; Delić, Teo; Di Lorenzo, Tiziana; Dražina, Tvrtko; Ferreira, Rodrigo Lopes; Fiasca, Barbara; Fišer, Cene; Galassi, Diana M. P.; Garzoli, Laura; Gerovasileiou, Vasilis; Griebler, Christian; Halse, Stuart; Howarth, Francis G.; Isaia, Marco; Johnson, Joseph S.; Komerički, Ana; Martínez, Alejandro; Milano, Filippo; Moldovan, Oana T.; Nanni, Veronica; Nicolosi, Giuseppe; Niemiller, Matthew L.; Pallarés, Susana; Pavlek, Martina; Piano, Elena; Pipan, Tanja; Sanchez‐Fernandez, David; Santangeli, Andrea; Schmidt, Susanne I.; Wynne, J. Judson; Zagmajster, Maja; Zakšek, Valerija; Cardoso, PedroSubterranean ecosystems are among the most widespread environments on Earth, yet we still have poor knowledge of their biodiversity. To raise awareness of subterranean ecosystems, the essential services they provide, and their unique conservation challenges, 2021 and 2022 were designated International Years of Caves and Karst. As these ecosystems have traditionally been overlooked in global conservation agendas and multilateral agreements, a quantitative assessment of solution-based approaches to safeguard subterranean biota and associated habitats is timely. This assessment allows researchers and practitioners to understand the progress made and research needs in subterranean ecology and management. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature focused on subterranean ecosystems globally (terrestrial, freshwater, and saltwater systems), to quantify the available evidence-base for the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We selected 708 publications from the years 1964 to 2021 that discussed, recommended, or implemented 1,954 conservation interventions in subterranean ecosystems. We noted a steep increase in the number of studies from the 2000s while, surprisingly, the proportion of studies quantifying the impact of conservation interventions has steadily and significantly decreased in recent years. The effectiveness of 31% of conservation interventions has been tested statistically. We further highlight that 64% of the reported research occurred in the Palearctic and Nearctic biogeographic regions. Assessments of the effectiveness of conservation interventions were heavily biased towards indirect measures (monitoring and risk assessment), a limited sample of organisms (mostly arthropods and bats), and more accessible systems (terrestrial caves). Our results indicate that most conservation science in the field of subterranean biology does not apply a rigorous quantitative approach, resulting in sparse evidence for the effectiveness of interventions. This raises the important question of how to make conservation efforts more feasible to implement, cost-effective, and long-lasting. Although there is no single remedy, we propose a suite of potential solutions to focus our efforts better towards increasing statistical testing and stress the importance of standardising study reporting to facilitate meta-analytical exercises. We also provide a database summarising the available literature, which will help to build quantitative knowledge about interventions likely to yield the greatest impacts depending upon the subterranean species and habitats of interest. We view this as a starting point to shift away from the widespread tendency of recommending conservation interventions based on anecdotal and expert-based information rather than scientific evidence, without quantitatively testing their effectiveness.