6 results
Foreword
- Edited by Ian Convery, University of Cumbria, Owen T. Nevin, Central Queensland University and University of Cumbria, Erwin van Maanen, Peter Davis, Newcastle University, Karen Lloyd, Lancaster University
-
- Book:
- The Wolf
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 10 January 2024
- Print publication:
- 18 July 2023, pp xxi-xxiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Very few animals have succeeded in permeating so many human cultures like the wolf. Wherever the two, humans and wolves, have been sharing the same land, both have had a massive impact on each other. Large carnivores have always had a special role in human cultures, a sort of fascination rooted in a fear of carnivores as potential killers of humans and human envy of the carnivores’ strength and success as hunters. Lions in Africa, tigers in Asia, jaguars in central-south America, all have played a prominent, often central role in human values, perceptions and attitudes towards nature. The wolf fills this role throughout its vast distribution range, from North America to most of Eurasia and southwards to the sands of Arabia and the forests of central India. But the wolf is not just another large, fearsome carnivore that may occasionally kill a human; it is much more than that, as it pervades human cultures more deeply and extensively than any other species on earth. Why so? I believe there are at least two main reasons for this intimate relationship.
The first is that wolves can easily adapt to live near humans, hang around villages in search of food, and, if not chased away, remain in the vicinity of human settlements. Without entering the discussion about the beginning of wolf domestication into dogs, wolves’ ability to establish a contact with humans and share the same resources gave them a tremendous advantage over other species in becoming the privileged link between humans and nature. The second reason for the close bond between humans and wolves is probably to be found in the extraordinary similarity of the biology of the two species: both are social animals, live in family groups, live in and defend their territories, hunt in groups, communicate through sounds, odours and body gestures, kill intruders, migrate, disperse, and so on. We could talk about wolves and humans in the same terms for several aspects of their biology, and the words and concepts would be the same.
Similarity often brings competition and respect, and these are the fundamental coordinates of the human–wolf relationship throughout the millennia and the vast diversity of the patterns of their coexistence.
Chapter 19 - Bears in Human-Modified Landscapes: The Case Studies of the Cantabrian, Apennine, and Pindos Mountains
- from Part III - Human–Bear Coexistence
-
- By Vincenzo Penteriani, Alexandros A. Karamanlidis, Andrés Ordiz, Paolo Ciucci, Luigi Boitani, Giorgio Bertorelle, Alejandra Zarzo-Arias, Giulia Bombieri, Enrique González-Bernardo, Paola Morini, Francesco Pinchera, Néstor Fernández, María C. Mateo-Sánchez, Eloy Revilla, Miguel de Gabriel Hernando, Yorgos Mertzanis, Mario Melletti
- Edited by Vincenzo Penteriani, Mario Melletti
-
- Book:
- Bears of the World
- Published online:
- 16 November 2020
- Print publication:
- 26 November 2020, pp 260-272
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Brown bears Ursus arctos were historically persecuted and almost eradicated from southern Europe in the twentieth century as a result of hunting and direct persecution. The effects of human-induced mortality were exacerbated by other threats, such as habitat loss and fragmentation, due to the expansion of human populations. As a result, nowadays there are only small fragmented populations of bears in southern Europe. Brown bears in the Cantabrian (north-western Spain), Apennine (central Italy), and Pindos (north-western Greece) mountains represent three examples of small and threatened bear populations in human-modified landscapes. Most of their range is characterized by high human densities, widespread agricultural activities, livestock raising and urban development, connected by dense networks of transport infrastructures. This has resulted in a reduction of continuous habitat suitable for the species. Here, we summarize the past and present histories and fates of these three populations as examples on how the coexistence of bears and people in human-modified landscapes can take different turns depending on human attitudes.
18 - Roaming free in the rural idyll: Dogs and their connections with wildlife
- from PART IV - LIFE ON THE MARGINS
-
- By Joelene Hughes, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Oxford, UK, David W. MacDonald, WildCRU, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Recanati- Kaplan Centre, Oxford, UK, Luigi Boitani, Dept. of Biology and Biotechnology, University of Rome “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy
- Edited by James Serpell, University of Pennsylvania
-
- Book:
- The Domestic Dog
- Published online:
- 30 December 2016
- Print publication:
- 08 December 2016, pp 369-384
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Since the domestication of the wolf (Canis lupus), some 13 000–17 000 years ago, dogs (Canis familiaris) have become close companions to humans, and been integrated into communities, families and folklore (Driscoll & MacDonald, 2010). During that time the dog population has extended, along with humans, across every continent except mainland Antarctica, until there are now an estimated 700 million of them worldwide (Hughes & MacDonald, 2013). Today the roles of dogs in human society are complex and varied: from status symbols kept in handbags to dogs raised with the livestock they are trained to protect; from sacred icons to sources of income for breeders or racers; from waste disposers to family members, with each role resulting in different levels of integration with the human community (see Serpell, Chapter 15). The benefits of domesticated dogs to communities and human society are manifold but there are also costs to this symbiosis. It is undoubtedly true that dogs cause problems for humans – they are, for example, the most common source of rabies in the world, the cause of 99% of the 55 000 human fatalities globally (Knobel et al., 2005) – and a sizeable economic cost may be incurred due to the injuries they cause (e.g. estimated $620 million a year in the US; Pimentel et al., 2005). There are also costs for the dogs who may suffer from high mortality, malnutrition, disease, parasitism, starvation and abuse (Pal, 2001; Sowemimo, 2009). Indeed, where dogs are identified as a source of public health problems, governing bodies may be prompted to eradicate them in a variety of ways with attendant welfare concerns (Dalla Villa et al., 2010), whilst owners may abandon or destroy puppies and adults they cannot afford (Hsu et al., 2003).
Alongside these costs – and our focus in this chapter – are the problems this domestic carnivore may cause within the environments to which they are introduced, and for the wildlife species with which they interact (Hughes & MacDonald, 2013; Young et al., 2011). While wildlife does exist within urban areas, it is arguable that the majority of interactions of conservation relevance between wildlife and dogs take place in rural regions, where dogs may move between human-dominated areas and the surrounding landscape (MacDonald & Carr, Chapter 16).
17 - The ecology and behavior of feral dogs: A case study from central Italy
- from PART IV - LIFE ON THE MARGINS
-
- By Luigi Boitani, Dept. of Biology and Biotechnology, University of Rome “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy, Francesco Francisci, ECOSOLUZIONI S.n.c., Cortona (AR), Italy, Paolo Ciucci, Dept. of Biology and Biotechnology, University of Rome “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy, Giorgio Andreoli, Biol, Agriconsulting SpA, Rome, Italy
- Edited by James Serpell, University of Pennsylvania
-
- Book:
- The Domestic Dog
- Published online:
- 30 December 2016
- Print publication:
- 08 December 2016, pp 342-368
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Feral dogs: A definition
What exactly is a feral dog? Dogs are not a homogeneous category and their immense diversity of phenotypes and functional specializations hinders any unambiguous classification (Boitani et al., 2006). Dog categories have been proposed on the basis of a variety of natural history traits and relationships with humans: behavioral and ecological traits (Causey & Cude, 1980; Scott & Causey, 1973); origins (Daniels & Bekoff, 1989a, 1989b); rural vs. urban habitat (Berman & Dunbar, 1983); access to public property (Beck, 1973), and level of dependency on humans (WHO, 1988). This diversity of definitions contributes to the difficulty of comparing results from different studies, while the great variety of ecological contexts of urban, rural and “natural” habitats means that such comparisons may only yield a confirmation of the high ecological and behavioral flexibility of dogs.
Boitani & Fabbri (1983a), Perry (1993) and Vanak & Gompper (2009) proposed similar classifications based on dogs’ associations with humans. While Perry's categories were functional to his work in managing a rabies control program, Boitani and Fabbri were more interested in the ecology of dog populations in their natural environment. Boitani & Fabbri (1983a) proposed four categories (owned restricted, owned unrestricted, stray and feral dogs) based on the type of social bond with humans, and the ecology of dogs with varying degrees of human dependency. The first two categories are similar to Perry's (1993), i.e. restricted and family dogs. A restricted dog is fully dependent on (all its needs provided intentionally), and also restricted by, humans. Family dogs have an owner on whom they depend, but may be only semi-restricted or left free to roam (Hsu et al., 2003). The third category, stray dogs, is a heterogeneous group that includes dogs that still have a social bond with humans (possibly abandoned or born into human settings), and dogs with different degrees of fear/tolerance towards humans. Stray dogs live near human settings where they find food and shelter regardless of whether these resources are intentionally provided by humans or are causally associated with them (e.g. handouts, refuse tips or garbage dumps for food, structures for shelter, etc.).
7 - Monitoring and detecting translocations using genetic data
- from Molecular approaches and applications
-
- By Giorgio Bertorelle, University of Ferrara, Chiara Papetti, University of Padova, Heidi C. Hauffe, Research and Innovation Centre, Luigi Boitani, University of Rome
- Giorgio Bertorelle, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Italy, Michael W. Bruford, Cardiff University, Heidi C. Hauffe, Annapaolo Rizzoli, Cristiano Vernesi
-
- Book:
- Population Genetics for Animal Conservation
- Published online:
- 05 July 2015
- Print publication:
- 28 May 2009, pp 148-166
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Restocking is a common procedure for artificially increasing the population size of fish and game species in a particular geographical area. A similar intervention, which entails the (re)introduction of individuals from a source population (natural or captive) to a target area, is an important tool for ecosystem restoration, and is often essential to the recovery or rescue of endangered species or populations (Griffith et al. 1989; Frankham et al. 2002). In both cases, the principal aim of these so-called translocations is to establish stable and self-sustaining populations, taking care to preserve the original genetic structure and ecosystem dynamics of the particular species, while avoiding interference with natural evolutionary processes. But how can this goal be achieved in practice?
From an evolutionary and genetic perspective, these primary goals can be said to be attained when the introduced animals are successfully reproducing in the target environment, when negative selection pressures due to the effects of inbreeding or out-breeding depression are negligible, and when evolutionary potential is maintained (Moritz 1999; Frankham et al. 2002; Hufford and Mazer 2003; Tallmon et al. 2004). The challenge is to develop specific translocation plans which guarantee the achievement of all these objectives, and monitor the success of their implementation. For example, selecting animals or groups of animals appropriately adapted to a target environment is only possible by conducting a costly and long-term preliminary phase of fitness analysis. Similarly, the effects of inbreeding or out-breeding depression on the fitness of individuals in a translocated population can go undetected for extended periods of time. As this chapter will discuss, one solution to this dilemma is offered by the analysis of genetic markers; in fact, theoretical population and evolutionary genetics, together with empirical evidence suggest that levels and patterns of genetic variation within and between groups can be used, integrated with ecological studies, to plan and monitor translocations.
Sexual segregation in the activity patterns of European polecats (Mustela putorius)
- Manlio Marcelli, Romina Fusillo, Luigi Boitani
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Zoology / Volume 261 / Issue 3 / November 2003
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 22 October 2003, pp. 249-255
- Print publication:
- November 2003
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
A typical feature in members of the mustelid family is sexual size dimorphism, related to the different reproductive strategies of the sexes. As a consequence sexual divergence in many ecological and behavioural traits is expected, including temporal strategies. In line with this prediction, sex differences in the diel activity pattern of the European polecat Mustela putorius, a dimorphic mustelid, were quantified and tested. Twenty-eight polecats were captured in a rural area of central Italy (Abruzzo region) and 10 males and six females were monitored in the field using radio-telemetry techniques for 81–621 days each. Males and females showed a pronounced dimorphism in size (males/females mass ratio=1.6) within the known range for the species. Multivariate analysis of diel time preference shows that temporal behaviour differed significantly and markedly between the sexes. Males exhibited a regular and constant nocturnal pattern in every season, preferring the time ranging from 20:00 to 06:00; activity was lower at dawn and dusk, and scarce during daylight hours. Females were significantly diurnal and crepuscular but individuals revealed flexibility in activity pattern, including polyphasic or arrhythmic patterns without apparent temporal organization. The constraints of small body size and reproduction on female activity, and the sex segregation in activity timing are discussed in the context of intrasexual territoriality.