Using animal behavior in conservation management: a series of systematic reviews and maps,Environmental Evidence

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Environ. Evid. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Using animal behavior in conservation management: a series of systematic reviews and maps
Environmental Evidence ( IF 3.4 ) Pub Date : 2019-06-13 , DOI: 10.1186/s13750-019-0164-4
Alison L. Greggor , Daniel T. Blumstein , Bob B. M. Wong , Oded Berger-Tal

In the past few decades there has been a growing understanding of the role animal behavior research can play in improving the effectiveness and success of conservation management programs. Animal behavior can help us understand and predict the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance on wildlife populations, can be used as a tool in conservation interventions, and can serve as a powerful indicator of conservation problems [1]. Overall, the emergent field of conservation behavior (applying animal behavior research to conservation and management) has already contributed to many successful conservation outcomes—from devising individual-specific diets to manage sex ratios in the critically endangered Kakapo [2], to promoting life skills that enhance survival after reintroduction of species into the wild [3,4,5,6]. Nevertheless, there is tremendous room for improvement. For example, olfactory deterrents can fail because they do not adequately recognize or manipulate context in the meaning of animal signals [7]. Meanwhile, traps designed in the laboratory to attract and control invasive species can prove ineffective under field conditions [8]. In many such cases, we simply do not understand the underlying causes of failures, which prevent us from offering sound and cost-effective guidance on conservation management. These failures and a common disregard for behavior in conservation settings have led to the valid criticism that the field lacks impact. We argue that the relevance of the field hinges on us being able to openly admit, distinguish, and understand where and why applying a behavioral approach succeeds and fails in improving conservation or management outcomes.

This special issue represents a collective push towards creating a sound and reliable evidence base for conservation behavior mechanisms and interventions. Conceived during a systematic review training workshop [9], we hope that this collection of protocols and evidence syntheses will illustrate the power of the systematic review model for reducing bias, and rigorously evaluating evidence for and against the uses of conservation behavior. We also hope that the special issue will highlight some areas where animal behavior research can be effectively used to improve conservation success. In doing so, we offer a commitment to practitioners that we as scientists are striving for more transparent methods, communication and awareness of where our recommendations are actually useful. Additionally, by choosing the Environmental Evidence format which requires publishing protocols ahead of conducting reviews, we reduce the likelihood that other scientists will embark on these topics unaware of potentially duplicated efforts, as well as increase the credibility of the reviews.

This special issue covers topics that span a variety of conservation behavior applications, aimed at better understanding mechanisms to designing interventions; all of which have been flagged as research priorities for conservation behavior [10]. From exploring interventions that attract animals via scent lures [11] or acoustic playbacks [12], to mapping interventions that tap into learning to deter animals from human-conflict scenarios [13]; the potential applications highlighted in this issue are diverse. That being said, the applications and priorities of conservation behavior are much broader than the topics we cover. Therefore we see this as merely the beginning of a practice that we hope to become commonplace for animal behavior scientists interested in having greater conservation relevance for their work.

The special issue contains protocols for both systematic reviews and maps. Some interventions are currently very targeted (e.g. anti-predator training for translocated animals [14]), while others still need to document the broader effects of basic phenomenon (e.g. the impact of light pollution on behavior [15, 16], or the ways animals change their acoustic communication in response to noise pollution [17]). The diversity in the breadth of topics reflects the uneven state of knowledge in the conservation behavior field. Some applications are accepted and well-known, yet we still lack a deeper understanding of their effectiveness. Meanwhile, others are much more diffuse, and cover broader topics that deserve mapping before specific recommendations can be made.

As part of this multi-scale collaborative effort, each systematic map or review protocol in this issue is collecting a set of similar meta-data variables in addition to the variables that directly relate to their research question. The broader analysis from the shared variables will help us better understand the prevalence and biases in existing conservation behavior interventions. There may be geographical, species-level and intervention-type biases that need to be addressed in arenas of scientific planning. Therefore, when the group of reviews and maps are ultimately published, we will have a basis for evaluating evidence in specific areas of conservation behavior, and a snapshot of the biases present within diverse areas of the field.

Conservation behavior will not solve all or even most conservation problems. However, if we can increase the effectiveness of even a portion of the potential applications of behavior, the expansion of these targeted methods could create dramatic improvements for certain species, habitats or ecosystems. The recent publishing of protocols outside of this issue that cover aspects of conservation behavior (e.g. [18]), suggest the momentum and appetite for this type of evidence is growing. Comparative effectiveness evaluation must follow all of these initial analyses; once identified, the estimated costs and logistical challenges of effective strategies and interventions must be compared with other existing methods [19]. In this way, conservation behavior can be more than a promise, but a tangible, reliable, cost-effective method for predicting and advancing conservation outcomes.

Not applicable.

1.
Berger-Tal O, Polak T, Oron A, Lubin Y, Kotler BP, Saltz D. Integrating animal behavior and conservation biology: a conceptual framework. Behav Ecol. 2011;22:236–9.
Article Google Scholar
2.
Robertson BC, Elliott GP, Eason DK, Clout MN, Gemmell NJ. Sex allocation theory aids species conservation. Biol Lett. 2006;2:229–31. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0430.
Article Google Scholar
3.
Shier DM, Owings D. Effects of predator training on behavior and post-release survival of captive prairie dogs. Biol Conserv. 2006;132:126–35.
Article Google Scholar
4.
Vargas A, Anderson SH. Effects of experience and cage enrichment on predatory skills of black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). J Mammal. 1999;80:263–9.
Article Google Scholar
5.
Beck B, Casgro M, Stoinski T, Ballou J. The effects of prerelease environments and postrelease management on survivorship in reintroduced golden lion tamarins. In: Kleiman D, Rylands A, editors. Lion tamarins Biol Conserv. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press; 2002. p. 283–300.
Google Scholar
6.
Whiteside MA, Sage R, Madden JR. Diet complexity in early life affects survival in released pheasants by altering foraging efficiency, food choice, handling skills and gut morphology. J Anim Ecol. 2015;84:1480–9.
Article Google Scholar
7.
Parsons MH, Apfelbach R, Banks PB, Cameron EZ, Dickman CR, Frank ASK, et al. Biologically meaningful scents: a framework for understanding predator–prey research across disciplines. Biol Rev. 2018;93:98–114.
Article Google Scholar
8.
Hurley BP, Garnas J, Cooperband MF. Assessing trap and lure effectiveness for the monitoring of Sirex noctilio. Agric For Entomol. 2015;17:64–70.
Article Google Scholar
9.
Berger-Tal O, Greggor AL, Macura B, Adams CA, Blumenthal A, Bouskila A, et al. Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy. Behav Ecol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary130/5123582.
Article Google Scholar
10.
Greggor AL, Berger-Tal O, Blumstein DT, Angeloni L, Bessa-Gomes C, Blackwell BF, et al. Research priorities from animal behaviour for maximising conservation progress. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31:953–64.
Article Google Scholar
11.
Price JC, Banks PB, Greggor AL. What evidence exists on the effectiveness of different types of olfactory lures as attractants for invasive mammalian predators? A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0156-4.
Article Google Scholar
12.
Putman BJ, Blumstein DT. What is the effectiveness of using conspecific or heterospecific acoustic playbacks for the attraction of animals for wildlife management ? A systematic review protocol. Environ Evid. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0149-3.
Article Google Scholar
13.
Snijders L, Greggor AL, Hilderink F, Doran C. Effectiveness of animal conditioning interventions in reducing Human-wildlife conflict. A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0153-7.
Article Google Scholar
14.
Greggor AL, Price C, Shier DM. Examining the efficacy of anti-predator training for increasing survival in conservation translocations. Environ Evid. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0154-6.
Article Google Scholar
15.
McLay L, Hopkins J, Wong BB, Candolin U, Jones T. What is the available evidence that artificial light at night affects animal behavior? A systematic map protocol. Enrivon Evid. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0151-9.
Article Google Scholar
16.
Adams CA, Blumenthal A, Fernández-Juricic E, Bayne E, St. Clair CC. Effect of anthropogenic light on bird movement, habitat selection and distribution: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0155-5.
Article Google Scholar
17.
Berger-Tal O, Wong BBM, Candolin U, Barber J. What evidence exists on the effects of anthropogenic noise on acoustic communication in animals? A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0165-3.
Article Google Scholar
18.
Sordello R, De Lachapelle FF, Livoreil B, Vanpeene S. Evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2019;8:8.
Article Google Scholar
19.
Blumstein DT, Berger-Tal O. Understanding sensory mechanisms to develop effective conservation and management tools. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2015;6:13–8.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

This special issue the product of an international training workshop by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence specifically tailored for behavioral ecologists and held at the Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel. We thank MISTRA-EviEM and Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden for allocating time to Biljana Macura for running the training workshop. The workshop was made possible through a collaborative research grant jointly funded by Ben-Gurion University and Monash University, Australia, as well as generous additional support from the Jacob Blaustein Center for Scientific Cooperation, The Swiss Institute for Dryland Environmental and Energy Research, the Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, and the Ben- Gurion University of the Negev. This is publication number 1017 of the Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology.

About this supplement

This article has been published as part of Environmental Evidence Volume 8 Supplement 1, 2019: Using animal behavior in conservation management. The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-8-supplement-1.

Publication of this supplement has not been supported by sponsorship.

Affiliations

Institute for Conservation Research, San Diego Zoo Global, Escondido, CA, 92027, USA
Alison L. Greggor
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 92697, USA
Daniel T. Blumstein
School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, 3800, Australia
Bob B. M. Wong
Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 8499000, Midreshet Ben Gurion, Israel
Oded Berger-Tal

Authors

Alison L. GreggorView author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Daniel T. BlumsteinView author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Bob B. M. WongView author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Oded Berger-TalView author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison L. Greggor.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publications

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

Cite this article

Greggor, A.L., Blumstein, D.T., Wong, B.B.M. et al. Using animal behavior in conservation management: a series of systematic reviews and maps. Environ Evid 8, 23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0164-4

Download citation

Published: 13 June 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0164-4

中文翻译：

在保护管理中使用动物行为：一系列系统的评论和地图

在过去的几十年中，人们对动物行为研究在提高保护管理计划的有效性和成功率方面的作用有了越来越多的了解。动物的行为可以帮助我们理解和预测人为干扰对野生生物种群的影响，可以用作保护干预措施的工具，并且可以作为保护问题的有力指标[1]。总体而言，保护行为的新兴领域（将动物行为研究应用到保护和管理中）已经为许多成功的保护成果做出了贡献，从设计特定饮食以控制极度濒危的卡卡波[2]中的性别比例，到提高生活技能。将物种重新引入野外后可以提高存活率[3,4,5,6]。不过，有很大的改进空间。例如，嗅觉威慑可能会失败，因为它们无法充分识别或操纵动物信号含义中的情境[7]。同时，实验室设计的诱集和控制入侵物种的诱集器在田间条件下可能无效[8]。在许多情况下，我们根本不了解失败的根本原因，这使我们无法就保护管理提供合理且具有成本效益的指导。这些失败以及人们在保护环境中普遍无视行为，引起了人们对该领域缺乏影响的有效批评。我们认为，该领域的相关性取决于我们能否公开承认，区分和理解在何处以及为何采用行为方式成功或失败地改善保护或管理成果。

本期专刊代表了集体努力，旨在为保护行为机制和干预措施建立良好而可靠的证据基础。在一次系统的审查培训讲习班[9]期间构思的过程中，我们希望该协议和证据综合的集合将说明该系统的审查模型在减少偏见以及严格评估证据支持和反对保护行为方面的作用。我们还希望，本期专刊将突出一些可以有效利用动物行为研究来提高保护成功率的领域。在此过程中，我们向从业人员作出承诺，我们作为科学家正在努力寻求更加透明的方法，交流方式以及对我们的建议实际有用之处的认识。此外，通过选择环境证据格式要求在进行审查之前先发布协议，我们减少了其他科学家在不注意可能重复进行工作的情况下从事这些主题的可能性，并提高了审查的可信度。

本期专刊涵盖了各种保护行为应用的主题，旨在更好地了解设计干预措施的机制。所有这些都被标记为保护行为的研究重点[10]。从探索通过气味诱饵[11]或声音回放[12]吸引动物的干预措施，到绘制能够学习以阻止动物与人为冲突的情景的干预措施[13]；本期重点介绍的潜在应用是多种多样的。话虽如此，保护行为的应用和优先领域比我们涵盖的主题要广泛得多。因此，我们认为这仅仅是一种实践的开端，我们希望这种行为对于对动物行为具有更大保护意义的动物行为科学家们变得司空见惯。

特刊包含用于系统审查和地图的协议。目前，某些干预措施的针对性很强（例如对易位动物进行反捕食者培训[14]），而其他干预措施仍需要记录基本现象的更广泛影响（例如光污染对行为的影响[15、16]或方法）动物会因噪声污染而改变其声音交流[17]。主题范围的多样性反映了保护行为领域知识的不均衡状态。某些应用程序已被接受并广为人知，但我们仍然对其效果缺乏更深入的了解。同时，其他问题则更为分散，涵盖了更广泛的主题，在提出具体建议之前，应该进行映射。

作为这种多尺度协作工作的一部分，本期中的每个系统地图或审阅协议都在收集与他们的研究问题直接相关的变量之外的一组相似的元数据变量。从共享变量进行更广泛的分析将有助于我们更好地了解现有保护行为干预措施的普遍性和偏见。在科学规划领域中可能需要解决地理，物种级别和干预类型的偏见。因此，当一组评论和地图最终发布时，我们将有一个基础来评估保护行为特定领域中的证据，以及该领域各个领域中存在的偏见的快照。

保护行为无法解决所有甚至大多数保护问题。但是，如果我们甚至可以提高行为的一部分潜在应用的有效性，那么这些有针对性的方法的扩展将为某些物种，栖息地或生态系统带来巨大的改善。该问题以外的协议的最新发布涵盖了保护行为的各个方面（例如[18]），表明此类证据的势头和需求正在增长。比较有效性评估必须遵循所有这些初始分析；一旦确定，有效策略和干预措施的估计成本和后勤挑战必须与其他现有方法进行比较[19]。通过这种方式，保护行为不仅可以实现承诺，还可以提供切实，可靠，

不适用。

1。
Berger-Tal O，Polak T，Oron A，Lubin Y，Kotler BP，Saltz D.动物行为与保护生物学的整合：一个概念框架。行为Ecol。2011; 22：236–9。
文章Google学术搜索
2。
罗伯逊（Robertson）BC，埃利奥特（Elliott）GP，伊森（Eason）DK，克利特（Clout），MN 性别分配理论有助于物种保护。毕尔·莱特 2006; 2：229–31。https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0430。
文章Google学术搜索
3。
Shier DM，OwingsD。捕食者训练对圈养草原犬鼠行为和释放后存活的影响。生物学保育。2006; 132：126–35。
文章Google学术搜索
4。
Vargas A，Anderson SH。经验和笼养对黑脚雪貂（Mustela nigripes）捕食技能的影响。J哺乳动物。1999; 80：263–9。
文章Google学术搜索
5，
Beck B，Casgro M，Stoinski T，Ballou J.在重新引入的金狮猴中，释放前环境和释放后管理对生存率的影响。在：Kleiman D，Rylands A，编辑。狮子猴Biol保护区。华盛顿特区：史密森学会出版社；2002。283–300。
谷歌学术
6。
怀特塞德·马（Whiteside MA），贤者R（Sage R），马登（Madden）JR 早期的饮食复杂性会通过改变觅食效率，食物选择，处理技巧和肠道形态来影响已释放野鸡的生存。J动画Ecol。2015; 84：1480–9。
文章Google学术搜索
7。
Parsons MH，Apfelbach R，Banks PB，Cameron EZ，Dickman CR，Frank ASK等。具有生物学意义的气味：了解跨学科捕食者-猎物研究的框架。生物学评论2018; 93：98–114。
文章Google学术搜索
8。
Hurley BP，Garnas J和Cooperband MF。评估诱饵和诱饵有效性监测Sirex夜蛾。农业用Entomol。2015; 17：64–70。
文章Google学术搜索
9。
Berger-Tal O，Greggor AL，Macura B，Adams CA，Blumenthal A，Bouskila A等。系统地进行审查和绘制地图，作为将行为生态学应用于管理和政策的工具。行为Ecol。2018.https：//doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary130/5123582。
文章Google学术搜索
10。
Greggor AL，Berger-Tal O，Blumstein DT，Angeloni L，Bessa-Gomes C，Blackwell BF等。研究动物行为的重点，以最大程度地提高保护进度。趋势Ecol Evol。2016; 31：953–64。
文章Google学术搜索
11。
价格JC，银行PB，格雷戈尔AL。有哪些证据表明不同类型的嗅觉诱饵可作为侵入性哺乳动物捕食者的引诱剂？系统的地图协议。环保Evid。2019.https：//doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0156-4。
文章Google学术搜索
12
Putman BJ，Blumstein DT。使用同种或异种声学重放来吸引动物以进行野生动植物管理有什么作用？系统的审查协议。环保Evid。2019.https：//doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0149-3。
文章Google学术搜索
13
Snijders L，Greggor AL，Hilderink F，DoranC。动物调节干预措施在减少人类与野生动物冲突方面的有效性。系统的地图协议。环保Evid。2019.https：//doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0153-7。
文章Google学术搜索
14。
Greggor AL，价格C，Shier DM。检查抗捕食者训练在保护易位中增加存活率的功效。环保Evid。2019.https：//doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0154-6。
文章Google学术搜索
15
McLay L，Hopkins J，Wong BB，Candolin U，JonesT。有什么证据可以证明夜间的人造光会影响动物的行为？系统的地图协议。Enrivon Evid。2019.https：//doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0151-9。
文章Google学术搜索
16。
Adams CA，Blumenthal A，Fernández-JuricicE，Bayne E，St.Clair CC。人为光源对鸟类运动，栖息地选择和分布的影响：系统地图方案。环保Evid。2019.https：//doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0155-5。
文章Google学术搜索
17。
Berger-Tal O，Wong BBM，Candolin U，Barber J.有哪些证据表明人为噪声对动物声音传播的影响？系统的地图协议。环保Evid。2019.https：//doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0165-3。
文章Google学术搜索
18岁
Sordello R，De Lachapelle FF，Livoreil B，VanpeeneS。噪声污染对生物多样性的环境影响的证据：系统的地图方案。环保Evid。2019; 8：8。
文章Google学术搜索
19
Blumstein DT，Berger-TalO。了解感觉机制以开发有效的保护和管理工具。Curr Opin Behav科学。2015; 6：13-8。
文章Google学术搜索

下载参考

本期专刊是由环境证据协作组织专门为行为生态学家量身定制的国际培训讲习班的成果，该培训班在以色列内盖夫本古里安大学雅各布·布劳斯坦斯坦沙漠研究所举行。我们感谢MISTRA-EviEM和瑞典斯德哥尔摩环境研究所拨出时间给Biljana Macura举办培训班。该研讨会是由本·古里安大学和澳大利亚莫纳什大学共同资助的一项合作研究赠款，以及雅各布·布劳斯坦科学合作中心，瑞士旱地环境与能源研究所，米特拉尼的慷慨支持而得以举办的内盖夫本古里安大学沙漠生态系。

关于此补充

本文已作为《环境证据》第8卷增刊1 2019年的一部分发布：在保护管理中使用动物行为。该补充剂的全部内容可在线访问https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-8-supplement-1。

该增刊的发行未得到赞助的支持。

隶属关系

美国加利福尼亚州埃斯孔迪多，圣地亚哥动物园全球保护研究所，美国92027
艾莉森·格雷格
加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校生态与进化生物学系，美国，加利福尼亚州92697
丹尼尔·布鲁姆斯坦
莫纳什大学生物科学学院，维多利亚，澳大利亚3800
鲍勃·王
内盖夫本古里安大学Mitrani沙漠生态系，8499000，以色列米德雷什特本古里安
奥德·贝格·塔尔

Alison L. Greggor查看作者出版物
您也可以在PubMed Google学术搜索中搜索该作者
Daniel T. Blumstein查看作者出版物
您也可以在PubMed Google学术搜索中搜索该作者
Bob BM Wong查看作者出版物
您也可以在PubMed Google学术搜索中搜索该作者
Oded Berger-Tal查看作者出版物
您也可以在PubMed Google学术搜索中搜索该作者

会费

所有作者都为手稿的概念和编辑做出了贡献。所有作者阅读并认可的终稿。

通讯作者

对应于Alison L. Greggor。

道德规范的批准和同意参加

不适用。

同意发表

不适用。

利益争夺

作者宣称他们没有竞争利益。

发行人须知

对于出版的地图和机构隶属关系中的管辖权主张，Springer Nature保持中立。

开放获取本文根据知识共享署名4.0国际许可（http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/）的条款进行分发，该许可允许您以任何方式在任何介质中进行无限制的使用，分发和复制。适当的版权归原始作者和来源，提供指向知识共享许可的链接，并指出是否进行了更改。除非另有说明，否则知识共享公共领域专用豁免（http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/）适用于本文提供的数据。

转载和许可