The Experts below are selected from a list of 68622 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Peter J. Whitehead - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cross cultural management of pest Animal Damage a case study of feral buffalo control in australia s kakadu national park
Environmental Management, 2003Co-Authors: Catherine J. Robinson, Peter J. WhiteheadAbstract:Government agencies responsible for pest Animal management often assume that their views and assumptions about the benefits of control are widely shared, especially if these pests are exotics. This was certainly the case when tens of thousands of feral Asian water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) were to be culled in Australia’s Kakadu National Park as part of a national Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign (BTEC). Implementation of the campaign sparked considerable dispute between officials and aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests about the risks posed by buffalo relative to their value as a potential resource. Drawing upon a variety of written and oral sources relating to the era of buffalo control in Kakadu, this paper critically analyzes the way in which detriment caused by buffalo was appraised and managed under the BTEC program. In particular, the paper focuses the ways in which the BTEC program affected aboriginal people in Kakadu, who view buffalo as a source of customary and economic benefit as well as a source of change on their lands. The paper then considers what lessons can be learned from the BTEC for the development of sensible feral management objectives and strategies. It is argued that effective management of feral Animals such as buffalo will require environmental managers to engage with local people and involve them in the definition and management of pest Animal Damage and methods of control.
Terry A Messmer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the emergence of human wildlife conflict management turning challenges into opportunities
International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 2000Co-Authors: Terry A MessmerAbstract:Abstract With the increase in wildlife populations in response to protection, human–wildlife conflicts also have increased. In the past, rural residents, especially agricultural producers, and forestry owners bore the brunt of wildlife Damage. More recently, urban residents and other wildlife stakeholders are increasingly experiencing wildlife Damage. The phrases ‘Animal Damage control’, ‘problem wildlife management’, and ‘wildlife Damage management’ have been traditionally used to describe actions taken to reduce economic losses to agricultural produce caused by wildlife. More recently, the phrase ‘human–wildlife conflict management’ is being applied to these and other situations that involve any negative interactions between humans and wildlife. These conflicts can be either real or perceived, economic or aesthetic, social or political. Human–wildlife conflicts also may encompass Damages to the individual that result from federal, state, or local wildlife legislation, regulations, or policies that are designed to protect or conserve wildlife, public benefits, and individual property rights. In this paper, I discuss the emergence of the field of human–wildlife conflict management and identify how public and private wildlife conservation agencies and organizations can turn these new challenges into opportunities to increase public support for professional management.
Smith, Frederick W. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effects of Stand Structure, Browsing, and Biophysical Conditions on Regeneration Following Mountain Pine Beetle in Mixed Lodgepole Pine and Aspen Forests of the Southern Rockies
Hosted by Utah State University Libraries, 2018Co-Authors: Pelz, Kristen A., Smith, Frederick W.Abstract:Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) co-occur in the southern Rocky Mountains (USA), where mountain pine beetle (MPB, Dendroctonus ponderosae) has caused extensive lodgepole pine mortality since the late 1990s. Both species excel in post-disturbance high-light environments, but lodgepole pine has generally been thought to establish poorly on undisturbed seedbeds, and aspen suckering may be inhibited by intact aspen overstory. We ask whether lodgepole pine and aspen will regenerate in sufficient quantities to revegetate these forests. We visited a random sample of aspen and lodgepole pine stands across the affected landscape in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming to measure regeneration and overstory mortality. Lodgepole pine regeneration is occurring in 85% of stands, and most stands have \u3e550 stems ha−1. The median aspen sucker density was 6175 stems ha−1. Surprisingly, neither lodgepole pine nor aspen regeneration density was related to overstory mortality level. Animal Damage is currently affecting aspen in these forests. Over 50% of stands had Damage to 60% or more of their suckers, but 30% of stands had \u3c20% of their stems Damaged. Browsed stems were significantly shorter for their ages and were shorter than the 2.5-m height threshold for possible elk browsing. However, the results suggest that sufficient quantities of down lodgepole pine may protect aspen from Damage and allow aspen to successfully recruit to the overstory. Multiple regression analysis showed that down lodgepole pine basal area, followed by browsing pressure, were the most important predictors of sucker height and the proportion of suckers browsed. Although 15% of stands had no lodgepole pine regeneration, aspen and lodgepole pine forests are generally regenerating despite Animal browsing on aspen. This study is the first to present a regional perspective on regeneration in MPB-affected lodgepole pine and aspen forests, and overall, intervention does not seem necessary to ensure a mix of both species in the future
Frederick W. Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effects of Stand Structure, Browsing, and Biophysical Conditions on Regeneration Following Mountain Pine Beetle in Mixed Lodgepole Pine and Aspen Forests of the Southern Rockies
MDPI AG, 2018Co-Authors: Kristen A. Pelz, Frederick W. SmithAbstract:Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) co-occur in the southern Rocky Mountains (USA), where mountain pine beetle (MPB, Dendroctonus ponderosae) has caused extensive lodgepole pine mortality since the late 1990s. Both species excel in post-disturbance high-light environments, but lodgepole pine has generally been thought to establish poorly on undisturbed seedbeds, and aspen suckering may be inhibited by intact aspen overstory. We ask whether lodgepole pine and aspen will regenerate in sufficient quantities to revegetate these forests. We visited a random sample of aspen and lodgepole pine stands across the affected landscape in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming to measure regeneration and overstory mortality. Lodgepole pine regeneration is occurring in 85% of stands, and most stands have >550 stems ha−1. The median aspen sucker density was 6175 stems ha−1. Surprisingly, neither lodgepole pine nor aspen regeneration density was related to overstory mortality level. Animal Damage is currently affecting aspen in these forests. Over 50% of stands had Damage to 60% or more of their suckers, but 30% of stands had <20% of their stems Damaged. Browsed stems were significantly shorter for their ages and were shorter than the 2.5-m height threshold for possible elk browsing. However, the results suggest that sufficient quantities of down lodgepole pine may protect aspen from Damage and allow aspen to successfully recruit to the overstory. Multiple regression analysis showed that down lodgepole pine basal area, followed by browsing pressure, were the most important predictors of sucker height and the proportion of suckers browsed. Although 15% of stands had no lodgepole pine regeneration, aspen and lodgepole pine forests are generally regenerating despite Animal browsing on aspen. This study is the first to present a regional perspective on regeneration in MPB-affected lodgepole pine and aspen forests, and overall, intervention does not seem necessary to ensure a mix of both species in the future
Catherine J. Robinson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cross cultural management of pest Animal Damage a case study of feral buffalo control in australia s kakadu national park
Environmental Management, 2003Co-Authors: Catherine J. Robinson, Peter J. WhiteheadAbstract:Government agencies responsible for pest Animal management often assume that their views and assumptions about the benefits of control are widely shared, especially if these pests are exotics. This was certainly the case when tens of thousands of feral Asian water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) were to be culled in Australia’s Kakadu National Park as part of a national Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign (BTEC). Implementation of the campaign sparked considerable dispute between officials and aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests about the risks posed by buffalo relative to their value as a potential resource. Drawing upon a variety of written and oral sources relating to the era of buffalo control in Kakadu, this paper critically analyzes the way in which detriment caused by buffalo was appraised and managed under the BTEC program. In particular, the paper focuses the ways in which the BTEC program affected aboriginal people in Kakadu, who view buffalo as a source of customary and economic benefit as well as a source of change on their lands. The paper then considers what lessons can be learned from the BTEC for the development of sensible feral management objectives and strategies. It is argued that effective management of feral Animals such as buffalo will require environmental managers to engage with local people and involve them in the definition and management of pest Animal Damage and methods of control.