An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice

• DOI: 10.1111/acv.12629
• Publication Date: 2020-08-12T15:30:37Z
• Authors: Kaitlyn M. Gaynor; Michael J. Cherry; Sophie L. Gilbert; Michel T. Kohl; Courtney L. Larson; Thomas M. Newsome; Laura R. Prugh; Justin P. Suraci; Julie K. Young; Justine A. Smith
• Keywords: Veterinary Medicine; 0106 biological sciences; 570; hunting; Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology; human–wildlife conflict; Epidemiology; 590; 01 natural sciences; Veterinary Microbiology and Immunobiology; predation risk; Natural Resources and Conservation; wildlife management; and Public Health; reintroduction; Veterinary Infectious Diseases; Veterinary Preventive Medicine; 2. Zero hunger; Population Biology; predator–prey; Natural Resources Management and Policy; Life Sciences; 15. Life on land; Other Veterinary Medicine; 13. Climate action; Animal Sciences; Other Environmental Sciences; Zoology; Environmental Sciences

AbstractResearch on the ecology of fear has highlighted the importance of perceived risk from predators and humans in shaping animal behavior and physiology, with potential demographic and ecosystem‐wide consequences. Despite recent conceptual advances and potential management implications of the ecology of fear, theory and conservation practices have rarely been linked. Many challenges in animal conservation may be alleviated by actively harnessing or compensating for risk perception and risk avoidance behavior in wild animal populations. Integration of the ecology of fear into conservation and management practice can contribute to the recovery of threatened populations, human–wildlife conflict mitigation, invasive species management, maintenance of sustainable harvest and species reintroduction plans. Here, we present an applied framework that links conservation interventions to desired outcomes by manipulating ecology of fear dynamics. We discuss how to reduce or amplify fear in wild animals by manipulating habitat structure, sensory stimuli, animal experience (previous exposure to risk) and food safety trade‐offs to achieve management objectives. Changing the optimal decision‐making of individuals in managed populations can then further conservation goals by shaping the spatiotemporal distribution of animals, changing predation rates and altering risk effects that scale up to demographic consequences. We also outline future directions for applied research on fear ecology that will better inform conservation practices. Our framework can help scientists and practitioners anticipate and mitigate unintended consequences of management decisions, and highlight new levers for multi‐species conservation strategies that promote human–wildlife coexistence.