Geology topics

Luigi Boitani

Publications and source records attributed to Luigi Boitani.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Enduring cultural legacies affect Euro-American wildlife values

Social values shape biodiversity conservation success. Yet information is lacking on how values form, change and adapt people to their environment. Our 33-nation survey in 2021–2023 ( n = 18,477) explored the effect of the institutions of European colonization on present-day values towards wildlife in the Americas. Here we found mutualism values (seeing wildlife as part of one’s social community) prevail in Iberian-origin Latin American countries, whereas domination values (seeing wildlife as a resource for human use) are more prevalent in British-origin North American countries. Multilevel analysis showed significant country-level effects of colonial institution (for example, colonial origin, Protestant versus Catholic religious cultures) and endowment (for example, pre-colonial population density, Indigenous ancestry, settler mortality) factors on wildlife values in the Americas. The strong mutualism emphasis in Latin America appears to be consistent with acculturation between the compatible ideologies of Indigenous peoples and the Iberian colonizers. The effectiveness of wildlife institutions and policies will depend on their congruence with the social values of publics being served.

Nature Sustainability↗

USGS2024

Intrinsic and environmental drivers of pairwise cohesion in wild Canis social groups

Animals within social groups respond to costs and benefits of sociality by adjusting the proportion of time they spend in close proximity to other individuals in the group (cohesion). Variation in cohesion between individuals, in turn, shapes important group-level processes such as subgroup formation and fission–fusion dynamics. Although critical to animal sociality, a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing cohesion remains a gap in our knowledge of cooperative behavior in animals. We tracked 574 individuals from six species within the genus Canis in 15 countries on four continents with GPS telemetry to estimate the time that pairs of individuals within social groups spent in close proximity and test hypotheses regarding drivers of cohesion. Pairs of social canids ( Canis spp.) varied widely in the proportion of time they spent together (5%–100%) during seasonal monitoring periods relative to both intrinsic characteristics and environmental conditions. The majority of our data came from three species of wolves (gray wolves, eastern wolves, and red wolves) and coyotes. For these species, cohesion within social groups was greatest between breeding pairs and varied seasonally as the nature of cooperative activities changed relative to annual life history patterns. Across species, wolves were more cohesive than coyotes. For wolves, pairs were less cohesive in larger groups, and when suitable, small prey was present reflecting the constraints of food resources and intragroup competition on social associations. Pair cohesion in wolves declined with increased anthropogenic modification of the landscape and greater climatic variability, underscoring challenges for conserving social top predators in a changing world. We show that pairwise cohesion in social groups varies strongly both within and across Canis species, as individuals respond to changing ecological context defined by resources, competition, and anthropogenic disturbance. Our work highlights that cohesion is a highly plastic component of animal sociality that holds significant promise for elucidating ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying cooperative behavior.

Ecology↗

USGS2017

An unparalleled opportunity for an important ecological study

Wolves ( Canis lupus ) and moose ( Alces americanus ) have been studied since 1958 on 540-square-kilometer Isle Royale National Park, in Lake Superior. Wolves arrived there across the ice around 1949, and the population once increased to about 50, averaging about 25 annually (Mech 1966 , Jordan et al. 1967 , Vucetich and Peterson 2009 ). However, for various reasons, wolf numbers there have now dwindled to 2 nonbreeders, and the US National Park Service has proposed reintroducing 20–30 wolves over 3 years (National Park Service 2016 ). This situation offers an unparalleled opportunity to promote science-based management of this unique national park. The park has long been in the public eye for its world-renowned wolf and moose populations. Visitors to this island wilderness are especially interested in the scientific studies it has yielded and in maintaining its ecosystem.

Michigan↗

USGS2017

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Large carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintroduction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue fundamental principles of the scientific method when communicating the reliability of current evidence for the ecological roles that large carnivores may play, eroding public confidence in large carnivore science and scientists. Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves ( Canis lupus ) and dingoes ( Canis lupus dingo ) in initiating trophic cascades is not as strong as is often claimed. Managers and policy makers should exercise caution when relying on this literature to inform wildlife management decisions. We emphasise the value of manipulative experiments and discuss the role of scientific knowledge in the decision-making process. We hope that the issues we raise here prompt deeper consideration of actual evidence, leading towards an improvement in both the rigour and communication of large carnivore science.

Food Webs↗

USGS2017

Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better

We recently described the following six interrelated issues that justify questioning some of the discourse about the reliability of the literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores (Allen et al. In press): 1. The overall paucity of available data, 2. The reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, 3. The general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, 4. The lack of applied science studies, 5. The frequent use of logical fallacies, 6. The generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans.

Food Webs↗

USGS2015

Comment on Spracklandus Hoser, 2009 (Reptilia, Serpentes, ELAPIDAE): request for confirmation of availability of the generic name and for the nomenclatural validation of the journal in which it was published (Case 3601; BZN 70:234–237; 71:30–38; 133-135,181-182 ,252-253)

In Case 3601 Raymond Hoser has asked the Commission to validate for the purposes of nomenclature the name Spracklandus Hoser, 2009, and ‘the journal in which it was published,’ issue 7 of the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH). We note that the entire run of AJH has been written, edited, and published solely by Hoser. Although his requests to the Commission were presented as narrow and, in his words, ‘routine matters,’ we are convinced that they represent an important tipping-point with broad implications of major concern for zoological taxonomy and nomenclature as a whole and, by extension, the greater scientific community. Since Hoser’s actions and works have failed to follow scientific best practices (e.g. Turtle Taxonomy Working Group, 2007, 2014; Kaiser et al., 2013; Kaiser, 2014) and both the Commission’s general Recommendations and Code of Ethics in Appendix A, the global herpetological community has widely rejected his taxonomic decisions and resultant nomenclature. This has unfortunately caused a confusing dual nomenclature to develop in the herpetological community, with most boycotting or ignoring Hoser’s 700+ new names coined in the AJH, while he and a few personal followers actively promote their usage. We believe that suppression of the name Spracklandus , and all issues of AJH, is the only effective way to bring this contentious and confusing issue to resolution. The plenary power available under Article 81.1 of the Code exist specifically to allow the Commission to make rulings in individual cases that disturb stability and cause confusion, whether the works are Code-compliant or not. We maintain that it is in the interest of nomenclatural stability, not only for herpetology, but for all of zoological taxonomy, that the plenary power be invoked to declare the works in AJH unavailable, regardless of any narrow interpretation of their technical Code-compliance. We present our arguments for rejection of the validity of AJH in the following commentary. In view of the wide-reaching implications of this case for all of zoology, and reflecting the deep and broad-based community concern over these issues, our contributing authors include 70 global scientific leaders and accomplished amateurs from a wide variety of zoological disciplines.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature↗