Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 17 7 7–26 6 6. ARTICLE March 2019 Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach with rural producers in southeastern Brazil 1 2 3 Ana Laura Campos de Carvalho , Adrielli Ribeiro Araújo , Théa Mirian Medeiros Machad o , 1,2 4,5 Rômulo Ribon & Leonardo Esteves Lopes Programa de Pós-graduação em Biologia Animal, Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Campus Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil. Museu de Zoologia João Moojen, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Campus Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil. Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Campus Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil. Laboratório de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Campus Florestal, Florestal, MG, Brazil. Corresponding author: email@example.com Received on 03 October 2018. Accepted on 06 March 2019. ABSTRACT: Some wild animal species quickly adapt to anthropogenic environments, producing unusually large populations, causing human-wildlife conflicts. The objective of this study is to understand the way the farmers perceive the fauna and the information they possess regarding the damages those animals infl ict on their crops in southeastern Brazil. We collected data by presenting 200 questionnaires and conducting 22 semi-structured interviews with the rural producers in a region characterized by an agrarian matrix intermixed with small forest patches. Nearly every rural producer (99%) who answered the questionnaire (n = 107) had suff ered wild animal-triggered economic losses, especially by the White-eyed Parakeet Psittacara leucophthalmus (51%), which attacked maize and fruit crops. A substantial portion of these farmers (38%) has employed some control method, including acoustic techniques (42.5%), like fireworks, and visual techni ques (41%), like scarecrows. The farmers concurred that effective control methods are necessary for the White-eyed Parakeet, as current techniques proved inadequate. Th e understanding that the rural producers possess about the problem will facilitate designing new control strategies to manage this pest species. However, to ensure its success, a suitable management plan must be formulated to guarantee that the local rural occupations are maintained, incorporating human dimensions into wildlife management. KEY-WORDS: crops damage, ethnozoology, human-wildlife confl ict, problem species, Psittacidae. INTRODUCTION 2009). Th us, wild fauna, normally accepted as being economically, recreationally, and aesthetically useful, are Vast sections of almost all the world ecosystems have been hence considered undesirable and problematic (USDA converted into landscapes predominantly for human 1997, Conover 2001, Ormerod 2002). exploitation, particularly farming (Greenberg g et al. 1997, Any living organism having a population density Daily et al. 2001), thus negatively aff ecting most wild that directly or indirectly impinges on society, injuring species and their populations (McLaughlin & Mineau its health and constructions, or infl uencing plantations of 1995, Verhulst et al. 2004). However, the extension of food crops and raw materials, thus necessitating control agricultural locations may also result in the population methods, is defi ned as a pest species (Sinclair et al. 2006). explosion of some species, partly due to the associated Control management techniques to tackle these pest rise in the food, as well as resting and reproduction sites species attempt to diminish the damage they cause, either becoming more available (Singleton et al. 1999, Koopman by blocking or decreasing the accessibility of the species to & Pitt 2007). food sources or reducing its population growth (Moreira Any animal species in an agricultural ecosystem & Piovezan 2005, Sinclair et al. 2006). which shows disproportionate and unrestrained A global war is on between wildlife and agriculture population explosion frequently poses a problem for man with serious economic backlashes (de Grazio 1978). Each (Fall & Jackson 2002). Such human-wildlife confl icts problem is unique to the social and cultural contexts of the mostly originate from the economic losses these species part of the world where it happens, in terms of the species infl ict on the rural owners (Tracey et al. 2007), inducing involved and the types of region they inhabit (Beasley & a change in their perception of the wildlife (Messmer Rhodes-Jr. 2008, Rao 2010). Th erefore, workable, and Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach Carvalho et al. they possess regarding the damages those animals infl ict long-term control methods are required to minimize the on their crops in southeastern Brazil. damage to agriculture caused by wildlife (Messmer 2009). To successfully manage the control of the human-wildlife conflict a correct understandin g of the affected and METHODS unaff ected actors in society is required (Conover 2001), as well as the knowledge of the positive and negative Study area sides of the various management alternatives, keeping the focus of wildlife conservation intact (Brook 2009). In this context, an ethnobiological approach is highly desirable, We conducted this study in 12 municipalities in the because it has the “potential to integrate local and global southeast of the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil, in a region o o known as Campo das Vertentes (between 21 00'S–21 40'S; knowledge, connect cultures and academic approaches, o o 43 20'W–45 20'W) (Fig. 1). The original vegetation and to relate biological and social aspects of the human of the region, which is in the transition between the experience to the environment” (Albuquerque & Alves 2016). Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest, was a mosaic composed Brazil ranks high among the leading food producers by montane semideciduous forests, open savannas, and pure grasslands (Azevedo 1962, Gavilanes et al. 1995, and exporters worldwide (OECD-FAO 2015); however, Oliveira-Filho & Fluminhan-Filho 1999, IBGE 2012). despite facing serious conflict between wildlife and The climate of the re gion, which is mostly between 1000 agriculture, very little study has been done (Moreira & Piovezan 2005), with the result that management strategies and 1200 m altitude, is humid temperate, with hot wet for problem species of birds are few or absent. Th erefore, summers and cold dry winters (Cwb-Köppen's climate classifi cation system) (Alvares et al. 2013), with average farmers frequently implement rather inadequate self- annual temperatures varying locally between 17.4 C and developed practices, a few of which do more damage 20.5 C, and annual average precipitation varying between to the environment. Given that human-wildlife conflict is a growing issue in Brazil (Marchini & Crawshaw-Jr. 1200 and 1600 mm (Naime et al. 2006). 2015), the objective of this study is to understand the Currently, the landscape of the Campo das Vertentes is highly modified and fra gmented, with a mosaic of way the farmers perceive the fauna and the information Figure 1. Location of the study area in the Campo das Vertentes region ( ( (A A A), the municipalities involved in the research are highlighted in color (B). Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach Carvalho et al. small forest fragments, agricultural areas, Eucalyptus Alfredo Vasconcelos (n = 9), Antônio Carlos (n = 10), plantations, and artifi cial pastures for livestock raising Barbacena (n = 5), Barroso (n = 5), Conceição da Barra de (Lopes et al. 2010, A.L.C.C. pers. obs.). According to an Minas (n = 7), Ibertioga (n = 10), Ijaci (n = 10), Itumirim unpublished report of EMATER-MG (“Safra Agrícola (n = 10), Lavras (n = 10), Prados (n = 4), Santa Bárbara 2014”), local agriculture is characterized by plantations do Tugúrio (n = 1), and São João del-Rei (n = 5). We of fruit, maize, sorghum, soybean, beans, coffee, and obtained 21 questionnaires from the meetings with the vegetables, with most farmers being small and medium- farmers at the Rural Union of Barbacena and the meeting sized rural owners. with the PRONATEC farmers. Th e farmers mentioned the most frequently Data collection cultivated agricultural products in the region and their respective areas in hectares (ha) as maize (52% of the Between July and September 2014, we collected data producers; grown on 0.5 to 55 ha), fruits (22.4%; on 5 to via questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. We 130 ha); vegetables (12.8%; on 1 to 3 ha), beans (9.6%; distributed a total of 200 questionnaires, among which on 0.5 to 20 ha), sorghum (2%; on 0.5 to 5 ha), rice 120 were administered in collaboration with EMATER- (0.6%; on 0.5 ha), and sugarcane (0.6%; on 3 ha). The MG, which sent out 10 questionnaires to each of their cultivated areas within a farm were thus usually small, 12 local offices in the cities of Alfredo Vasconcelos, below 10 ha. With only one exception, all farmers had Antônio Carlos, Barbacena, Barroso, Conceição da Barra experienced economic losses induced by wild animals. de Minas, Ibertioga, Ijaci, Itumirim, Lavras, Prados, Among the 16 animals identified as the cause of Santa Bárbara do Tugúrio, and São João del-Rei (Fig. economic losses (Table 1), the White-eyed Parakeet 1). We administered the remaining 80 questionnaires Psittacara leucophthalmus s was the most problematic as during meetings with farmers from the Rural Union mentioned in the questionnaires by 51% of the producers, of Barbacena (“Sindicato Rural de Barbacena”) and the principally on maize (36.4%) and fruits (13.5%) (Fig. 2 National Program of Access to Technical Education and & 3). All producers mentioned a significant increase in Employment (PRONATEC), both held in Barbacena. the local population of this species over the recent years. The semi-structured questionnaire included 13 ob jective Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris s s) was the second most questions (answerable briefl y or with yes/no) dealing with the relationship between wildlife and its agricultural impact (Ditt et al. 2009). Using the semi-structured questionnaires, we conducted face-to-face interviews with 22 fruit growers, maize and sorghum from Barbacena. Th e main issues in the interviews addressed the level of damage, control techniques, species behavior and population variations that the farmers experienced with their respective pest species on the agricultural crops. To verify the pest species cited by the farmers, we presented illustrations and a list of likely problem species that could occur in the region. Besides questionnaires and interviews, we also accessed the rural producers' perceptions during a meeting conducted in March 2014 at the Rural Union of Barbacena. The y discussed the conflict between the fauna and agriculture and the pest management control methods prevalent in Brazil and the alternative methods available in the rest of the world. This meetin g facilitated profitable dialo gue among the rural producers and an exchange of experiences. RESULTS Questionnaires Figure 2. Damage caused by White-eyed Parakeets Psittacara leucophthalmus (a a), in maize (b) and guava (c) crops in Th ere was a 53.5% (107 of 200) response rate to the southeastern Brazil. Photo author: Ana Laura C. Carvalho. questionnaire from the 12 local EMATER-MG offi ces: Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach Carvalho et al. Table 1. Damage-causing vertebrate pests on agricultural crops in the southeastern Minas Gerais, Brazil. Taxon English name Scientific name BIRDS Galliformes Dusky-legged Guan Penelope obscura Gruiformes Slaty-breasted Wood-Rail Aramides saracura Columbiformes Pigeon Patagioenas spp. Piciformes Toco Toucan Ramphastos toco Cariamiformes Cariama cristata Psittaciformes White-eyed Parakeet Psittacara leucophthalmus Passeriformes Curl-crested Jay Cyanocorax cristatellus Passeriformes Chopi Blackbird Gnorimopsar chopi Passeriformes Tanager Thraupis spp. MAMMALS Rodentia Capybara Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Artiodactyla Wild Boar Sus scrofa Carnivora South American Coati Nasua nasua Cingulata Armadillo Dasypodidae spp. Didelphimorphia Opossum Didelphis sp. Primates Howley Monkey Allouatta sp. Th e Wild Boar is an exotic species in Brazil, and in the region, it probably refers to a cross between the Domesticated Pig (Sus scrofa domesticus s s) and the Wild Boar (Sus scrofa scrofa). cited species (11% of the producers), causing problems the currently used management techniques (13%), and mostly on maize crops (9%), while the Dusky-legged those with huge populations that attacked the food crops Guan (Penelope obscura) was the third most mentioned (6%). All the producers unanimously bemoaned the lack species (10% of the producers), chiefl y on bean (4%) and of government support in preventing the fi nancial losses vegetables (3.6%) (Fig. 3). these wild animals caused. A signifi cant degree of fi nancial loss was attributed Most of the rural producers (57%) stated in the to wild animals by 72% of the rural producers. The questionnaire that September to December was the problematic species included those that infl icted period when the animals most attacked plantations. Crop economic losses (81%), which could not be controlled by damage, however, continued the whole year through. From the questionnaires, it was evident that 38% of the rural producers who experienced fi nancial losses caused by the wild fauna used some control measures. Th e commonest techniques used by 42.5% of the producers were of the acoustic type (e.g., fi reworks, gas cannon, and other devices producing a variety of sounds), but with marginal success, whereas 41% of the producers employed the visual types (e.g., scarecrows, refl ectors, and lookouts on foot and on motorcycle) (Fig. 4). Th e control methods employed by the rural producers were generally regarded as ineff ective, with only 12% registering any decrease in the degree of damage and 88% denying any positive outcomes. Reportedly, the White-eyed Parakeet quickly got used to the acoustic (fi reworks) and visual control methods (scarecrows, refl ectors) (Fig. 5A–D). Measures such as human or motorcycle riding lookout should be continuously Figure 3. Frequency of the cited damage-causing vertebrates on applied in these areas to gain some success (Fig. 5E–G). agricultural crops in southeastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach Carvalho et al. However, they reported that such methods only changed denied any hunting on their property, 19% acknowledged the location of the problem, as the animals moved on to it was prevalent and 12% did not comment about this neighboring plantations for food. Total isolation of the management technique. Among those who admitted White-eyed Parakeet-affected plantations, by coverin g to hunt, birds (9.5%) and mammals (90.5%) were them with protective (drape over) netting, was regarded sought as food (67%), sport and leisure (19%), and as as economically unfeasible (Fig. 5H & I). pest extermination (14%). A little below half the rural While most rural producers (69%) strenuously producers (44%) acknowledged they would hunt wild animals legally and with control, while 56% stated they would not indulge in hunting. Th e reasons proff ered for avoiding hunting included not being habituated to hunt, disliking the concept, lacking the courage to kill an animal, lacking time and resources, or even because several animals had become extinct. All the rural producers unanimously agreed among the many suggestions offered that pest species required management, such as controlled hunting (48.5%) and interventions to reduce their populations (26%) (Fig. 6). Interviews All the farmers interviewed indicated that the White- eyed Parakeet was the chief pest species in the region. Th e main damages caused by the species and its impacts are Figure 4. Frequency of implementing various types of contro ol mentioned below: measures by the rural producers in southeastern Brazil. As it is no longer economically feasible to cultivate Figure 5. Control methods utilized by the rural producers in southeastern Brazil. Scarecrows ( ( (A A A–C); refl ectors (D); lookout on foot (E & F); lookout on motorcycle (G), protective netting (H & I). Photo author: Ana Laura C. Carvalho. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach Carvalho et al. The short-term control methods (visual and acoustic) tested were found to have poor eff ect, as the White-eyed Parakeet are intelligent and quickly get accustomed to them; While protective netting works more efficiently than the short-term measures, the cost-benefit balance must be considered; Cultivation of maize varieties with harder kernels could minimize the White-eyed Parakeet attacks; When maize was planted near the Guava cultivations, White-eyed Parakeet induced damage to the Guavas decreased; Agronomic crop management techniques (pruning and dormancy control) may reduce economic losses, because it may help circumvent the period of the most intense White-eyed Parakeet attacks; The White-eyed Parakeet population requires more Figure 6. Popular methods advocated by farmers as potential control methods for wildlife posing problems species posing efficient control measures, as the ones presently in use problems to crops in southeastern Brazil. have been proven to be ineffective in solvin g the issue. fruits and maize in the region because of the large extent DISCUSSION of financial loss caused b y White-eyed Parakeet attacks, many rural producers have ceased to do so; Economic losses in agricultural crops due to wild Electrical wiring and house tiles are frequently animals is a global issue, involving implications for damaged; species preservation, agricultural sustainability, and Th e White-eyed Parakeet population has exploded socioeconomic problems (Nyhus et al. 2000). Several over the last few years when compared to its numbers 15 species of Psittaciformes, such as the White-eyed Parakeet, years ago, at which time the economic damage infl icted are the main consumers of grains and fruits in most was minimal; agricultural pockets across the world (Long 1985, Bucher Th e White-eyed Parakeet population thrives through 1992, Galetti 1993, Santos-Neto & Gomes 2007, Tracey the whole year in the region because food is readily et al. 2007, Ahmad et al. 2012). Minas Gerais state, for available (crop cycle of fruits, maize and sorghum); example, experienced significant economic losses from White-eyed Parakeet prefer grains and seeds (maize the White-eyed Parakeet in sorghum (Jacinto et al. 2007), and the weed Jaegeria hirta, Asteraceae), over fruits, and maize, and guava crops (Mateus 2013). feed mainly on apple, peach, and guava; Besides destroying crops, the White-eyed Parakeet During the fruit harvest, the White-eyed Parakeet have also reportedly damaged electrical wiring and stay in the orchards throughout the entire day, aggregating roofs of civilian buildings in the western parts of Minas in communal roosts to overnight close to the food supply; Gerais (Saiki et al. 2009). In Australia, the Rose-breasted Although the White-eyed Parakeet come to the Cockatoo Eolophus roseicapilla a causes great damages in orchards in small fl ocks of up to 50 individuals, they urban regions, destroying electric wires, wooden frames, gradually grow into large groups up to 300 individuals; and communication antennae (Tracey et al. 2007). Once they eat the first fruit, White-eyed Parakeets Bird pests have been recorded to inflict greater always return to the place. Frightening them most often agricultural damage in the dry seasons, when food is not the solution, as they quickly return after landing in resources in nature are scarce and irrigated crops off er other parts of the orchard and damaging the fruits there; abundant food and water supplies (de Grazio 1978). Nests are built inside cavities excavated in dirt banks and ravines of inside house roofs, with hatching occurring Although in the current study the White-eyed Parakeet from December to March, producing up to four youngs attacks were reported in the orchards mostly between per clutch; the end of the dry season and the commencement of the When a new method is employed to scare the rainy season, it is not easy to propose any relationship White-eyed Parakeet from the orchards, they refrain do considering this, as this period is also the peak harvest not immediately return to the area, perching in the trees time for the commercial fruits. The White-e yed Parakeet nearby until they realize that the scaring technique poses foraging behavior, as reported by the local farmers, no real threat; bears similarity to that reported for other species of Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach Carvalho et al. Psittaciformes in Australia, which repeatedly return to subject and, in the rural communities visited during this the feeding sites if the food supply is available, and set study, only a few confi rmed hunting, even if the problem up their communal roosts close to the agricultural crops was a recurrent one (Pinto et al. 2012). (Tracey et al. 2007). However, hunting pest species in Brazil can be allowed The control measures implemented by the farmers under special circumstances without it being considered a were ineffective and fre quently economically unfeasible. crime. Article 37 of the Brazilian Environmental Crimes Common methods used to scare birds (visual and Law states, “it is not a crime to slaughter an animal when acoustic) are usually poorly efficient, as birds quickly it is carried out: because it is harmful, as long as it is accustom themselves to them (Booth 1994, Tracey et characterized by the competent agency” (Brazil 1998). al. 2007, Cook et al. 2008). When preventive control Thus, the Monk Parakeet Myiopsitta monachus s featured methods are applied (e.g., just prior to fruit formation), among the species authorized for slaughter in Rio Grande they may possibly exert a greater effect (Booth 1994) . do Sul (IBAMA 2004a). The introduction and explosion A few rural producers (1.5%) employed protective of the wild populations of the European Wild Boar in netting as an effective control measure. Although it has several Brazilian municipalities has recently instigated been proven to be effective in minimizing bird damage successive normative instructions to hunt down these over the short-, medium- and long-terms (Fisher 1992, animals (IBAMA 2004b). Canavelli 2010), it continues to be less implemented The sustainable exploitation of wild animals in the because it is not easy to handle (Pritts 2001, Bishop et al. Sustainable Development Reserves in Brazil was foreseen 2003, Simon 2008), as well as due to its high cost (Curtis by the National System of Conservation Units (Decree et al. 1994, Somers & Morris 2002). No. 4340, 22 August 2002). For instance, hunting Some farmers (3%) mentioned utilizing chemical chelonians, mammals, and birds, which have been the repellents as a control method, although none indicated protein supply for traditional communities, regularly the nature of these products. Brazil, to the best of our occurs in the Amanã Sustainable Development Reserve, knowledge, has not regulated the use of any secondary central Amazon (Valsecchi & Amaral 2009). IBAMA chemical (toxic) repellant and no testing has been (2005) authorized a regulated trial period of commercial conducted by any scientific study on primary (non-toxic) management of the Yacare Caiman Caiman yacare in the chemical repellents as a control method for bird pests. In Pantanal wetlands, in which a section of the production the US, some studies are available on the use of primary cycle takes place in the wild. Such initiatives imply that chemical repellents as a type of bird-pest control, but a Brazil may try new temporary and experimental wildlife varying degree of success have been reported with their management regulations. use (Avery 2002, Avery & Cummings 2003). According to the local producers, population Agronomic practices of pruning management and control of the White-eyed Parakeet in the Campo das dormancy control implemented by some farmers during Vertentes region needs more effective methods than those this study have been recommended by other authors as presently utilized, as the problem continues unsolved. well, as they can reduce bird damage and raise yields This is because any pest population which is stable in an (Canavelli 2009 & 2010, Linz et al. 2011). Cultivating undesirable size, and infl icting economic losses on the alternative food sources like maize, in proximity to a farmer or his property, must have its population reduced vulnerable crop, is also an effective method of decreasin g and maintained by management activities (Caughley & short-term bird damage. However, it must also be Sinclair 1994). understood that these alternative crops are costly and Controlling a population by using lethal methods may not be able to satisfy all the birds in the population, is legally restricted, toilsome, and questionable both especially in the medium- long-term, resulting in even ethically and socially, and frequently, it is inefficient greater damage to the target crops (Bishop et al. 2003). in minimizing bird damage (Tracey et al. 2007). For We collected contradicting reports from the rural instance, the usefulness of the method may be directly producers on the perception of hunting; this was because influenced by com pensatory responses in the reproduction despite a great majority a great majority of them stating and survival rates of the pest species (Feare 1991). that hunting was absent in their communities (69%) A few authors propose that in cases of small isolated and/or that they would refrain from practicing it (56%), populations and where immigration can be prevented, many producers (74.5%) suggested hunting and birth reducing populations may be possible (Dolbeer 1998, interference as population control measures. Hunting Feare 1991). However, no published study is available wildlife is legally prohibited in Brazil (Federal Law No. that demonstrates that either short- or long-term lethal 5197, from 1967) and considered an environmental control of birds can minimize crop damage (Tracey et al. crime (Federal Law No. 9605, from 1998). Th erefore, it 2007). For those pest birds having high reproductive rates, is expected that rural producers are wary of discussing this control measures implemented during the reproductive Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach Carvalho et al. cycle (e.g., destruction of eggs and nests) may prove more ethical standards of the Resolution 196/96 of the Brazilian successful than any control exerted during maturity National Health Council. All the individual participants (Paton et al. 2005). With respect to the bird breeding included in the study gave informed consent per the inhibitor (Diazacon), a few studies conducted on the requirements of the Resolution 466/2012 of the Brazilian National Health Council. A.L.C.C. received a scholarship Monk Parakeets revealed hopeful outcomes (Avery et al. from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de 2006). Nível Superior. L.E.L. received a research fellowship Implementing management measures in agriculture from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e poses a challenge, as no single control technique is Tecnológico (305401/2014-9). Thanks is due also to the available which can produce prompt and economically Sindicato Rural de Barbacena a and the Instituto Federal de effective outcomes (Canavelli 2009). Frequently, several Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Sudeste de Minas Gerais simultaneous or sequential control methods need to be – Campus Barbacena, for the cooperation and logistical utilized to get the most effective results in minimizing the support extended in this project, specifically to Fernando losses inflicted by the wild birds. It is important thou gh Martins Costa who enabled such a partnership, as well as to implement the techniques selected on a suitable spatial to the transportation division for their support in all the scale and, particularly, in foreseeing the damages (Dolbeer field collections. Sincere appreciation is expressed to the 1990 & 1998, Bruggers et al. 1998, USDA 2010). local offi ces of the Empresa de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Monitoring and assessment of the results is fundamental Rural de Minas Gerais. Th e rural producers have willingly to success, as only then can the most effective strate gies be made signifi cant facts and data available for this study. identified, as well as the wa ys they can be modified to suit José Eugênio Côrtes Figueira and an anonymous reviewer the program for the next year (Canavelli 2010). presented valuable comments on an earlier version of this Finally, while man-wildlife confl icts are being manuscript. addressed, wildlife managers should consider the needs of all the participants directly aff ected, as well as be conscious of the range of environmental, socio-cultural, REFERENCES and economic factors involved. Th erefore, it is necessary to be sensitive to various perspectives and values and Ahmad S., Khan H.A., Javed M. & Rehman K.U. 2012. An estimation strike an accurate balance between the needs of humans of Rose-ringed Parakeet (Psittacula krameri) depredations on and wildlife (USDA 1997). citrus, Guava and Mango in orchard fruit farm. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology y 14: 149–152. We conclude that the confl icts revealed by the rural Albuquerque U.P. & Alves A.G.C. 2016. What is Ethnobiology? p. producers in southeastern Brazil with the pest species 3–7. In: Albuquerque U.P. & Alves R.R.N. (eds.). Introduction to identifi ed are due to the fi nancial losses they infl ict by ethnobiology. New York: Springer. damaging the crops of fruits and grains. Farmers are Alvares C.A., Stape J.L., Sentelhas P.C., Gonçalves J.L.M. & helpless and unable to effectively deal with the problem, Sparovek G. 2013. Köppen's climate classifi cation map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift t 22: 711–728. as the control techniques used by them are either unviable Avery M.L. 2002. Avian repellents, p. 122–128. In: Plimmer J.R. (ed.). or inadequate. Th e knowledge and perception of the rural Encyclopedia of agrochemicals, v. 1. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. producers in the region are evidently signifi cant in drawing Avery M.L. & Cummings J.L. 2003. Chemical repellents for reducing up and designing implementable management and crop damage by Blackbirds, p. 41–48. In: Linz G.M. (ed.). Management of North American Blackbirds. Colorado: National control measures of the pest species. Th e ethnobiological Wildlife Research Center. study conduct here was a first ste p to understand the Avery M.L., Lindsay J.R., Newman J.R., Pruett-Jones W. & Tillman problem. However, more detailed studies on the biology E.A. 2006. Reducing Monk Parakeet impacts to electric utility of pest species and the intrinsic features of each crop are facilities in south Florida, p. 125–136. In: Feare C.J. & Cowan D.P. (eds.). Advances in vertebrate pest management, v. 4 4 4. Fürth: required to enable drawing up an elaborate management Filander Verlag. plan on wildlife control based on three principal aspects: Azevedo L.G. 1962. Tipos de vegetação do sul de Minas e campos da man, animal and habitat. Th is will be the only possible Mantiqueira (Brasil). Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências s 34: way of ensuring that rural activities, and wildlife, can be 225–234. Beasley J.C. & Rhodes-Jr. O.E. 2008. Relationship between Raccoon sustained. abundance and crop damage. Human-Wildlife Conflict s 2: 248– Bishop J., McKay H., Parrott D., & Allan J. 2003. Review of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS international research literature regarding the eff ectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential alternatives. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Th e study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Booth T.W. 1994. Bird dispersal techniques, p. 19–24. In: Hygnstrom Committee of the Universidade Federal de Viçosa a (Number S.E., Timm R.M. & Larson G.E. (eds.). Prevention and control 698.952/2014; Presentation Certificate for Ethical of wildlife damage. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Cooperative Assessment: 30744014.9.0000.5153) and follows the Extension/United States Department of Agriculture. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach Carvalho et al. Brasil. 1998. Lei 9605 de 12 de fevereiro de 1998. https://www2. Cobertura vegetal da Serra de São José, MG, municípios de São camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/1998/lei-9605-12-fevereiro-1998- João del Rei e Tiradentes. Daphne e 5: 40–72. 365397-publicacaooriginal-1-pl.html (Access on 20 April 2019). Gill E.L., Cotterill J.V., Cowman D.P., Grey C.B., Gurney J.E., Brook R.K. 2009. Historical review of Elk-agriculture conflicts in Moore N.P., Nadian A.K. & Watkins, R.W. 1999. All in the worst and around Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba, Canada. possible taste: chemical repellents in vertebrate pest management, Human-Wildlife Conflict s 3: 72–87. p. 283–295. In: Cowan D.P. & Feare C.J. (eds.). Advances in Bruggers R.L., Rodriguez E. & Zaccagnini M.E. 1998. Planning vertebrate pest management. Fürth: Filander Verlag. for bird pest problem resolution: a case study. International Greenberg R., Bichier P. & Sterling J. 1997. Bird populations in rustic Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 42: 173–184. and planted shade Coffee plantations of eastern Chiapas, Mexico. Bucher E.H. 1992. Neotropical parrots as agricultural pests, p. Biotropica 29: 501–514. 201–219. In: Beissinger S.R. & Snyder N.F.R. (eds.). New World IBAMA [Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology. Washington: Naturais Renováveis]. 2004a. Instrução Normativa No. 24 de 31 Smithsonian Institution Press. de março de 2004. Diário Oficial da União No. 63, Seção I, p. Canavelli S.B. 2009. Recomendaciones de manejo para disminuir 90–91. los daños por palomas medianas en cultivos agrícolas. Instituto IBAMA [Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. http://inta.gob.ar/ Naturais Renováveis]. 2004b. Instrução Normativa No. 25 de 31 documentos/recomendaciones-de-manejo-para-disminuir-los- de março de 2004. Diário Oficial da União No. 63, Seção I, p. 91 . danos-por-palomas-medianas-en-cultivos-agricolas (Access on 10 IBAMA [Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos June 2014). Naturais Renováveis]. 2005. Instrução Normativa No. 63 de 30 Canavelli S.B. 2010. Consideraciones de manejo para disminuir de março de 2005. Diário Oficial da União No. 61, Seção I, p. los daños por aves en Girasol. INTA – Estación Experimental 268. Agropecuaria Rafaela, Publicación Miscelánea a 118: 175–190. IBGE [Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística]. 2012. Manual Caughley G. & Sinclair A.R.E. 1994. Wildlife ecology and management. técnico da vegetação Brasileira: sistema fi togeográfi co, inventário Williston: Blackwell Science. das formações florestais e campestres, técnicas e manejo de coleçõe s Conover M. 2001. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science o f botânicas e procedimentos para mapeamentos. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. wildlife damage management. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Jacinto J.C., Toti T.P., Guaritá R.L. & Melo C. 2007. Dano em um Cook A., Rushton S., Allan J. & Baxter A. 2008. An evaluation of cultivo de Sorgo (Sorghum bicolor r r) causado por aves. Anais do VIII techniques to control problem bird species on landfill sites. Congresso de Ecologia do Brasilll. Caxambu: Sociedade de Ecologia Environmental Management t 41: 834–843. do Brasil. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Celine_Melo/ Curtis P.D., Merwin I.A., Pritts M.P. & Peterson D.V. 1994. Chemical publication/265947116_DANO_EM_UM_CULTIVO_DE_ repellents and plastic netting for reducing bird damage to sweet SORGO_SORGHUM_BICOLOR_CAUSADO_POR_AVES/ cherries, blueberries, and grapes. HortScience e 29: 1151–1155. links/55bf82d608aed621de1397b1.pdf (Access on 20 April Daily G.C., Ehrlich, P.R. & Sánchez-Azofeifa G.A. 2001. Countryside 2019). biogeography: use of human-dominated habitats by the avifauna Koopman M.E. & Pitt W.C. 2007. Crop diversifi cation leads to of southern Costa Rica. Ecological Applications s 11: 1–13. diverse bird problems in Hawaiian agriculture. Human-Wildlife de Grazio J.W. 1978. World bird damage problems. In: Proceedings Conflicts s 1: 235–243. th h of the 8 Vertebrate Pest Conference. Nebraska: University of Linz G.M., Homan H.J., Werner S.J., Hagy H.M. & Bleier W.J. 2011. Nebraska-Lincoln http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc8/13 Assessment of bird management strategies to protect sunflower. (Access on 20 April 2019). BioScience e 61: 960–971. Ditt E.H., Mantovani W., Padua C.V. & Bassi C. 2009. Entrevistas e Long J.L. 1985. Damage to cultivated fruit by parrots in the south of aplicações de questionários em trabalhos de conservação, p. 617– western Australia. Australian Wildlife Research h 12: 75–80. 632. In: Cullen-Jr. L.J., Rudran R. & Padua C.V. (eds.). Métodos Lopes L.E., Malacco G.B., Alteff E.F., Vasconcelos M.F., Hoff mann de estudos em biologia da conservação e manejo da vida silvestre. D. & Silveira L.F. 2010. Range extensions and conservation of Curitiba: Editora da Universidade Federal do Paraná. some threatened or little known Brazilian grassland birds. Bird Dolbeer R.A. 1990. Ornithology and integrated pest management: Conservation Internationall 20: 84–94. Red-winged Blackbirds Agelaius phoeniceus s and corn. Ibis s 132: Marchini S. & Crawshaw-Jr. P.G. 2015. Human-wildlife confl icts in 309–322. Brazil: a fast-growing issue. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20: Dolbeer R.A. 1998. Population dynamics: the foundation of wildlife 323–328. st damage management for the 21 century, p. 2–11. In: Baker R.O. & Mateus M.B. 2013. Relação entre fauna silvestre e produtores rurais: th h Crabb A.C. (eds.). Proceedings of the 18 Vertebrate Pest Conference. estudos de casos em Milho ( ( (Zea mays L.) e Goiaba ( ( (Psidium guajava Davis: University of California. https://pdfs.semanticscholar. L.) na Zona da Mata de Minas Gerais. MSc. Dissertation. Viçosa: org/2ad4/c034f8c88b65064a09486365724c328c2bdd.pdf Universidade Federal de Viçosa. (Access on 20 April 2019). McLaughlin A. & Mineau P. 1995. Th e impact of agricultural Fall M.W. & Jackson W.B. 2002. The tools and techniques of practices on biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment wildlife damage management-changing needs: an introduction. 55: 201–212. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 49: 87–91. Messmer T.A. 2009. Human-wildlife conflicts: emerging challenges Feare C.J. 1991. Control of bird pest populations, p. 463–478. and opportunities. Human-Wildlife Conflict s 3: 10–17. In: Perrins C.M., Lebreton J.D. & Hirons G.J.M. (eds.). Bird Moreira J.R. & Piovezan U. 2005. Conceitos de manejo de fauna, population studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. manejo de população problema e o exemplo da Capivara. Brasília: Fisher A.M. 1992. Vigilance and variation: the key to victory in the Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia. vineyard. Australia and New Zealand Wine Industry Journall 7: Naime U.J., Motta P.E.F., Carvalho-Filho A. & Baruqui A.M. 2006. 140–143. Avaliação da aptidão agrícola das terras da Zona Campo das Vertentes Galetti M. 1993. Diet of the Scalyheaded Parrot (Pionus maximiliani) - MG. Rio de Janeiro: Embrapa Solos. in a semi deciduous forest in south eastern Brazil. Biotropica a 25: Nyhus P.J., Tilson R. & Tilson S. 2000. Crop-raiding elephants 419–425. and conservation implications at Way Kambas National Park, Gavilanes M.L., Brandão M., Laca-Buendia J.P. & Araújo M.G. 1995. Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx x 34: 262–274. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019 Wildlife and damage to agriculture: an ethnobiological approach Carvalho et al. OECD-FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Sinclair A.R.E., Fryxell J.M. & Caughley G. 2006. Wildlife ecology, Nations]. 2015. Brazilian agriculture: prospects and challenges, conservation, and management. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. p. 61–108. In: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook. Paris: OECD Singleton G.R., Leirs H., Hinds L.A. & Zhang Z. 1999. Ecologically- Publishing. based management of rodent pests: re-evaluating our approach to Oliveira-Filho A.T. & Fluminhan-Filho M. 1999. Ecologia da vegetação an old problem, p. 17–30. In: Singleton G.R., Hinds L.A., Leirs do Parque Florestal Quedas do Rio Bonito. Cerne e 5: 51–64. H. & Zhang Z. (eds.). Ecologically based management of rodent Ormerod S.J. 2002. Applied issues with predators and predation: pests. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural editor's introduction. Journal of Applied Ecology y 39: 181–188. Research. Paton D.C., Sinclair R.G. & Bentz C.M. 2005. Ecology and Somers C.M. & Morris R.D. 2002. Birds and wine grapes: foraging management of the Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris s s) in the activity causes small-scale damage patterns in single vineyards. McLaren Vale region. In: Final report to grape and wine research Journal of Applied Ecology y 39: 511–523. and development corporation. https://www.wineaustralia.com/ Tracey J., Bomford M., Hart Q., Saunders G. & Sinclair R. 2007. getmedia/7b5d34b7-b026-475d-af15-8738f0e190c8/finalrepor t Managing bird damage to fruit and other horticultural crops. (Access on 26 June 2014). Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences. Pinto L.C.L., Mateus M.B. & Pires M.R.S. 2012. Conhecimento e USDA [United States Department of Agriculture]. 1997. Animal usos da fauna terrestre por moradores rurais da Serra do Ouro damage control program: fi nal environmental impact statement. Branco, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Interciencia 37: 520–527. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Pritts M.P. 2001. Bye-bye birdie: repelling birds from fruit plantings. and Plant Health Inspection Service. New York Fruit Quarterly y 9: 5–7. USDA [United States Department of Agriculture]. 2010. Reducing Rao A. 2010. Whose right is it anyway? Th e farmer-ungulate confl ict. bird damage through an integrated wildlife damage management Current Conservation 4: 16–21. program in the State of North Carolina: final environmenta l Saiki P.T.O., Guido L.F.E. & Cunha A.M.O. 2009. Etnoecologia, assessment. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, etnotaxonomia e valoração cultural de Psittacidae em distritos Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. rurais do T riângulo Mineiro, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia Valsecchi J. & Amaral P.V. 2009. Perfil da ca ça e dos caçadores na 17: 41–52. Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável de Amaná. Uakari i 5: Santos-Neto J.R. & Gomes D.M. 2007. Predação de milho por 33–48. Arara-azul-de-Lear, Anodorhynchus leari (Bonaparte, 1856) Verhulst J., Báldi A. & Kleijn D. 2004. Relationship between land-use (Aves: Psittacidae) em sua área de ocorrência no sertão da Bahia. intensity and species richness and abundance of birds in Hungary. Ornithologia a 2: 41–46. Simon G. 2008. A short overview of bird control in sweet and sour cherry Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment t 104: 465–473. orchards: possibilities of protection of bird damage and its eff ectiveness. International Journal of Horticultural Science 14: 107–111. Associate Editor: Cristiano S. Azevedo. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 27(1): 2019
Ornithology Research – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 1, 2019
Keywords: crops damage; ethnozoology; human-wildlife conflict; problem species; Psittacidae
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.