UDTR Global Rights of Nature Radar

Human–wildlife coexistence needs more evidence‐based interventions to reduce the losses of crops, livestock and fishery catches

Identification

Public canonical key

radar:r-33a15f4a8dc482a3f9b9f20da9f3f53a

Authors

Cheng Wei Huang · Yiqing Chen · Lili Li · Ahimsa Campos‐Arceiz · Yi Wang · Kenneth Otieno Onditi · Zhongqiu Li · Limin Feng · Yang Liu · Tien Ming Lee

Reported year

2025

Reported language

en

Source type

article

First detected

2026-11-13T12:49:32.129301+00:00

Last metadata observation

2026-11-13T12:49:32.129301+00:00

Last HTTP verification

Not checked

Institutions reported by the source

Sun Yat-sen University · Australian National University · Chinese Academy of Sciences · Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden · Kunming Institute of Zoology · National Museums of Kenya · State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution · Sino-Africa Joint Research Center · Nanjing University · Beijing Normal University

Reported affiliation countries

AU · CN · KE

Documentary abstract — original language

Abstract Evidence‐based interventions designed to reduce wildlife‐caused losses are essential for human–wildlife coexistence. The lack of systematic summarization of research effort and evidence makes it challenging for researchers, managers and policymakers to prioritize interventions for evaluation and implementation. Here, we compiled experimental case studies of nonlethal technical interventions designed to reduce the losses of crops, livestock and fishery catches caused by terrestrial carnivores, elephants, farmland birds and marine fauna worldwide. Then, we summarized the research effort and the performance of interventions by their sensory stimuli and target animals. We found that: (i) 54 of 88 interventions included in this study had statistically effective evidence, where only 39% (21/54) were evaluated with more than three experiments; (ii) physical‐, sound‐, chemical‐ and light (or visual) ‐based interventions were the most in numbers and their performance varied greatly; (iii) farmland birds, seabirds and cetaceans were the most studied animal groups while there are only a few experiments for elephants; and (iv) the interventions for marine fauna generally had no impact on the target catch of fisheries. Syntheses and applications: Our results indicated that collective effort is needed to further evaluate interventions using various sensory stimuli and launch incentive programs to motivate the implementation of interventions, particularly related to marine fauna conservation. Our synthesis could be helpful for stakeholders to tackle the negative human‐wildlife interactions outlined as Target 4 of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Identifiers

OPENALEX

https://openalex.org/W4406851785

DOI

10.1111/1365-2664.14857

Documentary context

Documentary family

article

Source-reported types

article

Publishers

Wiley

Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.

Sources

OpenAlex · Record 1

• Document · https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14857

Documentary status

Relevance pending

Library

This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.