Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Export

@article{citeulike:3757240, abstract = {Fencing for conservation is an acknowledgement that we are failing to successfully coexist with and, ultimately, conserve biodiversity. Fences arose during the Neolithic revolution to demarcate resource-rich areas (food sources) and exclude threats (intruders). Fencing for conservation can be viewed as fulfilling a similar function. The aims of this paper were to identify when fencing can and is used to conserve biodiversity; highlight the costs and benefits of fencing for conservation; and make recommendations to ensure appropriate use of fencing for conservation in the future. The IUCN identifies ten major threatening processes and the impacts of eight of these can be mitigated via the use of fencing, however avoiding human\&\#x2013;animal conflict and reducing the impact of introduced predators are the two most common uses. Fences implemented to achieve a conservation benefit are not necessarily physical barriers, but can also include \&\#x2018;metaphorical\&\#x2019; fences of sound, smoke and smell, or even actual islands. Fences provide defined units for managers and separate biodiversity from threatening processes including human persecution, invasive species and disease. Conversely, they are costly to build and maintain; they have ecological costs through blocking migration routes, restriction of biodiversity range use which may result in overabundance, inbreeding and isolation; restriction of evolutionary potential; management; amenity and ethical costs. Despite these problems, fencing for conservation is likely to become increasingly utilized as biodiversity becomes increasingly threatened and methods of ameliorating threats lag behind. In the long-term, fences may ultimately prove to be as much a threat to biodiversity as the threats they are meant to exclude, and a new research agenda should arise to ensure that conservation fences do not remain a permanent part of the landscape.}, author = {Hayward, M. and Kerley, G.}, citeulike-article-id = {3757240}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.022}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320708003649}, day = {20}, doi = {10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.022}, issn = {00063207}, journal = {Biological Conservation}, keywords = {biodiversity, bushmeat, commons, conflict, conservation, fences, humanwildlife, hunting, introduced, invasive, of, poaching, predators, processes, species, the, threatening, tragedy}, month = {November}, posted-at = {2008-12-08 16:20:29}, priority = {2}, title = {Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes?}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.022}, year = {2008} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:3757240 L3 - citeulike-article-id:3757240 N2 - Fencing for conservation is an acknowledgement that we are failing to successfully coexist with and, ultimately, conserve biodiversity. Fences arose during the Neolithic revolution to demarcate resource-rich areas (food sources) and exclude threats (intruders). Fencing for conservation can be viewed as fulfilling a similar function. The aims of this paper were to identify when fencing can and is used to conserve biodiversity; highlight the costs and benefits of fencing for conservation; and make recommendations to ensure appropriate use of fencing for conservation in the future. The IUCN identifies ten major threatening processes and the impacts of eight of these can be mitigated via the use of fencing, however avoiding human–animal conflict and reducing the impact of introduced predators are the two most common uses. Fences implemented to achieve a conservation benefit are not necessarily physical barriers, but can also include ‘metaphorical’ fences of sound, smoke and smell, or even actual islands. Fences provide defined units for managers and separate biodiversity from threatening processes including human persecution, invasive species and disease. Conversely, they are costly to build and maintain; they have ecological costs through blocking migration routes, restriction of biodiversity range use which may result in overabundance, inbreeding and isolation; restriction of evolutionary potential; management; amenity and ethical costs. Despite these problems, fencing for conservation is likely to become increasingly utilized as biodiversity becomes increasingly threatened and methods of ameliorating threats lag behind. In the long-term, fences may ultimately prove to be as much a threat to biodiversity as the threats they are meant to exclude, and a new research agenda should arise to ensure that conservation fences do not remain a permanent part of the landscape. JF - Biological Conservation SN - 00063207 TI - Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? KW - biodiversity KW - bushmeat KW - commons KW - conflict KW - conservation KW - fences KW - humanwildlife KW - hunting KW - introduced KW - invasive KW - of KW - poaching KW - predators KW - processes KW - species KW - the KW - threatening KW - tragedy AU - Hayward, M AU - Kerley, G PY - 2008/11/20/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.022 ER -