Why wild herbivores raid crops: Alternative hypotheses and their differential implications for the mitigation of human- wildlife conflict.

Abstract

The devouring of crops by wild herbivores is a major issue in human-wildlife conflict. Although many studies identify the conflict, attempt to estimate the extent of economic loss and its consequences, and suggest some mitigation measures, many fundamental issues remain unaddressed. A number of speculations about the root causes behind the problem have been made, but they have not been treated and tested as alternative hypotheses. In this article, (a) we make a list of alternative hypotheses collected from a wide variety of sources; (b) we evaluate their plausibility, logical integrity and compatibility with existing data; (c) we suggest differential testable predictions; and (d) we discuss their differential implications for mitigation measures. It is important to identify the specific causes of the conflict because the efficacy of mitigation measures crucially depends on the predominant underlying cause. Measures applied without a good understanding of the causal factors might turn out to be ineffective and even counterproductive. Substantial research needs to be focused on differentially testing the predictions of the alternative hypotheses to be able to handle the problem and promote healthy coexistence of wildlife with indigenous people. Although our perceptions of the problem and illustrative examples are in the Indian wildlife context, some of the emerging outcomes will have global importance.