在希腊北部,狗而不是狼最有可能导致一名英国游客死亡

IF 1.2 Q3 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Y. Iliopoulos, C. Astaras, Eirini Chatzimichail
{"title":"在希腊北部,狗而不是狼最有可能导致一名英国游客死亡","authors":"Y. Iliopoulos, C. Astaras, Eirini Chatzimichail","doi":"10.3897/natureconservation.50.81915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and expanded across many parts of the world thanks to conservation efforts, including improved legal status and restoration of their prey. Concurrently, public concerns regarding the risk of wolf attacks on humans and livestock are increasing as wolves occupy human-dominated landscapes. We examined a unique case in Europe allegedly involving wolves in the death of a female British tourist, aged 64, in northern Greece in September 2017. This incident received extensive international media attention and yet many fundamental details of the case area are lacking, including whether local livestock guarding dogs played a role. To assist in resolving the case, we conducted an extensive literature review which documented 13 criteria linked to the risk of either a wolf and/or a dog attacking a human. We also conducted a camera trap survey (October to December 2017) soon after the fatal attack to calculate the activity overlap among humans, dogs and wolves. Sufficient data were available for assessing 11 of the 13 criteria. For the remaining two, the required data were either not analysed (i.e. canid DNA collected from the attack site), not appropriately collected (i.e. DNA from the mouths of suspected dogs) or were collected, but misinterpreted (i.e. the post-consumption patterns of the victim’s corpse). Via this combination of evidence, we conclude that this case involved a fatal dog attack. This assertion is supported by evidence such as the: a) high dog-human activity overlap at the attack site which peaked during the attack time as opposed to near zero wolf-human activity overlap at the same time, b) presence of a large pack of unsupervised dogs, c) high ratio of male dogs in the dog pack, d) close vicinity of the attack site to dog owner’s property and e) previous documented aggression of these dogs towards humans. The consumption patterns, time scale and location of the victim’s remains indicate a posthumous consumption of the corpse possibly by the same dogs and/or by wild scavengers including wolves. A multidisciplinary approach, such as this one, in the assessment of putative wildlife attacks on humans can reduce misidentifications of the responsible species by forensic authorities and, therefore, prevent unfounded decrease in public tolerance for large carnivores.","PeriodicalId":54166,"journal":{"name":"Nature Conservation Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dogs, not wolves, most likely to have caused the death of a British tourist in northern Greece\",\"authors\":\"Y. Iliopoulos, C. Astaras, Eirini Chatzimichail\",\"doi\":\"10.3897/natureconservation.50.81915\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and expanded across many parts of the world thanks to conservation efforts, including improved legal status and restoration of their prey. Concurrently, public concerns regarding the risk of wolf attacks on humans and livestock are increasing as wolves occupy human-dominated landscapes. We examined a unique case in Europe allegedly involving wolves in the death of a female British tourist, aged 64, in northern Greece in September 2017. This incident received extensive international media attention and yet many fundamental details of the case area are lacking, including whether local livestock guarding dogs played a role. To assist in resolving the case, we conducted an extensive literature review which documented 13 criteria linked to the risk of either a wolf and/or a dog attacking a human. We also conducted a camera trap survey (October to December 2017) soon after the fatal attack to calculate the activity overlap among humans, dogs and wolves. Sufficient data were available for assessing 11 of the 13 criteria. For the remaining two, the required data were either not analysed (i.e. canid DNA collected from the attack site), not appropriately collected (i.e. DNA from the mouths of suspected dogs) or were collected, but misinterpreted (i.e. the post-consumption patterns of the victim’s corpse). Via this combination of evidence, we conclude that this case involved a fatal dog attack. This assertion is supported by evidence such as the: a) high dog-human activity overlap at the attack site which peaked during the attack time as opposed to near zero wolf-human activity overlap at the same time, b) presence of a large pack of unsupervised dogs, c) high ratio of male dogs in the dog pack, d) close vicinity of the attack site to dog owner’s property and e) previous documented aggression of these dogs towards humans. The consumption patterns, time scale and location of the victim’s remains indicate a posthumous consumption of the corpse possibly by the same dogs and/or by wild scavengers including wolves. A multidisciplinary approach, such as this one, in the assessment of putative wildlife attacks on humans can reduce misidentifications of the responsible species by forensic authorities and, therefore, prevent unfounded decrease in public tolerance for large carnivores.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Conservation Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Conservation Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.50.81915\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Conservation Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.50.81915","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

由于保护工作的努力,包括法律地位的提高和猎物的恢复,狼(Canis lupus)的数量在世界许多地方已经恢复和扩大。与此同时,由于狼占据了人类主导的景观,公众对狼袭击人类和牲畜的风险的担忧也在增加。我们研究了欧洲的一个独特案例,据称2017年9月,一名64岁的英国女游客在希腊北部被狼杀死。这一事件引起了国际媒体的广泛关注,但缺乏关于病例地区的许多基本细节,包括当地的家畜护卫犬是否发挥了作用。为了协助解决该案件,我们进行了广泛的文献回顾,记录了13个与狼和/或狗袭击人类风险相关的标准。在致命袭击发生后不久,我们还进行了一次相机陷阱调查(2017年10月至12月),以计算人类、狗和狼之间的活动重叠。有足够的数据可用于评估13项标准中的11项。对于剩下的两个,所需的数据要么没有被分析(即从袭击地点收集的犬科动物DNA),要么没有被适当收集(即从疑似狗的嘴里收集的DNA),要么被收集,但被误解了(即受害者尸体的食用后模式)。综合这些证据,我们得出结论,这起案件涉及一起致命的狗咬人事件。这一论断得到了以下证据的支持:a)在攻击地点,狗与人的活动高度重叠,在攻击时间达到顶峰,而与此同时,狼与人的活动重叠几乎为零;b)存在一大群无人监管的狗;c)狗群中雄性狗的比例很高;d)攻击地点离狗主人的财产很近;e)以前有记录的这些狗对人类的攻击行为。死者尸体的食用方式,时间范围和位置表明死者死后可能被同一只狗和/或包括狼在内的野生食腐动物食用。在评估假定的野生动物对人类的袭击时,采用诸如此类的多学科方法可以减少法医当局对责任物种的错误识别,从而防止公众对大型食肉动物的容忍度毫无根据地下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dogs, not wolves, most likely to have caused the death of a British tourist in northern Greece
Wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and expanded across many parts of the world thanks to conservation efforts, including improved legal status and restoration of their prey. Concurrently, public concerns regarding the risk of wolf attacks on humans and livestock are increasing as wolves occupy human-dominated landscapes. We examined a unique case in Europe allegedly involving wolves in the death of a female British tourist, aged 64, in northern Greece in September 2017. This incident received extensive international media attention and yet many fundamental details of the case area are lacking, including whether local livestock guarding dogs played a role. To assist in resolving the case, we conducted an extensive literature review which documented 13 criteria linked to the risk of either a wolf and/or a dog attacking a human. We also conducted a camera trap survey (October to December 2017) soon after the fatal attack to calculate the activity overlap among humans, dogs and wolves. Sufficient data were available for assessing 11 of the 13 criteria. For the remaining two, the required data were either not analysed (i.e. canid DNA collected from the attack site), not appropriately collected (i.e. DNA from the mouths of suspected dogs) or were collected, but misinterpreted (i.e. the post-consumption patterns of the victim’s corpse). Via this combination of evidence, we conclude that this case involved a fatal dog attack. This assertion is supported by evidence such as the: a) high dog-human activity overlap at the attack site which peaked during the attack time as opposed to near zero wolf-human activity overlap at the same time, b) presence of a large pack of unsupervised dogs, c) high ratio of male dogs in the dog pack, d) close vicinity of the attack site to dog owner’s property and e) previous documented aggression of these dogs towards humans. The consumption patterns, time scale and location of the victim’s remains indicate a posthumous consumption of the corpse possibly by the same dogs and/or by wild scavengers including wolves. A multidisciplinary approach, such as this one, in the assessment of putative wildlife attacks on humans can reduce misidentifications of the responsible species by forensic authorities and, therefore, prevent unfounded decrease in public tolerance for large carnivores.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Conservation Research
Nature Conservation Research BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
34
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信