Data from: Human-wildlife coexistence needs more evidence-based interventions to reduce the losses of crops, livestock, and fishery catches

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 out 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.

基于证据的干预措施（evidence-based interventions）旨在减少野生动物造成的损失，是人兽共存的关键所在。缺乏对研究努力和证据的系统性总结，使得研究人员、管理者和政策制定者难以优先选择干预措施进行评估与实施。在此，我们汇编了全球范围内针对陆生食肉动物、大象、农田鸟类及海洋动物群导致的农作物、牲畜和渔业渔获损失的非致命性技术干预措施（nonlethal technical interventions）的实验案例研究。随后，我们按感官刺激类型与目标动物对研究投入及干预措施的效果展开总结。研究发现：(i)纳入本研究的88项干预措施中，54项具有统计上有效的证据，其中仅39%（21/54）经过三次以上实验的评估；(ii)物理、声音、化学及光（或视觉）类干预措施数量最多，且效果差异显著；(iii)农田鸟类、海鸟与鲸类是研究最集中的动物类群，而针对大象的实验寥寥无几；(iv)针对海洋动物群的干预措施通常对渔业目标渔获量无影响。综合与应用：我们的结果表明，需集体发力进一步评估采用各类感官刺激的干预措施，并启动激励计划推动干预措施落地，尤其是与海洋动物群保护相关的措施。本综合分析可为利益相关者应对《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》目标4中概述的负面人兽互动提供助力。