Human-raptor conflict in rural settlements of Colombia

Autoři: Juan Sebastián Restrepo-Cardona aff001;  María Ángela Echeverry-Galvis aff001;  Diana Lucia Maya aff003;  Félix Hernán Vargas aff002;  Omar Tapasco aff004;  Luis Miguel Renjifo aff003
Působiště autorů: Programa de Maestría en Conservación y Uso de Biodiversidad, Facultad de Estudios Ambientales y Rurales, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia aff001;  The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, United States of America aff002;  Departamento de Ecología y Territorio, Facultad de Estudios Ambientales y Rurales, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia aff003;  Departamento de Matemáticas, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Caldas, Manizales, Colombia aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article


In human-transformed landscapes, predators may feed on domesticated animals, and thus affect human well-being, creating negative perceptions and leading to conflict with people that can result in the persecution of the predator. We studied the factors that influence the perception of the Black-and-chestnut Eagle (Spizaetus isidori) in four rural Andean communities in Colombia and compiled historical and recent evidence on the persecution and other causes of mortality of this species in the country. We applied 267 questionnaires and conducted 16 interviews with local inhabitants, via visits to homes and schools in the surroundings of S. isidori nests. The perception of S. isidori by the inhabitants was largely negative and influenced by different socio-demographic factors such as gender, chicken (Gallus gallus) ownership, and chicken management. The records we obtained indicate that 47 eagles were shot, 16 were captured (three for illegal trafficking) and two were electrocuted on high-tension wires. The persecution of S. isidori occurs as retaliation or as a preventative measure against chicken predation, and is a significant cause of mortality of this species in Colombia. Effective conservation planning for S. isidori in Colombia needs to go further than the protected areas system, and include a socioecological perspective in conservation practices applied at landscapes scales that are dominated by people. Education programs and socioecological research, along with participatory work in local communities are key to the conservation of S. isidori in breeding territories. This approach can also prevent conflict over food resources—G. gallus and other poultry—that are shared by humans and S. isidori in rural landscapes.

Klíčová slova:

Colombia – Conservation science – Eagles – Ecosystems – Chicken models – Chickens – Predation – Schools


1. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. Global consequences of land use. Science. 2005; 309:570–574. doi: 10.1126/science.1111772 16040698

2. Potapov P, Hansen MC, Laestadius L, Turubanova S, Yaroshenko A, Thies C, et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Science Advances. 2017; 3:e1600821. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600821 28097216

3. Azevedo FCC. Food habits and livestock depredation of sympatric jaguars and pumas in the Iguacu National Park area, South Brazil. Biotropica. 2008; 40:494–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00404.x

4. Murgatroyd M, Avery G, Underhill LG, Amar A. Adaptability of a specialist predator: the effects of land use on diet diversification and breeding performance of Verreaux’s eagles. Journal of Avian Biology. 2016; 47:001–012. doi: 10.5061/dryad.h5vb2

5. Restrepo-Cardona JS, Márquez C, Echeverry-Galvis MÁ, Vargas FH, Sánchez-Bellaizá DM, & Renjifo LM. Deforestation may trigger Black-and-chesnut Eagle (Spizaetus isidori) predation on domestic fowl. Tropical Conservation Science. 2019; 12:1–10. doi: 10.1177/1940082919831838

6. McPherson SC, Brown M, Downs CT. Diet of the Crowned Eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) in an urban landscape: potential for human-wildlife conflict? Urban Ecosystems. 2015; 19:383–396. doi: 10.1007/s11252-015-0500-6

7. Khan U, Lovari S, Al, S, Ferretti F. Predator, prey and humans in a mountainous area: loss of biological diversity leads to trouble. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2018; 27:2795–2813. doi: 10.1007/s10531-018-1570-6

8. Thirgood S, Woodroffe R, Rabinowitz A. The impact of human-wildlife conflicts on human lives and livelihoods. In: Woodroffe S, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A, editors. People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 13–26.

9. Inskip C, Zimmermann A. Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns & priorities worldwide. Oryx. 2009; 43: 1–17. doi: 10.1017/S003060530899030X

10. Margalida A, Campión D, Donázar JA. Vultures vs livestock: conservation relationships in an emerging conflict between humans and wildlife. Oryx. 2014; 48:172–176. doi: 10.1017/S0030605312000889

11. Sarasola JH, Grande JM. Bechard MJ. Conservation status of Neotropical raptors. In: Sarasola JH, Grande JM, Negro JJ, editors. Birds of Prey: Biology and Conservation in the XXI Century. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2018. p. 373–394.

12. Howell TR, Cade TJ. The birds of Guadalupe Island in 1953. Condor. 1953; 56:283–294. doi: 10.2307/1364852

13. Greenway JC. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world. New York: Dover Publications; 1967.

14. Birdlife International. Caracara lutosa. 2018a [cited 2018 Feb 28]. Available from:

15. Trinca CT, Ferrari SF, Lees AC. Curiosity killed the bird: arbitrary hunting of Harpy Eagles Harpia harpyja on an agricultural frontier in southern Brazilian Amazonia. Cotinga. 2008; 30:12–15.

16. Muñiz-López R. Harpy Eagle (Harpia harpyja) mortality in Ecuador. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment. 2017; 52:81–85. doi: 10.1080/01650521.2016.1276716

17. Aguiar-Silva FH, Sanaiotti TM, Luz BB. Food habits of the Harpy Eagle, a top predator from the Amazonian rainforest canopy. Journal of Raptor Research. 2014; 48:24–35. doi: 10.3356/JRR-13-00017.1

18. Miranda E, Campbell-Thompson E, Muela A, Vargas FH. Sex and breeding status affect prey composition of Harpy Eagles Harpia harpyja. Journal of Ornithology. 2017; 159:141–150. doi: 10.1007/s10336-017-1482-3

19. Sarasola JH, Maceda JJ. Past and current evidence of persecution of the endangered Crowned Eagle Harpyhaliaetus coronatus in Argentina. Oryx. 2006; 40:347–350. doi: 10.1017/S0030605306001013

20. Sarasola JH, Santillan MA, Galmes MA. Crowned eagles rarely prey on livestock in central Argentina: persecution is not justified. Endangered Species Research. 2010; 11:207–213. doi: 10.3354/esr00280

21. Marchini S., Macdonald D. Mind over matter: Perceptions behind the impact of jaguars on human livelihoods. Biological Conservation. 2018; 244: 230–237. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.001

22. Treves A, Andriamampianina L, Didier K, Gibson J, Plumptre A, Wilkie D., et al. A simple, cost-effective method for involving stakeholders in spatial assessments of threats to biodiversity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 2006; 11:43–54. doi: 10.1080/10871200500470993

23. Pooley S, Barua M, Beinart W, Dickman A, Holmes G, Lorimer J, et al. An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations. Conservation Biology. 2017; 31:513–23. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12859 27783450

24. Bennett NJ. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology. 2016; 30:582–592. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12681 26801337

25. Bennett NJ, Roth D, Klain SC, Chan K, Christie P, Clark DA, et al. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation. 2017; 205:93–108. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006

26. Cailly-Arnulphi VB, Lambertucci SA, Borghi CE. Education can improve the negative perception of a threatened long-lived scavenging bird, the Andean condor. PLoS ONE 2017; 12: e0185278. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185278 28950019

27. Cortés-Avizanda A, Martín-López B, Ceballos O, Pereira HM. Stakeholders perceptions of the endangered Egyptian vulture: insights for conservation. Biological Conservation. 2018; 218:173–180. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.09.028

28. Enríquez PL, Mikkola H. Creencias populares sobre los búhos en Centroamérica y África: un estudio comparativo. Quercus. 1998; 150:22–25.

29. Sunderland T, Achdiawan R, Angelsen A, Babigumira R, Ickowitz A, Paumgarten F, et al. Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use: a global comparative study. World Development. 2014; 64:S56–S66. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.003

30. White J, Kemmelmeier M, Bassett S, Smith J. Human perceptions of an avian predator in an urban ecosystem: close proximity to nests increases fondness among local residents. Urban Ecosystems. 2018; 271–280. doi: 10.1007/s11252-017-0713-y

31. Bp Allen, Loomis JB. Deriving values for the ecological support function of wildlife: an indirect valuation approach. Ecological Economics. 2006; 56:49–57. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.008

32. Donázar JA, Cortés-Avizanda A, Fargallo JA, Margalida A, Moleón M, Morales-Reyes Z, et al. Roles of raptors in a changing world: from flagships to providers of key ecosystem services. Ardeola. 2016; 63:181–234. doi: 10.13157/arla.63.1.2016.rp8

33. Morales-Reyes Z, Martín-López B, Moleón M, Mateo-Tomás P, Botella F, Margalida A, et al. Farmer perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by scavengers: what, who and to whom. Conservation Letters, 2018; 11:1–11. doi: 10.1111/conl.12392

34. Ferguson-Lees J, Christie D. Raptors of the world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2001.

35. Renjifo LM, Gómez MF, Velázquez-Tibatá J, Amaya-Villareal AM, Kattan GH, Amaya-Espinel JD, et al. Libro rojo de aves de Colombia, Vol. I: Bosques húmedos de los Andes y la costa pacífica. Bogotá: Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana e Instituto Alexander von Humboldt; 2014.

36. Birdlife International. Species factsheet: Spizaetus isidori. 2018b [cited 2018 Feb 15]. Available from:

37. Lehmann FC. Contribuciones al estudio de la fauna de Colombia XIV. Nuevas observaciones sobre Oroaetus isidori (Des murs). Novedades Colombianas. 1959; 1:169–195.

38. Córdoba-Córdoba S, Echeverry-Galvis MA, Estela F. Nuevos registros de distribución para el Águila Crestada (Spizaetus isidori) y el Águila Iguanera (S. tyrannus) para Colombia, con anotaciones para su identificación. Ornitología Colombiana. 2008; 7:6–74.

39. Echeverry-Galvis MA, Zuluaga S, Soler-Tovar D. Spizaetus isidori. In: Renjifo LM, Gómez MF, Velásquez-Tibatá J, Amaya-Villarreal AM, Kattan GH, Amaya-Espinel JD, Burbano-Girón J, editors. Libro rojo de aves de Colombia, Vol. I: bosques húmedos de los Andes y la costa Pacífica. Bogotá: Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana e Instituto Alexander von Humboldt; 2014. p. 104–107.

40. Zuluaga S, Echeverry-Galvis MÁ. Domestic fowl in the diet of the Black-and-chestnut Eagle (Spizaetus isidori) in the Eastern Andes of Colombia: a potential conflict with humans? Ornitología Neotropical. 2016; 27:113–120.

41. Osorio FE. Jóvenes rurales y acción colectiva en Colombia. Nómadas. 2005; 23:122–131.

42. Osorio FE. Juventudes rurales e identidades territoriales. In: Gutiérrez-Bonilla ML, Amaya JT, editors. Jóvenes, territorios y territorialidades. Bogotá: Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; 2016. p. 17–44.

43. Díaz LG, Morales MA. Análisis estadísticos de datos categóricos. Bogotá: Editorial Universidad Nacional; 2009.

44. Visauta B, Martori J. Análisis Estadístico con SPSS para Windows, Vol. II. Estadística Multivariante, Second edition. Madrid: Editorial McGraw Hill; 2003.

45. Parks MH, Christie ME, Bagares I. Gender and conservation agriculture: constraints and opportunities in the Philippines. GeoJournal. 2015; 80:61–77. doi: 10.1007/s10708-014-9523-4

46. Agarwal B. Gender and forest conservation: The impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics. 2009; 68:2785–2799. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.025

47. Yang N, Zhang E, Che M. Attitudes towards wild animal conservation: a comparative study of the Yi and Mosuo in China. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management. 2010; 6:61–67. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2010.509630

48. Castro-Díaz L, Lopez MC, Moran E. Gender-differentiated impacts of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Dam on downstream fishers in the Brazilian Amazon. Human Ecology. 2018; 46:411–422. doi: 10.1007/s10745-018-9992-z

49. Ogra MV. Gender and community-oriented wildlife conservation: views from project supervisors in India. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2012; 14:407–424. doi: 10.1007/s10668-011-9332-6

50. Peña-Mondragón JL, Castillo A, Hoogesteijn A, Martínez-Meyer E. Livestock predation by jaguars Panthera onca in south-eastern Mexico: the role of local peoples’ practices. Oryx. 2016; 51:254–262. doi: 10.1017/S0030605315001088

51. Curti M, Valdez U. Incorporating community education in the strategy for Harpy Eagle conservation in Panama. Journal of Environmental Education. 2009; 40:3–15. doi: 10.3200/JOEE.40.4.3–16

52. Murn C, Mundy P, Virani MZ, Borello WD, Holloway GJ, Thiollay JM. Using Africa’s protected area network to estimate the global population of a threatened and declining species: a case study of the Critically Endangered White-headed Vulture Trigonoceps occipitalis. Ecology and Evolution. 2016; 6:1092–1103. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1931 26941945

53. Rodríguez B, Rodríguez A, Siverio F, Siverio M. Factors affecting the spatial distribution and breeding habitat of an insular cliff-nesting raptor community. Current Zoology. 2018; 64:173–181. doi: 10.1093/cz/zox005 30402057

54. Etter A, McAlpine C, Wilson K, Phinn S, Possingham HP. Regional patterns of agricultural land use and deforestation in Colombia. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment. 2006; 114:369–386. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.013

55. Etter A, van Wyngaarden W. Patterns of landscape transformation in Colombia with emphasis in the Andean region. Ambio. 2000; 29:432–439. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-29.7.432

56. Renjifo LM, Franco-Maya AM, Amaya-Espinel JD, Kattan GH, López-Lanus B. Libro rojo de aves de Colombia. Serie Libros Rojos de Especies Amenazadas de Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt y Ministerio del Medio Ambiente; 2002.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1
Nejčtenější tento týden