Reconciling livestock production and wild herbivore conservation: challenges and opportunities
Authors: R.A. Pozo, J.J. Cusack, P. Acebes, J.E. Malo, J. Traba, E.C. Iranzo, Z. Morris-Trainor, J. Minderman, N. Bunnefeld, S. Radic-Schilling, C.A. Moraga, R. Arriagada, P. Corti
Journal: Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2021)

Conflicts between the interests of livestock production and those of wild herbivore conservation are an increasing global challenge.Addressing these conflicts is hindered by a poor understanding of key underlying social and ecological drivers.In particular, there is a need to reconcile the real and perceived costs–benefits of livestock–wild herbivore interactions. This includes better understanding how these interactions vary across migration ranges and are influenced by trophic network structure.In many cases, these conflicts are perpetuated by a disconnect between livestock husbandry practices and scientific research on sustainable management.Addressing these conflicts will require the development of reliable protocols for impact assessment and the implementation of participatory processes that bring together relevant stakeholders. Increasing food security and preventing further loss of biodiversity are two of humanity's most pressing challenges. Yet, efforts to address these challenges often lead to situations of conflict between the interests of agricultural production and those of biodiversity conservation. Here, we focus on conflicts between livestock production and the conservation of wild herbivores, which have received little attention in the scientific literature. We identify four key socio-ecological challenges underlying such conflicts, which we illustrate using a range of case studies. We argue that addressing these challenges will require the implementation of co-management approaches that promote the participation of relevant stakeholders in processes of ecological monitoring, impact assessment, decision-making, and active knowledge sharing. Increasing food security and preventing further loss of biodiversity are two of humanity's most pressing challenges. Yet, efforts to address these challenges often lead to situations of conflict between the interests of agricultural production and those of biodiversity conservation. Here, we focus on conflicts between livestock production and the conservation of wild herbivores, which have received little attention in the scientific literature. We identify four key socio-ecological challenges underlying such conflicts, which we illustrate using a range of case studies. We argue that addressing these challenges will require the implementation of co-management approaches that promote the participation of relevant stakeholders in processes of ecological monitoring, impact assessment, decision-making, and active knowledge sharing. The intensification and expansion of agricultural activities to feed an ever-growing human population is among the greatest threats to biodiversity globally [1.Godfray H.C.J. et al.Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.Science. 2010; 327: 812-818Crossref PubMed Scopus (6037) Google Scholar,2.Ceballos G. et al.Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2017; 114: e6089-e6096Crossref PubMed Scopus (940) Google Scholar]. With more than 10% of the global human population currently facing food insecurity [3.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Sustainable Agriculture for Biodiversity, Biodiversity for Sustainable Agriculture. FAO, 2018Google Scholar] and an estimated 25% of wild species threatened with extinction as a result of anthropogenic drivers [4.Díaz S. et al.Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change.Science. 2019; 366eaax3100Crossref PubMed Scopus (460) Google Scholar], conflicts between the interests of crop and livestock production (hereafter, both referred to as 'agriculture') and those of wildlife conservation are becoming globally widespread [5.Kehoe L. et al.Global patterns of agricultural land-use intensity and vertebrate diversity.Divers. Distrib. 2015; 21: 1308-1318Crossref Scopus (48) Google Scholar,6.Shackelford G.E. et al.Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes: hotspots of conflict between agriculture and nature.Divers. Distrib. 2015; 21: 357-367Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar]. Such conservation conflicts pose a major threat to both human well-being and the health of natural ecosystems, emphasising an urgent need to develop and implement sustainable strategies aimed at fostering coexistence between agricultural activities and biodiversity conservation [4.Díaz S. et al.Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change.Science. 2019; 366eaax3100Crossref PubMed Scopus (460) Google Scholar,7.United Nations Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. General Assembly 70 Session. UN, 2015Google Scholar]. Livestock production currently accounts for up to 26% of the earth's terrestrial surface, representing almost 3.38 billion hectares under permanent meadows and pastures worldwide [8.Foley J.A. et al.Solutions for a cultivated planet.Nature. 2011; 478: 337-342Crossref PubMed Scopus (4101) Google Scholar]. Today, global human biomass (ca. 0.06 Gt C) and livestock (ca. 0.1 Gt C) surpass wild land mammal biomass (ca. 0.003 Gt C) [9.Bar-On Y.M. et al.The biomass distribution on Earth.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2018; 115: 6506-6511Crossref PubMed Scopus (784) Google Scholar]. The increasing demand for meat and dairy products has resulted in an estimated ~150–450% rise in the numbers of animals produced globally. While this increase has been linked to an intensification and industrialisation of livestock production, extensive grazing systems still dominate the terrestrial landscape [10.Godde C.M. et al.Grazing systems expansion and intensification: drivers, dynamics, and trade-offs.Glob. Food Sec. 2018; 16: 93-105Crossref Scopus (40) Google Scholar]. Such systems, which range from ranching to nomadic pastoralism, are associated with large, sometimes fenced, areas of land on which livestock are left to graze native vegetation. Their global expansion is recognised as a major driver of land-use change, with important implications for wildlife, whose access to wild spaces and resources continues to be impacted [1.Godfray H.C.J. et al.Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.Science. 2010; 327: 812-818Crossref PubMed Scopus (6037) Google Scholar,4.Díaz S. et al.Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change.Science. 2019; 366eaax3100Crossref PubMed Scopus (460) Google Scholar]. An important consequence of the rise in biomass and space occupied by extensive grazing systems has been an increased level of interaction between livestock and wildlife. Although these interactions can be beneficial to both livestock production and wildlife conservation, they are most often considered and framed as negative [11.Ranglack D.H. et al.Competition on the range: science vs. perception in a bison–cattle conflict in the western USA.J. Appl. Ecol. 2015; 52: 467-474Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar,12.Schieltz J.M. Rubenstein D.I. Evidence based review: positive versus negative effects of livestock grazing on wildlife. What do we really know?.Environ. Res. Lett. 2016; 11: 113003Crossref Scopus (68) Google Scholar]. This is reflected in an exponential increase in the number of studies on conflict and coexistence between agriculture and wildlife conservation in recent years [13.Nyhus P.J. Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016; 41: 143-171Crossref Scopus (203) Google Scholar]. Much of this work, however, has focused on livestock predation by wild carnivores (e.g., [14.Van Eeden L.M. et al.Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock.Conserv. Biol. 2018; 32: 26-34Crossref PubMed Scopus (128) Google Scholar,15.Redpath S.M. et al.Don't forget to look down–collaborative approaches to predator conservation.Biol. Rev. 2017; 92: 2157-2163Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar]) or crop consumption by wild herbivores [16.Gross E.M. et al.Seasonality, crop type and crop phenology influence crop damage by wildlife herbivores in Africa and Asia.Biodivers. Conserv. 2018; 27: 2029-2050Crossref Scopus (15) Google Scholar]. In contrast, conflicts centred on interactions between wild and domestic herbivores have been largely overlooked [17.Torres D.F. et al.Conflicts between humans and terrestrial vertebrates: a global review.Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2018; 11: 1-15Crossref Scopus (23) Google Scholar], despite their important implications for both biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Wild herbivores can potentially compete with livestock for resources, be vectors of diseases, and fall prey to large carnivores that may in turn be attracted to co-occurring livestock [18.du Toit J.T. et al.Managing the livestock–wildlife interface on rangelands.in: Briske D.D. Rangeland Systems. Springer, 2017: 395-425Crossref Google Scholar]. Such interactions often lead to social conflicts between the interests of different stakeholders about the extent to which wild herbivore populations should be managed or conserved [19.Riginos C. et al.Lessons on the relationship between livestock husbandry and biodiversity from the Kenya Long-term Exclosure Experiment (KLEE).Pastoralism. 2012; 2: 10Crossref Scopus (48) Google Scholar,20.Keesing F. et al.Consequences of integrating livestock and wildlife in an African savanna.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 566-573Crossref Scopus (22) Google Scholar]. These conflicts are often exacerbated by considerable amounts of uncertainty regarding the ecological, social, and economic aspects of herbivore–livestock interactions. For example, the extent to which wild herbivores and livestock compete for forage remains a matter of considerable debate [20.Keesing F. et al.Consequences of integrating livestock and wildlife in an African savanna.Nat. Sustain. 2018; 1: 566-573Crossref Scopus (22) Google Scholar,21.Berger J. et al.Globalization of the Cashmere market and the decline of large mammals in Central Asia.Conserv. Biol. 2013; 27: 679-689Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar] and the persecution of native herbivores to minimise competition is still widespread. Despite increased efforts to reconcile conservation and agricultural interests, real and perceived negative interactions between wild and domesticated herbivores continue to be an important driver of the on-going global decline of wild herbivores [22.Wrobel M.L. Redford K.H. Introduction: a review of rangeland conservation issues in an uncertain future.in: du Toit J.T. Wild Rangelands: Conserving Wildlife While Maintaining Livestock in Semi-Arid Ecosystems. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: 1-12Crossref Scopus (9) Google Scholar,23.du Toit J.T. Coexisting with cattle.Science. 2011; 333: 1710-1711Crossref PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar]. Here, we identify key challenges underlying conflicts between livestock production and wild herbivore conservation, using four contrasting case studies from South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa to highlight common themes. We put forward key concepts that tie together these different challenges and suggest holistic approaches to promoting coexistence. Resource competition and disease transmission are the two primary negative impacts that wild herbivores and livestock can have on each other [12.Schieltz J.M. Rubenstein D.I. Evidence based review: positive versus negative effects of livestock grazing on wildlife. What do we really know?.Environ. Res. Lett. 2016; 11: 113003Crossref Scopus (68) Google Scholar]. The implementation of management strategies aimed at mitigating these impacts is a major driver of conflict between proponents of wild herbivore conservation and the production of livestock [23.du Toit J.T. Coexisting with cattle.Science. 2011; 333: 1710-1711Crossref PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar,24.Ogutu J.O. et al.Large herbivore responses to water and settlements in savannas.Ecol. Monogr. 2010; 80: 241-266Crossref Scopus (48) Google Scholar]. A key challenge is the difficulty in obtaining reliable estimates of both the tangible and intangible costs and benefits of these interactions [25.Linnell J.D.C. et al.The challenges and opportunities of coexisting with wild ungulates in the human-dominated landscapes of Europe's Anthropocene.Biol. Conserv. 2020; 244: 108500Crossref Scopus (41) Google Scholar], including their objective translation into measures of economic and societal loss or gain for producers, as well as potential threats (or benefits) to populations of protected wildlife (Box 1, Box 2). This is particularly the case in rangeland systems characterised by low human intervention, vast and often dry landscapes, and harsh climatic conditions [26.Alkemade R. et al.Assessing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland ecosystems.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013; 110: 20900-20905Crossref PubMed Scopus (148) Google Scholar], where interactions occurring between wildlife and livestock left to graze extensively remain poorly understood [27.Niamir-Fuller M. et al.Co-existence of wildlife and pastoralism on extensive rangelands: competition or compatibility?.Pastoralism. 2012; 2: 8Crossref Scopus (49) Google Scholar], hindering the implementation of reliable methods to quantify potential costs and benefits (Box 3).Box 1Guanaco management and sheep production in the Chilean PatagoniaSheep (Ovis aries) farming is the primary agricultural livelihood in Patagonia [83.Pedrana J. et al.Environmental factors influencing guanaco distribution and abundance in central Patagonia, Argentina.Wildl. Res. 2019; 46: 1-11Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar], with a historical peak of 2.2 million heads in the 1950s [84.Iranzo E.C. et al.Niche segregation between wild and domestic herbivores in Chilean Patagonia.PLoS One. 2013; 8e59326Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. The expansion of sheep farming activities into extensive steppe rangelands has led to increased interactions with the guanaco (Lama guanicoe), the largest native herbivore in the area. After experiencing steady declines across the region during the second half of the 20th century due to poaching and intense resource competition with domestic herbivores [85.Baldi R. et al.High potential for competition between guanacos and sheep in Patagonia.J. Wildl. Manag. 2004; 68: 924-938Crossref Scopus (120) Google Scholar,86.Moraga C.A. et al.Effects of livestock on guanaco Lama guanicoe density, movements and habitat selection in a forest–grassland mosaic in Tierra del Fuego, Chile.Oryx. 2015; 49: 30-41Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar], guanaco populations have recently shown signs of recovery in Chilean Patagonia [87.Zubillaga M. et al.Bayesian inference on the effect of density dependence and weather on a guanaco population from Chile.PLoS One. 2014; 9e115307Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. However, overgrazing combined with increased overlap between sheep farming activities and the distribution of guanacos, has rekindled a social conflict due to different stakeholder views on the potential for competition between the two species and the effectiveness of wildlife management. In particular, local producers are concerned that guanacos reduce forage availability and consume crops grown for sheep [33.Hernández F. et al.Rancher perspectives of a livestock-wildlife conflict in Southern Chile.Rangelands. 2017; 39: 56-63Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar,88.Iranzo E.C. et al.¿Conflicto Real o Conflicto Percibido? Coexistencia Guanaco-Ganadería en el Entorno de un Espacio Natural Protegido. Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología, 2017Google Scholar]. Despite high diet similarity and niche overlap, suggesting competition can occur [30.Traba J. et al.Realised niche changes in a native herbivore assemblage associated with the presence of livestock.Oikos. 2017; 126: 1400-1409Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar,84.Iranzo E.C. et al.Niche segregation between wild and domestic herbivores in Chilean Patagonia.PLoS One. 2013; 8e59326Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar,89.Pontigo F. et al.Midsummer trophic overlap between guanaco and sheep in Patagonian rangelands.Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2020; 73: 394-402Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar], there is little evidence indicating that guanacos have a significant impact on sheep farming [30.Traba J. et al.Realised niche changes in a native herbivore assemblage associated with the presence of livestock.Oikos. 2017; 126: 1400-1409Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar,89.Pontigo F. et al.Midsummer trophic overlap between guanaco and sheep in Patagonian rangelands.Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2020; 73: 394-402Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar]. In 2000, the Chilean government authorised the implementation of a guanaco commercial harvest program that aimed to sustainably regulate guanaco population density, as well as contribute with new products for the local economy [90.Soto N. et al.Conservación y manejo del guanaco en Magallanes, Chile: desde la recuperación poblacional a la revalorización mediante cosecha.GECS News. 2018; 7: 35-47Google Scholar]. However, lack of consistent population and decision-making data has made it difficult to assess the potential success of the guanaco management plan, both from conflict-resolution and biodiversity perspectives [33.Hernández F. et al.Rancher perspectives of a livestock-wildlife conflict in Southern Chile.Rangelands. 2017; 39: 56-63Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar]. In addition, the presence of guanacos is associated with the occurrence of natural predators such as pumas (Puma concolor), which locally are seen as a threat because they predate on sheep [91.Elbroch L.M. Wittmer H.U. The effects of puma prey selection and specialization on less abundant prey in Patagonia.J. Mammal. 2013; 94: 259-268Crossref Scopus (55) Google Scholar]. Overall, this case study demonstrates the value of collecting reliable evidence regarding levels of resource competition and interspecific interactions, lack of which undermines attempts at implementing wildlife control programs and improved husbandry practices (Figure 1).Box 2African buffalo conservation and livestock production in northern BotswanaFoot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed mammals, including both wild and domestic bovids. Across the African continent, the economic impact of FMD has been estimated at between 1 and 5 billion USD, including both production losses and vaccination costs [92.Knight-Jones T.J.D. Rushton J. The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease–What are they, how big are they and where do they occur?.Prev. Vet. Med. 2013; 112: 161-173Crossref PubMed Scopus (394) Google Scholar]. The African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), a species listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN Red List, is considered to be the main wild host of the FMD virus [93.Brito B.P. et al.Transmission of foot-and-mouth disease SAT2 viruses at the wildlife–livestock interface of two major transfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa.Front. Microbiol. 2016; 7: 528Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar], a status that has prompted intense management of the species in range countries reliant on livestock production for both national and international markets. In Botswana, management has involved the establishment of multiple cordon fences (so called 'buffalo fences') and disease-free zones, as well as costly vaccination programs for the subsidized production of industrialised beef [94.Kock R. et al.Livestock and buffalo (Syncerus caffer) interfaces in Africa: ecology of disease transmission and implications for conservation and development.in: Melletti M. Burton J. Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour of Wild Cattle Implication for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, 2014: 431-445Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar]. Although these measures have significantly reduced the frequency of FMD transmission and outbreaks as a result of buffalo–cattle interactions, they have had a considerable impact on the migratory behaviour of other wild species, such as blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), red hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama), and zebra (Equus quagga). Furthermore, such measures have failed to address the concerns of local subsistence producers, for which the risk of FMD transmission from buffalo was found to be a significant factor explaining negative attitudes and perceptions of wildlife for 74% of households surveyed in the Okavango delta [95.Mogomotsi P.K. et al.Factors influencing community participation in wildlife conservation.Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2020; 25: 1-15Crossref Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. Despite the potential for FMD and its management to affect both wild and domestic herbivores, important knowledge gaps remain, including the frequency and direction of transmission, the host or carrier status of other herbivore species of conservation concern (e.g., the African elephant Loxodonta africana), and the contribution of international herbivore movements to disease dynamics [93.Brito B.P. et al.Transmission of foot-and-mouth disease SAT2 viruses at the wildlife–livestock interface of two major transfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa.Front. Microbiol. 2016; 7: 528Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar, 94.Kock R. et al.Livestock and buffalo (Syncerus caffer) interfaces in Africa: ecology of disease transmission and implications for conservation and development.in: Melletti M. Burton J. Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour of Wild Cattle Implication for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, 2014: 431-445Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar, 95.Mogomotsi P.K. et al.Factors influencing community participation in wildlife conservation.Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2020; 25: 1-15Crossref Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. Such uncertainties highlight the challenges of managing disease transmission between domestic and migratory wild herbivores (Figure 1).Box 3Wild herbivore conservation and cashmere goat production in MongoliaPastoralism remains the dominant form of land-use in Mongolia today, with half of the country being dependent on livestock production [96.United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report Mongolia 2003 - Urban-Rural Disparities in Mongolia. UNDP, 2003Google Scholar]. Mongolian rangelands are also particularly important for the conservation of large herbivores [e.g., Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa), black tailed gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), Mongolian saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica mongolica)] as well as for several species of large protected carnivores [e.g., grey wolf (Canis lupus), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), and snow leopards (Panthera uncia)] [97.Reading R.P. et al.Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: implications for protected area development and pastoral uses.in: USDA Forest Service Proceedings. 2006: 1-17Google Scholar]. In recent decades, numbers of cashmere-producing goats have undergone a fivefold increase as herders have responded to strong international market demands for cashmere fibre [21.Berger J. et al.Globalization of the Cashmere market and the decline of large mammals in Central Asia.Conserv. Biol. 2013; 27: 679-689Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar]. Coupled with the impacts of a warming climate, this increase has resulted in overgrazed and degraded pastures that are less able to support both livestock and wildlife [21.Berger J. et al.Globalization of the Cashmere market and the decline of large mammals in Central Asia.Conserv. Biol. 2013; 27: 679-689Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar,98.Hilker T. et al.Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing.Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014; 20: 418-428Crossref PubMed Scopus (159) Google Scholar]. In this context, the potential for dietary overlap and competition between wild herbivores and livestock has presented significant challenges for rangeland management [99.Wingard G.J. et al.Argali food habits and dietary overlap with domestic livestock in Ikh Nart Nature Reserve, Mongolia.J. Arid Environ. 2011; 75: 138-145Crossref Scopus (31) Google Scholar]. In addition, there are also concerns for large carnivores, such as wolves and snow leopards, which are at risk from reduced populations of wild prey and are being hunted for potential sporadic predation on livestock [21.Berger J. et al.Globalization of the Cashmere market and the decline of large mammals in Central Asia.Conserv. Biol. 2013; 27: 679-689Crossref PubMed Scopus (93) Google Scholar]. This case study illustrates how economic incentives from global markets can influence the transition from traditional livestock practices to more intensive forms of livestock production, thereby impacting rangeland ecosystems and exacerbating perceptions of resource competition between wild and domestic herbivores. In addition, it highlights the vulnerability of livestock to predation by internationally protected carnivores as a result of decreasing wild prey populations (Figure 1). Sheep (Ovis aries) farming is the primary agricultural livelihood in Patagonia [83.Pedrana J. et al.Environmental factors influencing guanaco distribution and abundance in central Patagonia, Argentina.Wildl. Res. 2019; 46: 1-11Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar], with a historical peak of 2.2 million heads in the 1950s [84.Iranzo E.C. et al.Niche segregation between wild and domestic herbivores in Chilean Patagonia.PLoS One. 2013; 8e59326Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. The expansion of sheep farming activities into extensive steppe rangelands has led to increased interactions with the guanaco (Lama guanicoe), the largest native herbivore in the area. After experiencing steady declines across the region during the second half of the 20th century due to poaching and intense resource competition with domestic herbivores [85.Baldi R. et al.High potential for competition between guanacos and sheep in Patagonia.J. Wildl. Manag. 2004; 68: 924-938Crossref Scopus (120) Google Scholar,86.Moraga C.A. et al.Effects of livestock on guanaco Lama guanicoe density, movements and habitat selection in a forest–grassland mosaic in Tierra del Fuego, Chile.Oryx. 2015; 49: 30-41Crossref Scopus (16) Google Scholar], guanaco populations have recently shown signs of recovery in Chilean Patagonia [87.Zubillaga M. et al.Bayesian inference on the effect of density dependence and weather on a guanaco population from Chile.PLoS One. 2014; 9e115307Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. However, overgrazing combined with increased overlap between sheep farming activities and the distribution of guanacos, has rekindled a social conflict due to different stakeholder views on the potential for competition between the two species and the effectiveness of wildlife management. In particular, local producers are concerned that guanacos reduce forage availability and consume crops grown for sheep [33.Hernández F. et al.Rancher perspectives of a livestock-wildlife conflict in Southern Chile.Rangelands. 2017; 39: 56-63Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar,88.Iranzo E.C. et al.¿Conflicto Real o Conflicto Percibido? Coexistencia Guanaco-Ganadería en el Entorno de un Espacio Natural Protegido. Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología, 2017Google Scholar]. Despite high diet similarity and niche overlap, suggesting competition can occur [30.Traba J. et al.Realised niche changes in a native herbivore assemblage associated with the presence of livestock.Oikos. 2017; 126: 1400-1409Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar,84.Iranzo E.C. et al.Niche segregation between wild and domestic herbivores in Chilean Patagonia.PLoS One. 2013; 8e59326Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar,89.Pontigo F. et al.Midsummer trophic overlap between guanaco and sheep in Patagonian rangelands.Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2020; 73: 394-402Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar], there is little evidence indicating that guanacos have a significant impact on sheep farming [30.Traba J. et al.Realised niche changes in a native herbivore assemblage associated with the presence of livestock.Oikos. 2017; 126: 1400-1409Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar,89.Pontigo F. et al.Midsummer trophic overlap between guanaco and sheep in Patagonian rangelands.Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2020; 73: 394-402Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar]. In 2000, the Chilean government authorised the implementation of a guanaco commercial harvest program that aimed to sustainably regulate guanaco population density, as well as contribute with new products for the local economy [90.Soto N. et al.Conservación y manejo del guanaco en Magallanes, Chile: desde la recuperación poblacional a la revalorización mediante cosecha.GECS News. 2018; 7: 35-47Google Scholar]. However, lack of consistent population and decision-making data has made it difficult to assess the potential success of the guanaco management plan, both from conflict-resolution and biodiversity perspectives [33.Hernández F. et al.Rancher perspectives of a livestock-wildlife conflict in Southern Chile.Rangelands. 2017; 39: 56-63Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar]. In addition, the presence of guanacos is associated with the occurrence of natural predators such as pumas (Puma concolor), which locally are seen as a threat because they predate on sheep [91.Elbroch L.M. Wittmer H.U. The effects of puma prey selection and specialization on less abundant prey in Patagonia.J. Mammal. 2013; 94: 259-268Crossref Scopus (55) Google Scholar]. Overall, this case study demonstrates the value of collecting reliable evidence regarding levels of resource competition and interspecific interactions, lack of which undermines attempts at implementing wildlife control programs and improved husbandry practices (Figure 1). Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed mammals, including both wild and domestic bovids. Across the African continent, the economic im