Desert pastoralists’ negative and positive effects on rare wildlife in the Gobi

In arid regions of the developing world, pastoralists and livestock commonly inhabit protected areas, resulting in human–wildlife conflict. Conflict is inextricably linked to the ecological processes shaping relationships between pastoralists and native herbivores and carnivores. To elucidate relationships underpinning human–wildlife conflict, we synthesized 15 years of ecological and ethnographic data from Ikh Nart Nature Reserve in Mongolia's Gobi steppe. The density of argali (Ovis ammon), the world's largest wild sheep, at Ikh Nart was among the highest in Mongolia, yet livestock were >90% of ungulate biomass and dogs >90% of large‐carnivore biomass. For argali, pastoral activities decreased food availability, increased mortality from dog predation, and potentially increased disease risk. Isotope analyses indicated that livestock accounted for >50% of the diet of the majority of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and up to 90% of diet in 25% of sampled wolves (n = 8). Livestock composed at least 96% of ungulate prey in the single wolf pack for which we collected species‐specific prey data. Interviews with pastoralists indicated that wolves annually killed 1–4% of Ikh Nart's livestock, and pastoralists killed wolves in retribution. Pastoralists reduced wolf survival by killing them, but their livestock were an abundant food source for wolves. Consequently, wolf density appeared to be largely decoupled from argali density, and pastoralists had indirect effects on argali that could be negative if pastoralists increased wolf density (apparent competition) or positive if pastoralists decreased wolf predation (apparent facilitation). Ikh Nart's argali population was stable despite these threats, but livestock are increasingly dominant numerically and functionally relative to argali. To support both native wildlife and pastoral livelihoods, we suggest training dogs to not kill argali, community insurance against livestock losses to wolves, reintroducing key native prey species to hotspots of human–wolf conflict, and developing incentives for pastoralists to reduce livestock density.     

Defending the scientific integrity of conservation‐policy processes

Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or nongovernmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate, and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia, and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory. A perceived increase in scientific‐integrity abuses provokes concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific‐integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied and are at risk of reversal under administrations publicly hostile to evidence‐based policy. We compared recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communications from government scientists to the public, we suggest governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists’ right to speak freely in collective‐bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from nongovernmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input and transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require a substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a responsibility to engage with the public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence‐based policy and regulations in the public interest.