Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe
Unravelling the Scientific Debate on How to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization in Europe
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fevo.2019.00175
复制
发表时间：
2019-05-21
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Mukherjee, Nibedita
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Donfrancesco, Valerio;Ciucci, Paolo;Mukherjee, Nibedita
人类杂交被广泛认为是对生物多样性保护的威胁。然而，迄今为止，相关的政策和管理干预措施尚未解决，而且非常复杂。虽然这是由于这个问题的内在复杂性，我们在此假设，缺乏一致的管理目标和方法，在科学界，可能解释了缺乏社会意识的这一现象，并没有有效的压力，决策者。通过关注欧洲的狼x狗杂交，我们在此（a）评估科学界关于狼x狗杂交问题的最新发展状况，（B）评估不同观点的概念基础，（c）提供一个旨在减少分歧的概念框架。我们采用了德尔菲技术，包括三轮迭代调查，以选定的样本的专家谁发表在Web of Science上市期刊，在过去的10年里，狼x狗杂交和相关主题。达成的共识是，混合个体应始终根据其遗传特征来定义，并且混合的参考阈值（即，Q值）应被正式采用，以识别它们。为了防止杂交，专家们同意采取预防性的、积极的措施，当涉及到小的和正在恢复的狼种群时，采取反应性的干预措施。总的来说，随着所处理的问题越来越实际，包括采用致命手段，专家们的共识逐渐减弱。我们对这一趋势提出了三个不相互排斥的解释：（i）在解决实际问题时，越来越多的价值观点出现，特别是在不同学科背景的专家之间（例如，生态学家，遗传学家）;（ii）一些专家倾向于避免可能给予反对狼的人全权（非法）迁移狼的风险，因为狼与狗杂交的问题;（iii）由于缺乏关于不同管理干预措施的有效性的数据，存在主观解释和意见的空间。这些结果有管理的影响，并揭示了知识的差距，不仅涉及到管理的人为杂交的广泛的问题，而且在科学辩论中的道德价值观和现实世界的管理问题的作用。
Anthropogenic hybridization is widely perceived as a threat to the conservation of biodiversity. Nevertheless, to date, relevant policy and management interventions are unresolved and highly convoluted. While this is due to the inherent complexity of the issue, we hereby hypothesize that a lack of agreement concerning management goals and approaches, within the scientific community, may explain the lack of social awareness on this phenomenon, and the absence of effective pressure on decision-makers. By focusing on wolf x dog hybridization in Europe, we hereby (a) assess the state of the art of issues on wolf x dog hybridization within the scientific community, (b) assess the conceptual bases for different viewpoints, and (c) provide a conceptual framework aiming at reducing the disagreements. We adopted the Delphi technique, involving a three-round iterative survey addressed to a selected sample of experts who published at Web of Science listed journals, in the last 10 years on wolf x dog hybridization and related topics. Consensus was reached that admixed individuals should always be defined according to their genetic profile, and that a reference threshold for admixture (i.e., q-value in assignment tests) should be formally adopted for their identification. Tomitigate hybridization, experts agreed on adopting preventive, proactive and, when concerning small and recovering wolf populations, reactive interventions. Overall, experts' consensus waned as the issues addressed became increasingly practical, including the adoption of lethal removal. We suggest three non-mutually exclusive explanations for this trend: (i) value-laden viewpoints increasingly emerge when addressing practical issues, and are particularly diverging between experts with different disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., ecologists, geneticists); (ii) some experts prefer avoiding the risk of potentially giving carte blanche to wolf opponents to (illegally) remove wolves, based on the wolf x dog hybridization issue; (iii) room for subjective interpretation and opinions result from the paucity of data on the effectiveness of different management interventions. These results have management implications and reveal gaps in the knowledge on a wide spectrum of issues related not only to the management of anthropogenic hybridization, but also to the role of ethical values and real-world management concerns in the scientific debate.