Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 185

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America

MUSIANI, MARCO, MAMO, CHARLES, BOITANI, LUIGI, CALLAGHAN, CAROLYN, GATES, C. CORMACK, MATTEI, LIVIA, VISALBERGHI, ELISABETTA, BRECK, STEWART, VOLPI, GIULIA·2003·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: In Alberta, Canada (1982–2001), and in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, United States (1987–2001), wolves ( Canis lupus ) killed various domestic animals, among which the major prey were sheep in the United States (68%, n = 494 ) and cattle in Canada (95%; n = 1633 ). Under recovery programs, the wolf population increased in the United States, and depredation events increased proportionately. In both countries, the number of domestic animals killed each year was correlated with the number of wolves killed by government authorities for depredation management. We tested the ability of antiwolf barriers made of flags hanging from ropes to impede wolf access to food and livestock. In 18 experiments, barriers prevented captive wolves ( n = 9) from accessing food for up to 28 hours and allowed daily separation of wolves to administer contraceptive pills to a female wolf. Barriers prevented access by wild wolves to 100‐m 2 baited sites during two 60‐day tests. We also set barriers around three cattle pastures. In Alberta during two 60‐day trials on 25‐ha pastures, wolves approached barriers on 23 occasions but did not cross them, and no cattle were killed. Wolves killed cattle on neighboring ranches during the trials and before and after the trials on the tested ranches. In Idaho four radiocollared wolves crossed barriers and killed cattle in a 400‐ha ranch after 61 days of barrier exposure. Our results suggest that antiwolf barriers are effective in deterring captive and wild wolves for >1 and ≥60 days, respectively, and that wild wolves switch to alternative livestock when excluded from one herd of livestock. Our depredation data indicate that protecting livestock from wolves reduces the necessity for killing wolves. Barriers could play a role among the limited set of preventive measures available and offer a cost‐effective mitigation tool for the problem of livestock depredation on a local scale.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00063.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 185

Metadata

Authors
MUSIANI, M., MAMO, C., BOITANI, L., CALLAGHAN, C., GATES, C. C., MATTEI, L., VISALBERGHI, E., BRECK, S., & VOLPI, G.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-12
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
1538-1547
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2104293414
Cited by
185
References
3
FWCI
6.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00063.x
The paper
MUSIANI, M., MAMO, C., BOITANI, L., CALLAGHAN, C., GATES, C. C., MATTEI, L., VISALBERGHI, E., BRECK, S., & VOLPI, G. (2003). Wolf Depredation Trends and the Use of Fladry Barriers to Protect Livestock in Western North America. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00063.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.