This is a Critique Assignment, with a given biology population article Essay Example
Major Findings and Authors’ Viewpoints/Interpretations
The major findings of the article were that tigers and human beings often co-existed at fine scales within and outside the part in 2010 and 2011. This was evidenced by comparatively high numbers of tigers, preys as well as presence of human being inside and outside the park. Findings further indicated that the concentration/population of tigers in Chitwan was higher when compared to sites within Central and North India (Carter et al, 2012, p. 15362). Specifically, the density of tigers was much higher in Chitwan when compared to locations such as Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bhutan. Additionally, findings show that human beings often were found within and outside the park in both 2010 and 2011. Notably, the number of people who frequented the park significantly increased from 2010 to 2011. Generally, the findings indicated that people were present throughout the study sites and that tigers overlapped with human beings. The authors’ point of view was that human beings can coexist with animals. For instance, authors opine that the high number of presence of local residents across the study site reflected their high dependency on Chitwan’s forest, for instance to seek wood for fuel (Carter et al, 2012, p. 15363). On the other hand, co-existence of high populations of tigers and human beings within and outside the park may have been because of the high number of tiger preys within the forest. Another explanation is that local residents are reforesting various areas outside the park and hence enhancing ungulates habitat conditions and thus availing tiger preys (Carter et al, 2012, p. 15364).
Critique Authors’ Viewpoints/Interpretations and Findings
According to the study findings, human beings and tigers can co-exist since they occupy diverse spatial and temporal niches at very fine spatial scales (Carter et al, 2012, p. 15362). The findings challenge the convectional perspective that there cannot be peaceful co-existence between human beings and carnivores. Additionally, the findings and views of the authors indicate that protected areas might not be the only means for protecting potentially perilous species like tigers because co-existence between carnivores and human beings is possible (Carter et al, 2012, p. 15363). Dorresteijn et al (2015, p.495) support these findings and explain that mutual adaptations is the key to ensuring there is successful co-existence between human beings and carnivores. This study suggests that wild animals have to adapt their behaviors to the presence of human beings and similarly human beings should adapt their behavior to the presence of wild animals (Dorresteijn et al, 2015, p.500. This study supports findings by Carter (2012, p. 15362) where tigers adapted to the behaviors of human beings and likewise human beings adapted to the behavior of tigers resulting to peaceful coexistence.
However, a study by Gurung et al (2008, p.3) refute the findings of this study as well as the views/interpretations of the authors. Gurung et al (2008, p.5) found out that about 90 people had been killed by tigers within the Chitwan landscape for the last 30 years. Similarly, about 20 tigers have been killed by people within this period. This clearly indicates presence of conflict between tigers and human beings and hence refutes the findings of peaceful co-existence between the tigers and human beings. In addition, in the study by Varun et al (2013, p.100) found out that local residents felt near Chitwan Park felt that tigers are nuisance and that the habitat was not enough for both human beings and tigers. This further disproves the findings by the authors on co-existence between tigers and human beings.
Balancing Critique with the Merits of the Focal Article
Some studies refute the article’s findings that human beings and tigers can co-exist. This is because other studies show that there have been conflicts between wild animals and human beings to an extent where each have killed the other (Frank, 2015, p.714). However, the information from the focal article is still very valuable. This is because findings by other studies that there is no co-existence between wild animals and people are due to lack of some mechanisms suggested by the focal article. The focal article generated empirical information on mechanisms for coexistence between wildlife and human beings at fine spatial scales. For instance, the focal article provides new knowledge on the effects of human settlement on the wildlife and how these effects impacts co-existence or otherwise. Another example is the knowledge on how activities of human beings and availability of prey for the wild animals can impact co-existence between the animals and people (Carter et al, 2012, p. 15362).
In addition, the focal article challenges the evidence and studies that indicate that it is not possible for human beings and wild animals to co-exist. For example, studies indicate how wild animals kill human beings and therefore this focal article provides new information that challenges this evidence (Dorresteijn et al, 2016, p.495). Moreover, the paper provides information regarding various ways of protecting fascinating and possible dangerous wild animals other than protected areas. More importantly, the knowledge from the focal article signifies the need to increasingly focus on how and why nature and human beings can co-exist.
Conclusion & Future Directions
Evidence shows presence of conflicts between wild animals and human beings. On the other hand, the focal article indicates possible co-existence between wildlife and human beings. This therefore means that there might not be co-existence between tigers and human beings at fine spatial scales, but co-occurrence. Therefore, it is important for future studies and research to focus on how and why nature and human beings can co-exist; instead on focusing studies on conflicts between wild animals and human beings. In addition, future research should address the costs of co-existence between human beings and wild animals, and in this case between human beings and tigers.
Carter, N. H. et al. (2012). Coexistence between Wildlife and Humans at Fine Spatial Scales». Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109(38), pp. 15360-15365. DOI: 10.1073/pnas. 1210490109.
Dorresteijn, I., Milcu, A.I., Leventon, J. et al. Ambio (2016). Social factors mediating human–carnivore coexistence: Understanding thematic strands influencing coexistence in Central Romania. Ambio. 45(4), pp: 490-500. doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0760-7
Frank B. (2015). Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Tolerance and Coexistence: An Introductory Comment. An International Journal. 29(6), pp: 738-743.
Gurung B. (2008). Ecological and Sociological Aspects of Human-Tiger Conflicts in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
Varun R Goswami, Divya Vasudev, Divya Karnad, Y Chaitanya Krishna, Meghna Krishnadas, Milind Pariwakam, Tarun Nair, Anish Andheria, Sachin Sridhara, and Imran Siddiqui. (2013). Conflict of human-wildlife coexistence. PNAS. 110(2): E108.
More Important Things