A group of researchers explored the foraging habits of barnacle geese in Northern Karelia, Finland. This area experiences significant agricultural damage due to geese feeding in the fields. Their findings indicate that strategically utilizing undisturbed spaces alongside designated no-go zones, where geese are discouraged from entering, could reduce crop damage and ease the conflicts between humans and wildlife.
A group of researchers from the University of Turku and the Natural Resources Institute Finland studied the foraging behavior of barnacle geese in Northern Karelia, Finland. In this region, geese that feed on agricultural lands result in substantial economic losses for farmers. The researchers recommend a strategy that combines serene areas for the geese and no-go zones to effectively limit crop damage and lower the human-wildlife conflicts.
Barnacle geese are the main culprits behind the agricultural destruction attributed to protected species in Finland, with the government compensating farmers up to €4 million each year.
“Most of these compensations have been given to farmers in Northern and Southern Karelia, which is crucial for dairy farming in Finland due to the high prevalence of these conflicts. It’s essential to develop effective strategies to reduce the conflict proactively and minimize damage,” says Professor Jukka Forsman from the Natural Resources Institute Finland.
One potential solution is the creation of accommodation fields, where specific areas are designated for geese while others serve as no-go zones. This approach aims to consolidate the geese and the resulting damage in certain locations, allowing vital crops to be safeguarded in different areas. Farmers and authorities collaboratively select the accommodation and repelling fields.
For this study, the fields were categorized into three types: standard crop fields without goose management, accommodation fields, and repelling fields. The researchers trapped geese and fitted them with GPS transmitters to monitor their habitat use.
The findings revealed that barnacle geese, in various feeding scenarios, tended to favor accommodation fields over other types. Additionally, the use of repelling fields was lower than anticipated, indicating that this method effectively reduces the number of geese foraging in those areas.
“The impact accommodation fields have on the distribution of foraging geese is typically gauged by counting geese or assessing damage costs. However, we previously lacked understanding of a key aspect in this scenario: the individual behavior of the geese within the framework of accommodation fields, repelling fields, and other lands,” notes Professor Toni Laaksonen from the University of Turku.
“To address this human-wildlife conflict through the concept of accommodation fields, insights from local farmers are exceptionally valuable,” states Dr. Martin Seltmann from the University of Turku, the lead author of the study. “Accommodation and repelling fields were created in areas recognized for their long-standing high foraging pressures from barnacle geese.”
Therefore, the researchers advocate using the expertise of local stakeholders and a coordinated approach with well-planned accommodation and repelling fields to enable farmers to prepare effectively for potential goose damage and reduce the financial burdens of goose foraging.
