Underestimating low and overestimating high parakeet damage: Linking crop losses and farmer perception
The economic impact of crop damage caused by wildlife can be perceived as significant by producers. Consequently, producers adopt different management strategies, which can affect the populations of the species involved. However, it is generally unknown whether producers’ damage estimates reflect ac...
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/24958 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219425004156 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2025.107523 |
| Sumario: | The economic impact of crop damage caused by wildlife can be perceived as significant by producers. Consequently, producers adopt different management strategies, which can affect the populations of the species involved. However, it is generally unknown whether producers’ damage estimates reflect actual losses, fostering conflicts between producers and conservationists. The objective of our study was to evaluate the association between damage caused by wildlife and damage perceived by producers, using interactions between native parakeets (Enicognathus spp.) and forage maize crops in southern Chile as a study model. Perceived damage was measured using a structured questionnaire, and actual losses were estimated in the field determining the percentage of plants damaged by parakeets. Producers reported that most paddocks (>80 %) did not experience losses caused by parakeets. Similarly, field measurements indicated that most paddocks (88.5 %) had damage below 5 % of the sown area. Significant losses (>5 %) were detected in 11.5 % of the paddocks. Comparing perceived and actual damage, producers underestimated damage in 62.3 % of paddocks and overestimated it in 14.8 %. Quantile regression showed that actual and perceived damage differed across levels of perceived damage. No significant association was observed at low levels, whereas at intermediate and high levels, perceived and actual losses were positively associated, with some producers underestimating and others overestimating damage as actual losses increased. Considering that perceived damage is positively associated with actual damage—especially at high levels of perceived damage— and that such damage can be severe, it is necessary to test management and financial alternatives that enable coexistence between agriculture and wildlife. |
|---|