Display options
Cite
Ransom JI, Powers JG, Thompson Hobbs N, et al. Ecological feedbacks can reduce population-level efficacy of wildlife fertility control. J Appl Ecol. 2013;51(1):259-269doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12166.
Ransom, J. I., Powers, J. G., Thompson Hobbs, N., & Baker, D. L. (2014). Ecological feedbacks can reduce population-level efficacy of wildlife fertility control. The Journal of applied ecology, 51(1), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12166
Ransom, Jason I, et al. "Ecological feedbacks can reduce population-level efficacy of wildlife fertility control." The Journal of applied ecology vol. 51,1 (2014): 259-269. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12166
Ransom JI, Powers JG, Thompson Hobbs N, Baker DL. Ecological feedbacks can reduce population-level efficacy of wildlife fertility control. J Appl Ecol. 2014 Feb;51(1):259-269. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12166. Epub 2013 Oct 15. PMID: 25558083; PMCID: PMC4278530.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Appl Ecol. 2014 Feb;51(1):259-269. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12166. Epub 2013 Oct 15.

Ecological feedbacks can reduce population-level efficacy of wildlife fertility control.

The Journal of applied ecology

Jason I Ransom, Jenny G Powers, N Thompson Hobbs, Dan L Baker

Affiliations

  1. U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center 2150 Centre Avenue, Building C, Fort Collins, CO, 80526, USA.
  2. National Park Service, Biological Resource Management Division 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO, 80525, USA.
  3. Colorado State University, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1499, USA.
  4. Colorado State University, Department of Biomedical Sciences Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1680, USA.

PMID: 25558083 PMCID: PMC4278530 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12166

Abstract

Anthropogenic stress on natural systems, particularly the fragmentation of landscapes and the extirpation of predators from food webs, has intensified the need to regulate abundance of wildlife populations with management. Controlling population growth using fertility control has been considered for almost four decades, but nearly all research has focused on understanding effects of fertility control agents on individual animals. Questions about the efficacy of fertility control as a way to control populations remain largely unanswered.Collateral consequences of contraception can produce unexpected changes in birth rates, survival, immigration and emigration that may reduce the effectiveness of regulating animal abundance. The magnitude and frequency of such effects vary with species-specific social and reproductive systems, as well as connectivity of populations. Developing models that incorporate static demographic parameters from populations not controlled by contraception may bias predictions of fertility control efficacy.Many population-level studies demonstrate that changes in survival and immigration induced by fertility control can compensate for the reduction in births caused by contraception. The most successful cases of regulating populations using fertility control come from applications of contraceptives to small, closed populations of gregarious and easily accessed species.Fertility control can result in artificial selection pressures on the population and may lead to long-term unintentional genetic consequences. The magnitude of such selection is dependent on individual heritability and behavioural traits, as well as environmental variation.

Keywords: behaviour; demography; ecological process; fertility control; fitness; immunocontraception; population dynamics; population ecology; wildlife contraception; wildlife management

References

  1. J Wildl Dis. 1994 Apr;30(2):241-6 - PubMed
  2. Behav Processes. 2012 Mar;89(3):278-85 - PubMed
  3. J Feline Med Surg. 2011 Jun;13(6):436-40 - PubMed
  4. Reprod Fertil Dev. 1997;9(1):137-43 - PubMed
  5. Anim Reprod Sci. 2004 Jul;82-83:169-81 - PubMed
  6. Reprod Suppl. 2002;60:155-67 - PubMed
  7. PLoS One. 2010 Oct 26;5(10):e13635 - PubMed
  8. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Mar;14(3):96-101 - PubMed
  9. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2006;18(6):667-76 - PubMed
  10. Reprod Suppl. 2002;60:89-103 - PubMed
  11. Immunol Cell Biol. 2003 Apr;81(2):152-9 - PubMed
  12. Nature. 2000 Sep 14;407(6801):149 - PubMed
  13. Anim Behav. 1998 Oct;56(4):801-809 - PubMed
  14. Conserv Biol. 2010 Feb;24(1):128-39 - PubMed
  15. Physiol Behav. 2000 Oct 1-15;71(1-2):123-31 - PubMed
  16. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54972 - PubMed
  17. Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Jan 7;278(1702):122-30 - PubMed
  18. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2011 Jul;66(1):40-50 - PubMed
  19. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2001;13(7-8):451-8 - PubMed
  20. Physiol Behav. 1990 Mar;47(3):403-8 - PubMed
  21. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 Aug;22(8):401-7 - PubMed
  22. J Wildl Dis. 2004 Oct;40(4):713-24 - PubMed
  23. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1999 Dec 15;72(1-2):231-5 - PubMed
  24. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2009;12(4):277-92 - PubMed
  25. Zoo Biol. 2007 Jul;26(4):237-44 - PubMed
  26. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Sep 29;357(1425):1153-70 - PubMed
  27. Reproduction. 2010 Jan;139(1):45-55 - PubMed
  28. Biol Reprod. 2011 Dec;85(6):1152-60 - PubMed
  29. Reproduction. 2006 Dec;132(6):821-8 - PubMed
  30. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2002 Sep 10;87(3-4):199-205 - PubMed
  31. Nature. 2002 Aug 8;418(6898):700-7 - PubMed
  32. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2004 Sep;35(3):271-9 - PubMed
  33. Reprod Fertil Dev. 1997;9(1):1-16 - PubMed
  34. Poult Sci. 1999 Jan;78(1):1-7 - PubMed
  35. Reprod Suppl. 2002;60:187-95 - PubMed
  36. Reprod Suppl. 2002;60:31-9 - PubMed

Publication Types