Different hunting strategies select for different weights in red deer

Martínez, María del Mar Royo; Rodrı́guez-Vigal, Carlos; Jones, Owen R.; Coulson, Tim; Miguel, Alfonso San

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0330

Cited by 79 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For mountain sheep, Coltman et al (2) showed that harvest of trophy rams led to selection for lighter and smaller-horned rams. Different hunters invoke different methods in being selective, and Martínez et al (73) argued that the urge for hunters to kill males with large antlers and to maximize opportunity to be selective by hunting early in the season were primary motivations. Mysterud et al (74) found that hunter type (local vs. ''foreign'') provided substantial variation in terms of temporal and spatial components of hunting activity, and that although the activities of the different hunter types influenced the relationship between age and antler mass, much of this influence arose from variation in the timing and location of hunting.…”

Section: Huntingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals

Allendorf

Hard

2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

470

417

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human harvest of phenotypically desirable animals from wild populations imposes selection that can reduce the frequencies of those desirable phenotypes. Hunting and fishing contrast with agricultural and aquacultural practices in which the most desirable animals are typically bred with the specific goal of increasing the frequency of desirable phenotypes. We consider the potential effects of harvest on the genetics and sustainability of wild populations. We also consider how harvesting could affect the mating system and thereby modify sexual selection in a way that might affect recruitment. Determining whether phenotypic changes in harvested populations are due to evolution, rather than phenotypic plasticity or environmental variation, has been problematic. Nevertheless, it is likely that some undesirable changes observed over time in exploited populations (e.g., reduced body size, earlier sexual maturity, reduced antler size, etc.) are due to selection against desirable phenotypes-a process we call ''unnatural'' selection. Evolution brought about by human harvest might greatly increase the time required for over-harvested populations to recover once harvest is curtailed because harvesting often creates strong selection differentials, whereas curtailing harvest will often result in less intense selection in the opposing direction. We strongly encourage those responsible for managing harvested wild populations to take into account possible selective effects of harvest management and to implement monitoring programs to detect exploitation-induced selection before it seriously impacts viability.conservation ͉ genetic change ͉ human exploitation

show abstract

Section: Huntingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals

Allendorf

Hard

2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

470

417

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If harvest probability is affected by regulations for minimum size, gear selectivity [13] or by cultural preferences, the average size of harvested animals should be greater than the population average. These biases have been acknowledged [14], but it remains unknown how they affect our ability to detect temporal trends in phenotypic traits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data from selective harvests underestimate temporal trends in quantitative traits

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human harvests can select against phenotypes favoured by natural selection, and natural resource managers should evaluate possible artificial selection on wild populations. Because the required genetic data are extremely difficult to gather, however, managers typically rely on harvested animals to document temporal trends. It is usually unknown whether these data are unbiased. We explore our ability to detect a decline in horn size of bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ) by comparing harvested males with all males in a population where evolutionary changes owing to trophy hunting were previously reported. Hunting records underestimated the temporal decline, partly because of an increasing proportion of rams that could not be harvested because their horns were smaller than the threshold set by hunting regulations. If harvests are selective, temporal trends measured from harvest records will underestimate the magnitude of changes in wild populations.

show abstract

“…Sit-and-wait hunting at agricultural fields in morning and evening is common during weekdays for local hunters in between work, whereas drive hunting is more common during weekends when also nonresidents are hunting. It is well known that differences in hunting methods also affect selectivity (27). This points to the potentially important aspects of culture and to fruitful future applications of our framework.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

How constraints affect the hunter’s decision to shoot a deer

Diekert

Richter

Rivrud

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hunting is the predominant way of controlling many wildlife populations devoid of large carnivores. It subjects animals to mortality rates that far exceed natural rates and that differ markedly in which age, sex, or size classes are removed relative to those of natural predators. To explain the emerging selection pattern we develop behavioral microfoundations for a hunting model, emphasizing in particular the constraints given by the formal and informal norms, rules, and regulations that govern the hunter's choice. We show how a shorter remaining season, competition among hunters, lower sighting probabilities, and higher costs all lead to lower reservation values, i.e., an increased likelihood of shooting a particular animal. Using a unique dataset on seen and shot deer from Norway, we test and confirm the theoretical predictions in a recreational and meat-motivated hunting system. To achieve sustainability, future wildlife management should account for this predictable selection pressure.hunting selection | optimal stopping | hunter behavior | social dilemma A lthough natural large predators are now recolonizing many industrialized countries (1), their functional roles are still limited and most wildlife populations in Europe are mainly controlled by hunting (2). Hunting is the predominant cause of adult mortality for 80-90% of the individual animals in deer populations (3). Despite this high hunting pressure, populations have grown and expanded their range, often resulting in overabundance (4). Part of this increase is due to hunter selectivity having distorted the natural sex and age distribution (5). The reluctance to shoot females with offspring facilitates rapid population growth, but skewing sex ratio also affects evolutionary processes. In some ungulate populations with heavy trophy hunting, there is concern that selective removal of specific phenotypic traits leads to evolution even over short timespans of a few tens of generations (6). There is hence an urgent need to inform policies on how to manage wildlife in a way that does not endanger the health of the supporting ecosystem or the resilience of the hunted population. To better understand how overall hunting pressure maps to population dynamics and potential for evolution, we need to understand selectivity.In Norway, the population size, distribution, and resulting hunting quota for red deer (Cervus elaphus) have increased dramatically. The west coast holds the majority of the population, with more than 75% of the red deer being harvested in the counties Møre and Romsdal, Sogn and Fjordane, and Hordaland (Fig. 1). Red deer is the second most valuable hunted species in terms of meat value (after moose, Alces alces), and there is an increasing interest for trophy hunting.In the ecological literature, selectivity by hunters has been treated as a static property, focusing mostly on the extreme case of trophy hunting (7,8). However, only a small proportion of hunting is for trophies; most hunting is for recreation, meat, or population regulation (9). Mo...

show abstract

Different hunting strategies select for different weights in red deer

Cited by 79 publications

References 11 publications

Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals

Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals

Data from selective harvests underestimate temporal trends in quantitative traits

How constraints affect the hunter’s decision to shoot a deer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About