Effective Population Size, Generation Interval, and Potential Loss of Genetic Variability in Game Species under Different Hunting Regimes

Ryman, Nils; Baccus, Ramone; Reuterwall, Christina; Smith, Michael H.

doi:10.2307/3544622

Cited by 98 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, higher levels of mature male parr reproductive success may concentrate breeders in a given generation into a shorter time span, without strongly affecting N e . This could, however, render such populations more sensitive to environmental stochasticity (Gaggiotti and Vetter 1999) and may actually increase the pace at which genetic variance is lost (e.g., Ryman et al 1981;Allendorf et al 2008). These conclusions partly depend on the cohort model assumption of constant population size (Sl x b x ¼ 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Population dynamics 1 will, however, likely be altered as population size changes, thus making precise quantifications of the genetic consequences of acute population declines difficult (Nunney 1993;Engen et al 2005;Waples and Yokota 2007). This problem may be particularly relevant when declines are driven by anthropogenic impacts, such as selective harvesting regimes, that can affect age structure and N e simultaneously (Ryman et al 1981;Allendorf et al 2008). Demographic changes thus have broad conservation implications, as they can affect a population's sensitivity to environmental stochasticity and years of poor recruitment (Warner and Chesson 1985;Ellner and Hairston 1994;Gaggiotti and Vetter 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Age Structure, Changing Demography and Effective Population Size in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar)

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective population size (N e ) is a central evolutionary concept, but its genetic estimation can be significantly complicated by age structure. Here we investigate N e in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations that have undergone changes in demography and population dynamics, applying four different genetic estimators. For this purpose we use genetic data (14 microsatellite markers) from archived scale samples collected between 1951 and 2004. Through life table simulations we assess the genetic consequences of life history variation on N e . Although variation in reproductive contribution by mature parr affects age structure, we find that its effect on N e estimation may be relatively minor. A comparison of estimator models suggests that even low iteroparity may upwardly bias N e estimates when ignored (semelparity assumed) and should thus empirically be accounted for. Our results indicate that N e may have changed over time in relatively small populations, but otherwise remained stable. Our ability to detect changes in N e in larger populations was, however, likely hindered by sampling limitations. An evaluation of N e estimates in a demographic context suggests that life history diversity, density-dependent factors, and metapopulation dynamics may all affect the genetic stability of these populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Age Structure, Changing Demography and Effective Population Size in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar)

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In most ungulates, for example, breeding population size, generation length and adult longevity, and mating structure, including the breeding sex ratio and harem size, can have a large influence on the dynamics of genetic and phenotypic variation under exploitation (61)(62)(63)(64). Exploitation tends to skew the breeding sex ratio (65) and reduce adult longevity, especially of males, and mean male reproductive success and variance in progeny number per family.…”

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.

473

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

“…However, in contrast to the red deer (Bergmann, 1976;Kleymann, 1976a, b); Bergmann and Moser, 1985;Pemberton et al, 1988;Hartl et al, 1990aHartl et al, , 1991, the fallow deer (Pemberton and Smith, 1985;; Randi and Apollonio, 1988; Herzog, 1989), the moose (Ryman et al, 1977(Ryman et al, , 1980(Ryman et al, , 1981Reuterwall, 1980), the reindeer (R 0 ed et al, 1985;Røed, 1985aRøed, , b, 1986Røed, , 1987 and the white-tailed deer (Manlove et al, 1975(Manlove et al, , 1976Baccus et al, 1977;Johns et al, 1977;Ramsey et al, 1979;Chesser et al, 1982;Smith et al, 1983;Sheffield et al, 1985;Breshears et al, 1988) the factors influencing the amount and distribution of biochemical genetic variation in one of the most abundant European deer species, the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), are only poorly understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic variability and differentiation in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L) of Central Europe

Hartl¹,

Reimoser²,

Willing³

et al. 1991

Genet. Sel. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective Population Size, Generation Interval, and Potential Loss of Genetic Variability in Game Species under Different Hunting Regimes

Cited by 98 publications

References 27 publications

Age Structure, Changing Demography and Effective Population Size in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar)

Age Structure, Changing Demography and Effective Population Size in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar)

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

Genetic variability and differentiation in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L) of Central Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About