Synchrony in hunting bags: Reaction on climatic and human induced changes?

Hagen, Robert; Heurich, Marco; Kröschel, Max; Herdtfelder, Micha

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.022

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, recent studies have shown no negative influence on the hunting bag for wild ungulates in hunting districts in the Lausitz, where wolves have lived for the past 8 years [70]. Ungulate densities, especially for roe deer and wild boar, have increased during the last 50 years in Germany [79], [80]. Therefore we see no strong evidence for prey density being a limiting factor at the moment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…First, information on absolute prey density is not available and we would have to rely on estimations from the yearly hunting bag. Although this is a standard method, there are numerous factors influencing hunting success and thus the size of the hunting bag [79]. Secondly, recent studies have shown no negative influence on the hunting bag for wild ungulates in hunting districts in the Lausitz, where wolves have lived for the past 8 years [70].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Many Wolves (Canis lupus) Fit into Germany? The Role of Assumptions in Predictive Rule-Based Habitat Models for Habitat Generalists

Fechter

Storch

2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to legislative protection, many species, including large carnivores, are currently recolonizing Europe. To address the impending human-wildlife conflicts in advance, predictive habitat models can be used to determine potentially suitable habitat and areas likely to be recolonized. As field data are often limited, quantitative rule based models or the extrapolation of results from other studies are often the techniques of choice. Using the wolf (Canis lupus) in Germany as a model for habitat generalists, we developed a habitat model based on the location and extent of twelve existing wolf home ranges in Eastern Germany, current knowledge on wolf biology, different habitat modeling techniques and various input data to analyze ten different input parameter sets and address the following questions: (1) How do a priori assumptions and different input data or habitat modeling techniques affect the abundance and distribution of potentially suitable wolf habitat and the number of wolf packs in Germany? (2) In a synthesis across input parameter sets, what areas are predicted to be most suitable? (3) Are existing wolf pack home ranges in Eastern Germany consistent with current knowledge on wolf biology and habitat relationships? Our results indicate that depending on which assumptions on habitat relationships are applied in the model and which modeling techniques are chosen, the amount of potentially suitable habitat estimated varies greatly. Depending on a priori assumptions, Germany could accommodate between 154 and 1769 wolf packs. The locations of the existing wolf pack home ranges in Eastern Germany indicate that wolves are able to adapt to areas densely populated by humans, but are limited to areas with low road densities. Our analysis suggests that predictive habitat maps in general, should be interpreted with caution and illustrates the risk for habitat modelers to concentrate on only one selection of habitat factors or modeling technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Many Wolves (Canis lupus) Fit into Germany? The Role of Assumptions in Predictive Rule-Based Habitat Models for Habitat Generalists

Fechter

Storch

2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our study area the Bavarian part has a higher forest cover (79%) than the part of the Czech Republic (65%); therefore, conditions for red deer and roe deer should be better in Bavaria. Although one would expect that the more intense agriculture and higher human population density in Germany would lead to lower deer populations, a study has shown that roe deer can reach high population densities in areas with a much higher human population density and a much more intense agriculture [70] than in our study area. Also red deer should be able to cope with these conditions in Bavaria particularly, because of the large forested areas that allow the animals to find protective cover and forage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Country, Cover or Protection: What Shapes the Distribution of Red Deer and Roe Deer in the Bohemian Forest Ecosystem?

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Bohemian Forest Ecosystem encompasses various wildlife management systems. Two large, contiguous national parks (one in Germany and one in the Czech Republic) form the centre of the area, are surrounded by private hunting grounds, and hunting regulations in each country differ. Here we aimed at unravelling the influence of management-related and environmental factors on the distribution of red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in this ecosystem. We used the standing crop method based on counts of pellet groups, with point counts every 100 m along 218 randomly distributed transects. Our analysis, which accounted for overdispersion as well as zero inflation and spatial autocorrelation, corroborated the view that both human management and the physical and biological environment drive ungulate distribution in mountainous areas in Central Europe. In contrast to our expectations, protection by national parks was the least important variable for red deer and the third important out of four variables for roe deer; protection negatively influenced roe deer distribution in both parks and positively influenced red deer distribution in Germany. Country was the most influential variable for both red and roe deer, with higher counts of pellet groups in the Czech Republic than in Germany. Elevation, which indicates increasing environmental harshness, was the second most important variable for both species. Forest cover was the least important variable for roe deer and the third important variable for red deer; the relationship for roe deer was positive and linear, and optimal forest cover for red deer was about 70% within a 500 m radius. Our results have direct implications for the future conservation management of deer in protected areas in Central Europe and show in particular that large non-intervention zones may not cause agglomerations of deer that could lead to conflicts along the border of protected, mountainous areas.

show abstract

“…The free‐ranging behaviour of wild boars could induce a more progressive and slower circulation of the virus in this population compared to domestic pigs bred in an intensive production system. A significant difference was observed between HEV seroprevalences with regard to hunting bags, which are regarded as the best approximation to approach wildlife population size estimates (Hagen et al., ; Massei et al., ). The area with a density between 46.5 and 63.2 wild boars by 1000 ha contained less seropositive animals than the reference area with density between 0.3 and 16 wild boars by 1000 ha.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Belgian Wildlife as Potential Zoonotic Reservoir of Hepatitis E Virus

Thiry

Mauroy

Saegerman

et al. 2015

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hepatitis E is an acute human liver disease in healthy individuals but may become chronic in immunocompromised patients. It is caused by the hepatitis E virus (HEV) and can have a zoonotic origin, particularly in high-income countries. In this study, 383 sera from wild boars were selected for serology; for virological analyses, 69 sera and 61 livers from young wild boars were used. A total of 189 and 235 sera of, respectively, red deer and roe deer were collected for serological analysis. For virological analyses, 84 and 68 sera and 29 and 27 livers from, respectively, red and roe deer were sampled. An apparent seroprevalence of 34% (95% CI 29.71-39.46) was found in wild boars, of 1% (95% CI 0-2.4) in red deer and 3% (95% CI 0.8-4.2) in roe deer. To assess the ELISA screening prevalence, Western blot (WB) analyses were carried out, a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed and different scenarios with varying ELISA specificities relative to WB were analysed. Seroprevalence remained high whatever the scenario in the wild boar population. In wild boar, 4 of 69 sera and 4 of 61 livers were detected as positive for HEV RNA. All sequences obtained from sera belonged to genotype HEV-3. HEV RNA, belonging to genotype HEV-3, was detected in one of 29 red deer livers. Wild boar can be considered as a host reservoir of the virus in Belgium. However, in contrast to the epidemiological role played by them in other countries, the low prevalence in deer makes these species an unlikely reservoir. This evidence needs further investigation to determine in which situation deer can serve as reservoir. These results also raise the question of the dynamics of HEV infection between wild fauna, domestic pigs and humans.

show abstract

Synchrony in hunting bags: Reaction on climatic and human induced changes?

Cited by 17 publications

References 51 publications

How Many Wolves (Canis lupus) Fit into Germany? The Role of Assumptions in Predictive Rule-Based Habitat Models for Habitat Generalists

How Many Wolves (Canis lupus) Fit into Germany? The Role of Assumptions in Predictive Rule-Based Habitat Models for Habitat Generalists

Country, Cover or Protection: What Shapes the Distribution of Red Deer and Roe Deer in the Bohemian Forest Ecosystem?

Belgian Wildlife as Potential Zoonotic Reservoir of Hepatitis E Virus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About