When does selective hunting select, how can we tell, and what should we do about it?

Festa‐Bianchet, Marco

doi:10.1111/mam.12078

Cited by 54 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Body size has been identified as a reliable predictor of male reproductive effort in numerous herbivores (McElligott et al , Mysterud et al ), but contrary to other studies of male mating effort (Pelletier et al 2006, Newbolt et al ), our results suggest that the population structure is a better predictor of variation in AFR than individual body condition. Young males may invest less in antlers, as they incur a cost for further body growth (Stewart et al ), and may depend less on these when competing for mates.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…To develop more realistic population models, we therefore need to include both sexes. Although challenging in the wild for species where males do not contribute to parental care, cheaper and better genetic analyses makes it increasingly more possible to study male life histories by combining marked individuals with genetic parental assignments (Festa‐Bianchet et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In polygynous species, male reproductive success depends on their ability to outcompete rival males and on the number of females they can fertilize (Festa‐Bianchet et al 1990, Komers et al , Clutton‐Brock and McAucliffe , Clutton‐Brock ). Thus, males usually compete intensely for mates, which may create large variation in male mating success (Emlen and Oring , Clutton‐Brock ) and, in turn, strong selection on sexual traits (such as horns, antlers, tusks; Geist , Andersson ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determinants of age at first reproduction and lifetime breeding success revealed by full paternity assignment in a male ungulate

Markussen

Herfindal

Loison

et al. 2018

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Age at first reproduction is an important determinant of individual variation in reproductive success in ungulates, but few studies have examined its relationship with later fitness‐related traits in males. We used a long‐term individual based study of a harvested moose population to quantify the individual reproductive performance and survival of males, as well as to examine the determinants of age at first reproduction and consequences of age at first reproduction on lifetime breeding success. The probability that a male successfully reproduced at the age of two was negatively related to the mean age of adult males in the population, but the relationship weakened with increasing population size. Large antlers and large body mass relative to other males in the population increased the number of calves sired at their first successful mating season. In addition, those that successfully reproduced as two year‐olds were more likely to sire calves the next year, making them more productive at a given age compared to those that first reproduced at the age of three or older. We emphasize the importance for males to start reproducing as soon as possible in a harvested population to gain lifetime fitness benefits, as surviving the hunt is a major determinant of reproductive success in this population. We found no costs of early reproduction in males, hence leading to high individual heterogeneity in male reproductive performance. The apparent lack of reproductive costs could partly be explained by the age distribution in the population, individual variation in early‐life body mass and antler size, and differences in probabilities of being hunted of successful and unsuccessful males.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determinants of age at first reproduction and lifetime breeding success revealed by full paternity assignment in a male ungulate

Markussen

Herfindal

Loison

et al. 2018

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has become increasingly apparent that hunting has wider ranging effects than solely reducing densities of ungulates (Setsaas et al 2007;Mysterud 2014;Festa-Bianchet 2017). Selective removal of individuals may change aspects of social organization and dispersal rates (Milner et al 2007;Allendorf and Hard 2009;Averbeck et al 2010;Borg et al 2015, Leclerc et al 2017, while hunting disturbance can induce escape movements and temporary home range displacement (Kamei et al 2010;Grignolio et al 2011;Thurfjell et al 2013;Jarnemo and Wikenros 2014).…”

Section: Hunting and Disease Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and science-based implications for modern management and conservation of European ungulate populations

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife management systems face growing challenges to cope with increasingly complex interactions between wildlife populations, the environment and human activities. In this position statement, we address the most important issues characterising current ungulate conservation and management in Europe. We present some key points arising from ecological research that may be critical for a reassessment of ungulate management in the future.

show abstract

“…Because body growth and maintenance takes priority over the growth of secondary sexual characteristics, ungulate weaponry can be substantially reduced by dietary restrictions. Further, this phenotypic plasticity is more common in antlers because they are lost and regrown each year (Festa‐Bianchet ).…”

Section: Obstacles To Evolutionary Change Through Trophy Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inefficiency of evolutionarily relevant selection in ungulate trophy hunting

Heffelfinger

2017

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differentially harvesting individual animals with specific traits has led some to argue that such selection can cause evolutionary change that may be detrimental to the species, especially if those traits are related positively to individual fitness. Most hunters are not selective in the type of animal they take, satisfied instead to harvest any legal animal. In a few exceptions, however, regulations may limit hunters to harvest animals of a minimum size or age regardless of their personal choice. Using information from a broad range of aquatic and terrestrial systems exposed to a myriad of potential and operational selective pressures, several authors have made expansive generalizations about selective harvest and its applicability to ungulates. Harvest-based selection can potentially be intensive enough to be relevant in an evolutionary sense, but phenotypic changes consistent with hunter selection are otherwise confounded with multiple environmental influences. Factors such as age, genetic contribution of females, nutrition, maternal effects, epigenetics, patterns of mating success, gene linkage, gene flow, refugia, date of birth, and other factors affecting selection interact with harvest to impede unidirectional evolution of a trait. The intensity of selection determines potential for evolutionary change in a meaningful temporal framework. Indeed, only under severe intensity, and strict selection on a trait, could human harvest prompt evolutionary changes in that trait. Broad generalizations across populations or ecological systems can yield erroneous extrapolations and inappropriate assumptions. Removal of males expressing a variety of horn or antler sizes, including some very large males, does not inevitably represent directional artificial selection unless the selective pressures are intensive enough to cause a unidirectional shift in allele frequencies that may act on some relevant life-history trait or process. Here I review the topic of harvest-based selection in male ungulates and discuss the inefficiency of trophy hunting in changing genetic expression of phenotype. Ó 2017 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

When does selective hunting select, how can we tell, and what should we do about it?

Cited by 54 publications

References 45 publications

Determinants of age at first reproduction and lifetime breeding success revealed by full paternity assignment in a male ungulate

Determinants of age at first reproduction and lifetime breeding success revealed by full paternity assignment in a male ungulate

Challenges and science-based implications for modern management and conservation of European ungulate populations

Inefficiency of evolutionarily relevant selection in ungulate trophy hunting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About