Abstract

Harvest, through its intensity and regulation, often results in selection on female reproductive traits. Changes in female traits can have demographic consequences, as they are fundamental in shaping population dynamics. It is thus imperative to understand and quantify the demographic consequences of changes in female reproductive traits to better understand and anticipate population trajectories under different harvest intensities and regulations. Here, using a dynamic, frequency‐dependent, population model of the intensively hunted brown bear (Ursus arctos) population in Sweden, we quantify and compare population responses to changes in four reproductive traits susceptible to harvest‐induced selection: litter size, weaning age, age at first reproduction, and annual probability to reproduce. We did so for different hunting quotas and under four possible hunting regulations: (i) no individuals are protected, (ii) mothers but not dependent offspring are protected, (iii) mothers and dependent offspring of the year (cubs) are protected, and (iv) entire family groups are protected (i.e., mothers and dependent offspring of any age). We found that population growth rate declines sharply with increasing hunting quotas. Increases in litter size and the probability to reproduce have the greatest potential to affect population growth rate. Population growth rate increases the most when mothers are protected. Adding protection on offspring (of any age), however, reduces the availability of bears for hunting, which feeds back to increase hunting pressure on the nonprotected categories of individuals, leading to reduced population growth. Finally, we found that changes in reproductive traits can dampen population declines at very high hunting quotas, but only when protecting mothers. Our results illustrate that changes in female reproductive traits may have context‐dependent consequences for demography. Thus, to predict population consequences of harvest‐induced selection in wild populations, it is critical to integrate both hunting intensity and regulation, especially if hunting selectivity targets female reproductive strategies.

Highlights

  • Harvesting of wild animal populations serves economic, cultural, and management purposes, but when exerted at a high rate, it can threaten population persistence (Jackson et al, 2001) and induce trait changes in life history, morphology, and behavior (Palkovacs et al, 2018)

  • We found that the population should grow if hunting quotas are below 10% of the total population size annually under the current regulation

  • Among the reproductive traits considered, harvest-­induced selection acting on litter size and the probability for adult female brown bears to produce cubs would have the greatest impact on the population growth rate

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Harvesting of wild animal populations serves economic, cultural, and management purposes, but when exerted at a high rate, it can threaten population persistence (Jackson et al, 2001) and induce trait changes in life history, morphology, and behavior (Palkovacs et al, 2018). A sustainable management practice is to set hunting quotas based on population censuses and as a proportion of the population that can be harvested annually (e.g., Andrén et al, 2020) This implies that changes in the phenotypic or genetic composition of the population (e.g., shift in reproductive trait values) or in population management (e.g., shift in target individuals) can affect the proportion of individuals legally protected from hunting and redirect and exacerbate the hunt toward the remaining, unprotected ones. In such systems, population composition can feedback on population dynamics through frequency-­dependent nonlinearity (Caswell, 2008) between the frequency of protected (unavailable) individuals and the survival rates of available individuals (Figure 1a). We expected that the mitigating effect of changes in reproductive rates on population growth would be exacerbated under higher levels of protection afforded to females as hunting pressure on the remaining available individuals would increase along with the benefits or being in a protected category of individuals

| MATERIALS AND METHODS
A1 A0 Al 3 2i 2d 1 0
| DISCUSSION
Findings
CONFLICT OF INTEREST None declared
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call