摘要:

AbstractElephants and humans each suffer from the presence of the other when they occupy the same forests. Farmers risk losing their crops to elephants, while elephants are displaced by settlements, agriculture, roads and development projects. Elephants have also been hunted for ivory. The ivory trade in the equatorial forests expanded in the nineteenth century as Europe prospered, and then again in the twentieth century as the Far East prospered. Forest elephant numbers were depleted each time.Elephants are unpopular in the forest zone, and increasing human populations combined with the spread of democracy in central Africa pose a major threat to their future. If elephants are to be tolerated by villagers living in the equatorial forests, the costs they impose must be reduced and the benefits to the rural populace must be increased. A three‐pronged strategy is suggested, involving land‐use planning, measures to mitigate crop damage, and programmes to enhance the value of elephants. Elephants could be viewed as assets if their importance in the forest ecosystem were recognized, if they were domesticated for logging or transport, or if their presence was one of the factors which attracted tourists to the forest zone. However, management strategies based on hunting have the best chance of conserving elephants because of the importance of hunting in the culture of the forest people. Sport hunting for trophies may bring the greatest revenues. Community wildlife‐management programmes, where village councils make the decisions, could prevent overexploitation. There are no simple answers, however, because one form of management may conflict with the goals of an

ISSN:0305-1838    

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1996.tb00147.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1996

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractIt has become increasingly clear that both density‐dependent and density‐independent factors may influence the dynamics of mammalian populations; it remains more difficult, however, to determine which factors may play the more significant role in influencing population number in any particular case. In this paper we review published and unpublished data in an analysis of the various factors affecting population size and trend in three European species of deer: Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), Fallow Deer (Dama damd) and Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus).We select these species deliberately because they span a range of body size and reproductive strategy ‐ it seems that different demographic parameters might thus play different roles in the dynamics of the three‐which may also be differentially sensitive to the effects of density‐dependent and density‐independent factors. For each species we examine the available evidence to determine the relative roles and effects of density‐dependent feedback mechanisms and density‐independent factors such as climate on recruitment and mortality.Despite differences in bionomic strategy between Red Deer (as essentially aK‐strategist) and the more r‐selected Roe, few differences emerge between the three species in the relative roles of density‐dependent and density‐independent factors ‐ or of the stage at the life cycle at which each factor may act. Overall, however, it is clear that variation in density‐independent factors, such as climate, appears primarily to affect levels of mortality within a population, while effects of density are particularly marked in relatio

ISSN:0305-1838    

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1996.tb00148.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1996

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractPopulation dynamics and demography of the WolfCanis lupuswere studied in Bialowieza Primeval Forest (BPF, 1250 km2), the best preserved mixed and deciduous forest in the lowlands of Europe; 40% of BPF belongs to Poland and 60% to the Belarus Republic. Polish and Belarussian game departments' inventories of Wolf numbers (1946‐93), archival hunting statistics (1847–1993), observations, snowtracking and reports on shot Wolves (1980‐93) are presented. In BPF, Wolves coexist with five species of ungulates: European BisonBison bonasus.MooseAlces alces, Red DeerCervus elaphus, Roe DeerCapreolus capreolusand Wild BoarSus scrofa.During the last 150 years, there were four periods with high numbers of Wolves in BPF: around 1820‐40, 1870‐80, 1925‐30 and 1945‐48, always after uprisings and wars. Maximally, from 7.2 to 9.1 ind./100 km2were recorded. Declines and prolonged periods of low numbers of Wolves (due to persecution by humans) were recorded in 1882–1915 and 1958‐72 (0–1 ind./100 km2).In recent years (1980‐93), there were on average 33 Wolves in BPF (2.6 ind./lOO km2) and their numbers were slowly increasing. Data from this period were subject to a demographic analysis of the Wolf population. In the Polish part of BPF (on average, 13 Wolves recorded every year), negligible hunting occurred in 1980‐89, and since 1989 Wolves have been protected. In the Belarussian part, Wolves were treated as pests, and every year 16 Wolves were shot out of the mean number of 20 individuals recorded (80%). Most of the killed Wolves (70% of harvest) were shot in December, January and February, during traditional snowtracking‐driving hunts with ‘fladry’ (lines of flags).Hunting in the Belarussian part of BPF caused a decline in pack size from an average of 4.0 (SD 2.0) in late autumn, to 3.6 (SD 1.6) in mid winter, to 2.3 (SD 1.5) in late winter. In the Polish part (no hunting), the pack size varied from 4.2 (SD 1.7) in the late autumn, 4.3 (SD 2.2) in mid winter, to 3.6 (SD 1.9) in the late winter. Among Wolves shot, 44% were females and 56% were males (ratio 1: 1.3). The age of 63 shot Wolves was estimated by external features; 35% were juveniles<1 year, 43% were 2–3 years old, and 22% were 4–5 years' old. In 1980‐93, in the whole BPF, legal hunting accounted for 78% of Wolf mortality, taking pups from their natal dens by humans 16%, poaching 4%, traffic accidents<1%, and unknown causes 1%. Sarcoptic mange was recorded in several shot Wolves.On average, 6.25 pups per litter were born (range 3–8). If only natural factors of mortality are considered, 3 months after birth the mean litter size was 3.1 (50% mortality), and 2.2 pups per litter would reach 1 year of age (65% of mortality). However, 29% of all recorded pups were taken by humans for pets (in both the Polish and Belarussian parts of BPF) or to receive a bounty (in the Belarussian part). As early as November, juveniles along with adults are subject to hunting in the Belarussian part. Thus, if both natural and human‐caused mortality is considered, 2.2 pups per litter survived 3 months (65% mortality) and only 0.9 pup per litter reached 1 year of age (85% mortality).In 1980‐93, the Bialowieia population of Wolves survived and increased, most probably due to a constant immigration of Wolves (on average, two immigrants per year) from t

ISSN:0305-1838    

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1996.tb00149.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1996

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractWildlife management in modern environments has to contend with an inheritance of faunal and landscape changes caused by humans which affect the relationships between predatory and prey species. In both game management for harvesting, and in species preservation, this leads to difficult decisions about whether and how to manage predation.Predator control by humans is as old as livestock husbandry. The deliberate, often organized, destruction of many mammalian predator species has been a feature of human development in Europe ‐ and later in countries to which Europeans spread ‐ for centuries. Destruction to the point of extinction was practised for a number of reasons (self‐protection, protection of domestic stock, protection of wild game, fur, adventure, sport) which were rarely distinguished. Reduction of predator numbers specifically to allow an increased harvest of some game species was mainly a nineteenth century development, while the adoption of predator control to benefit endangered species for their own sake belongs to recent decades.We review scientific literature relevant to predator control in game management and in conservation. Understanding of the role of predation in prey population dynamics has changed considerably during the last 20 years, and predation is now credited with a much more powerful role than in the past. Increasingly it becomes possible not merely to understand what predator control achieves, but to predict when it might be valuable in management, and what strategy will best achieve the aims.Examples of conservation problems involving predation illustrate the complexity of decision‐making in management. Because of habitat loss, habitat degradation, altered predator communities, or altered predator‐prey ratios, predation losses often have increased significance in modern environments.Novel approaches potentially offer non‐lethal ways to manage mammalian predators. However, most are still in an exploratory phase and there have been no unqualified successes. The best tested approach, excluding predators from small areas by fencing, is discussed.In Britain, predator control to benefit small game populations and allow harvesting has been practised for nearly 200 years, and has undoubtedly played a role in shaping the present‐day fauna. Although earlier gamekeeping severely reduced the geographical range of several mammalian (and avian) predator species, nowadays predator control is subject to legal restrictions based on species' conservation status and humaneness. However, illegal persecution of species protected by law remains a persistent and significant conservation problem. The predator species legitimately targeted are successful, common and increasing in the modem environment, while wild populations of gamebirds and many other ground‐nesting birds are declining seriousl

ISSN:0305-1838    

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1996.tb00150.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1996

数据来源: WILEY