Overpopulation

Overpopulation or overabundance is a phenomenon in which a species' population becomes larger than the carrying capacity of its environment. This may be caused by increased birth rates, lowered mortality rates, reduced predation or large scale migration, leading to an overabundant species and other animals in the ecosystem competing for food, space, and resources. The animals in an overpopulated area may then be forced to migrate to areas not typically inhabited, or die off without access to necessary resources.

This article is about overpopulation in biology in general. For human overpopulation, see human overpopulation.

Judgements regarding overpopulation always involve both facts and values. Animals often are judged overpopulated when their numbers cause impacts that people find dangerous, damaging, expensive, or otherwise harmful. Societies may be judged overpopulated when their human numbers cause impacts that degrade ecosystem services, decrease human health and well-being, or crowd other species out of existence.

Background

In ecology, overpopulation is a concept used primarily in wildlife management.[1][2] Typically, an overpopulation causes the entire population of the species in question to become weaker, as no single individual is able to find enough food or shelter. As such, overpopulation is thus characterized by an increase in the diseases and parasite-load which live upon the species in question, as the entire population is weaker. Other characteristics of overpopulation are lower fecundity, adverse effects on the environment (soil, vegetation or fauna) and lower average body weights.[2] Especially the worldwide increase of deer populations, which usually show irruptive growth, is proving to be of ecological concern. Ironically, where ecologists were preoccupied with conserving or augmenting deer populations only a century ago, the focus has now shifted in the direct opposite, and ecologists are now more concerned with limiting the populations of such animals.[3][4]

Supplemental feeding of charismatic species or interesting game species is a major problem in causing overpopulation,[2][5][6] as is too little hunting or trapping of such species. Management solutions are increasing hunting by making it easier or cheaper for (foreign) hunters to hunt,[2][5] banning supplemental feeding,[2] awarding bounties,[7] forcing landowners to hunt or contract professional hunters,[5][8] using immunocontraception,[9] promoting the harvest of venison or other wild meats,[10] introducing large predators (rewilding),[11][12] poisonings or introducing diseases.

A useful tool in wildlife culling is the use of mobile freezer trailers in which to store carcasses.[13] The harvest of meat from wild animals is a sustainable method of creating a circular economy.[10]

Immunocontraception is a non-lethal method of regulating wild-animal population growth. Immunocontraception has been successfully used or tested in a variety of wild-animal populations including those of bison,[14] deer,[15] elephants,[16] gray squirrels,[17] pigeons,[16] rats and wild horses.[18][16] Among the limitations of injectable immunocontraceptives are a relatively long time between vaccine administration and a reduction in population size (although stabilization of population size occurs faster)[19][20] and the need to be in close proximity with animals for injection.[21] Oral vaccines do not have the latter limitation, but they are still not as well developed as injectable vaccines.[22][21]

Judgements about overpopulation of wildlife or domestic animals typically are made in terms of human purposes and interests; since these vary, such judgements may vary, too. Judgements about human overpopulation are even more contentious, since the purposes and interests involved may be very important, even rising to the level of existence itself.[23][24] Nevertheless, all people and every society have an interest in preserving a habitable biosphere, which may be compromised or degraded by too may people.[25][26] In the context of rapid climate change, mass species extinction and other global environmental problems, discussions regarding human overpopulation are inevitable.[27][28]

Recent scientific evidence from many sources suggests Earth may be overpopulated currently. Evidence of rapidly declining ecosystem services was presented in detail in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005, a collaborative effort involving more than 1,360 experts worldwide.[29] More recent scientific accounts are provided by ecological footprint accounting[30] and interdisciplinary research on planetary boundaries for safe human use of biosphere.[31] The Sixth Assessment Report on Climate Change from the IPCC and the First Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by the IPBES, large international summaries of the state of scientific knowledge regarding climate disruption and biodiversity loss, also support the view that unprecedented human numbers are contributing to global ecological decline.[32][33] Recent estimates of a sustainable global human population run between two and four billion people.[26][34]

Judgements about human or animal overpopulation hinge partly on whether people feel a moral obligation to leave sufficient habitat and resources to preserve viable populations of other species.[35] Recent biodiversity losses show that humanity's success in supporting larger human populations over the past century has depended on reducing the populations of many of Earth's other species.[33][36] This is a special example of the competitive exclusion principle in ecology, which states that two species which compete for the same limited resource cannot coexist at constant population values.[37] Today humanity essentially competes with other species everywhere on Earth.[33][38] We thus face choices regarding whether to preserve populations of other species and limit our own, or not.[39][40] These essentially ethical choices[41][42]  will make a difference in future judgements about overpopulation.[36][43]

Well studied species

Deer

In Scotland the program of having landowners privately cull the overpopulation of red deer in the highlands has proved an abject failure.[8][44] Scotland's deer are stunted, emaciated, and frequently starve in the Spring.[44] As of 2016 the population is now so high, that 100,000 deer would need to be culled each year only to maintain the current population.[8] A number of landowners have proven unwilling to accede to the law, requiring government intervention anyway. It has been necessary to contract professional hunters in order to satisfy landowner legislation regarding the annual cull.[5] Millions of pounds of taxpayers' cash is spent on the annual cull.[12] As of 2020, 100,000 deer are shot each year.[10] Compounding the problem, some landowners have used supplemental feeding at certain shooting blinds in order to ease sport hunting.[5][44]

Overpopulation can have effects on forage plants, eventually causing a species to alter the greater environment.[45] Natural ecosystems are extremely complex. The overpopulation of deer in Britain has been caused by legislation making hunting more difficult,[46][47] but another reason may be the proliferation of forests, used by different deer species to breed and shelter. Forests and parks have caused Britain to be much more forested than it was in recent history,[47] and may thus perversely be causing biodiversity loss,[45][48] conversion of heath habitat to grassland,[8] extirpation of grassland and woodland plants due to overgrazing and the changing of the habitat structure.[3][48] Examples are bluebells and primroses. Deer open up the forest and reduce the amount of brambles, which then has knock-on effects on dormice and certain birds which nest near the ground,[45][48] such as the capercaillie, dunnock, nightingale, song thrush, willow warbler, marsh tit, willow tit and bullfinch.[45] Populations of the nightingale and the European turtle dove are believed to be primarily impacted by muntjac.[46] Grouse populations suffer due to smashing into the fencing needed to protect against deer.

A significant amount of the environmental destruction in Britain is caused by an overabundance of deer. Besides ecological effects, overpopulation of deer causes economic effects due to browsing on crops, expensive fencing needed to combat this and protect new afforestation planting and coppice growth, and increasing numbers of road traffic incidents.[3][45][46] High populations cause stripping of the bark of trees, eventually destroying forests. Protecting forests from deer costs on average three times as much as planting the forest in the first place.[45] The NGO Trees for Life spent weeks planting native trees in Scotland, aiming to rebuild the ancient Caledonian Forest. After winter snowdrifts in 2014/2015 flattened the deer fences, more than a decade's growth was lost in a matter of weeks.[5] In 2009 – 2010 the cost of forest protection in Scotland ran to £10.5m.[12]

Some animals, such as muntjac, are too small and boring for most hunters to shoot, which poses additional management problems.[45]

In the United States the exact same problem is seen with white-tailed deer, where populations have exploded and become invasive species in some areas. The state of Wisconsin has an estimated population of 1.9 million White tail deer, measured in 2020.[49] In continental Europe roe deer pose a similar problem, although the populations were formerly much less, they have swelled in the 20th century so that although two and a half million are shot each year by hunters in Western Europe alone, as of 1998, the population still appears to be increasing, causing problems for forestry and traffic. In an experiment where roe deer on a Norwegian island were freed from human harvest and predators, the deer showed a doubling of the population each year or two.[4] In the Netherlands and southern England roe deer were extirpated from the entirety of the country except for a few small areas around 1875. In the 1970s the species was still completely absent from Wales, but as of 2013, it has colonized the entire country.[48][50][51] As new forests were planted in the Netherlands in the 20th century, the population began to expand rapidly. As of 2016 there are some 110,000 deer in the country.[51]

Birds

Aquaculture operations, recreation angling and populations of endangered fish such as the schelly are impacted by cormorant populations. Open aquaculture ponds provide winter or year-round homes and food for cormorants. Cormorants' effect on the aquaculture industry is significant, with a dense flock capable of consuming an entire harvest.[7][52][53][54][55][56] Cormorants are estimated to cost the catfish industry in Mississippi alone between $10 million and $25 million annually.[55] Cormorant culling is commonly achieved by sharp-shooting, nest destruction, roost dispersal and oiling the eggs.[53][55]

Geese numbers have also been called overpopulated. In the Canadian Arctic region, snow geese, Ross's geese, greater white-fronted geese and some populations of Canada geese have been increasing significantly over the past decades. Lesser snow geese populations have increased to over three million, and continue to increase by some 5% per year. Giant Canada geese have grown from near extinction to nuisance levels, in some areas. Average body sizes have decreased and parasite loads are higher. Before the 1980s, Arctic geese populations had boom and bust cycles (see above) thought to be based on food availability, although there are still some bust years, this no longer seems the case.[57]

It is difficult to know what the numbers of geese were before the 20th century, before human impact presumably altered them. There are a few anecdotal claims from that time of two or three million, but these are likely exaggerations, as that would imply a massive die-off or vast amounts harvested, for which there is no evidence. More likely estimates from the period of 1500 to 1900 are a few hundred thousand animals, which implies that with the exception of Ross's geese, modern populations of geese are many millions more than in pre-industrial levels.[57]

Humans are blamed as the ultimate cause for the increase, directly and indirectly, due to management legislation limiting hunting introduced specifically in order to protect bird populations, but most importantly due to the increase in agriculture and large parks, which has had the effect of creating vast amounts of unintentional sanctuaries filled with food.[57] Urban geese flocks have increased enormously. City ordinances generally prohibit discharging firearms, keeping such flocks safe, and there is abundant food.[58] Geese profit from agricultural grain crops, and seem to be shifting their habitat preferences to such farmlands. Reduction of goose hunting in the US since the 1970s seems to have further had the effect of protecting populations. In Canada hunting has also decreased dramatically, from 43.384% harvest rates in the 1960s to 8% in the 1990s. Nonetheless, when kill rates were compared to populations, hunting alone does not seems to be solely responsible for the increase -weather or a not yet completed shift in habitat preference to agricultural land may also be factors. Although hunting may have formerly been the main factor in maintaining stable populations, ecologists no longer consider it a practical management solution, as public interest in the practice has continued to wane, and the population is now so large that the massive culls needed are unrealistic to ask from the public. Climate change in the Arctic would appear to be an obvious cause for the increase, but when subpopulations are correlated with local climatic increases, this does not seem to hold true, and furthermore, breeding regions seem to be shifting southwards anyway, irrespective of climate change.[57]

The nutrient subsidy provided by foraging in agricultural land may have made the overall landscape use by geese unsustainable. Where such geese congregate local plant communities have been substantially altered; these chronic effects are cumulative, and have been considered a threat to the Arctic ecosystems, due to knock-on effects on native ducks, shorebirds and passerines. Grubbing and overgrazing by geese completely denudes the tundra and marshland, in combination with abiotic processes, this creates large desert expanses of hypersaline, anoxic mud which continue to increase each year. Biodiversity drops to only one or two species which are inedible for geese, such as Senecio congestus, Salicornia borealis and Atriplex hastata. Because grazing occurs in serial stages, with biodiversity decreasing at each stage, floral composition may be used as an indicator of the degree of goose foraging at a site. Other effects are destruction of the vegetation holding dunes in place, the shift from sedge meadows and grassy swards with herbaceous plants to moss fields, which can eventually give way to bare ground called 'peat barrens', and the erosion of this bare peat until glacial gravel and till is bared. In the High Arctic research is less developed: Eriophorum scheuchzeri and E. angustifolium fens appear to be affected, and are being replaced by carpets of moss, whereas meadows covered in Dupontia fisheri appear to be escaping destruction. There does not appear to be the damage found at lower latitudes in the Arctic. There is little proper research in effects on other birds. The yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) appears to be extirpated from areas of Manitoba due habitat loss caused by the geese, whereas on the other hand the semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) appears to be taking advantage of the large areas of dead willows as a breeding ground.[57]

In the wintering grounds in continental USA, effects are much less pronounced. Experimentally excluding geese by means of fencing in North Carolina has found heavily affected areas can regenerate after only two years. Bulrush stands (Schoenoplectus americanus) are still an important component of the diet, but there are indications the bulrush is being impacted, with soft mudflats gradually replacing areas where it grows.[57]

Damage to agriculture is primarily to seedlings, winter wheat and hay production. Changing the species composition to species less palatable to geese, such as Lotus may alleviate losses in hay operations. Geese also feed on agricultural land without causing economic loss, gleaning seeds from corn, soya or other grains and feeding on wheat, potato and corn stubble. In Québec crop damage insurance for the hay industry began in 1992 and claims increased yearly; actual compensation paid by the government, including administrative costs, amount to some half a million dollars a year.[57]

The fact that Arctic regions are remote, there is little public understanding for combatting the problem, and ecologists as yet do not have any effective solutions for combatting the problem anyway. In Canada, the most important hunters of geese are the Cree people around Hudson Bay, members of the Mushkegowuk Harvesters Association, with an average kill rate of up to 60.75 birds per species per hunter in the 1970s. Kill rates have dropped, with hunters taking only half as much in the 1990s. However, total numbers of kills have increased, i.e. there are more hunters, but they are killing less per person. Nonetheless, per household the kills are approximately the same, at 100 birds. This indicates that stimulating an increase in native hunting might be difficult to achieve. The Cree population has increased. Elders say the taste of the birds has gotten worse, and they are thinner, both possibly effects due to the overpopulation. Elders also say that hunting has gotten more difficult, because there are less young and goslings, which are more likely to fall for decoys. Inuit and other people in the north do much less hunting of geese, with kill rates of 1 to 24 per species per hunter. Per kilogram, hunters save some $8.14 to $11.40 from buying poultry at stores. Total kill numbers from hunters elsewhere in the US and southern Canada has been falling steadily. This is blamed on a decline in people interested in hunting, more feeding areas for the birds, and larger flocks with more experienced adult birds which makes decoying difficult. Individual hunters are bagging higher numbers, compensating lower hunter numbers.[57]

Management strategies in the USA include increasing the bag limit and the number of open hunting days, goose egg addling, trapping and relocation, and egg and nest destruction, managing habitat to make it less attractive to geese, harassment and direct culling.[58] In Denver, Colorado, during moulting season biologists rounded up 300Canada geese (of 5,000 in the city), ironically on Canada Day, killing them and distributing the meat to needy families (as opposed to sending it to a landfill), to try to curb the number of geese, following such programs in New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Maryland. Complaints about the birds were that they had taken over the golf courses, pooped all over the place, devoured native plants and scared citizens. Such culls have proven socially controversial, with intense backlash by some citizens. Park officials had tried dipping eggs in oil, using noise-makers and planting tall plants, but this was not sufficient.[59]

In Russia, the problem does not seem to exist, likely due to human harvest and local long-term cooling climate trends in the Russian Far East and Wrangel Island.[57]

It is also possible that the population growth is completely natural, and that when the carrying capacity of the environment is reached the population will stop growing.[57] For organisations such as Ducks Unlimited, the resurgence of goose populations in North America can be called one of the greatest success story in wildlife management. By 2003 the US goose harvest was approaching 4 million, three times the numbers 30 years previously.[60]

Pets
This section is an excerpt from Overpopulation of domestic pets.[edit]
In some countries there is an overpopulation of pets such as cats, dogs, and exotic animals. In the United States, six to eight million animals are brought to shelters each year, of which an estimated three to four million are subsequently euthanized, including 2.7 million considered healthy and adoptable.[61][62] Euthanasia numbers have declined since the 1970s, when U.S. shelters euthanized an estimated 12 to 20 million animals.[63] Most humane societies, animal shelters and rescue groups urge animal caregivers to have their animals spayed or neutered to prevent the births of unwanted and accidental litters that could contribute to this dynamic.[62]

In the United States, over half of the households own a dog or a cat. Even with so much pet ownership there is still an issue with pet overpopulation, especially seen in shelters.[64] Because of this problem it is estimated that between 10 and 25 percent of dogs and cats are killed yearly. The animals are killed humanely, but the goal is to greatly lower and eventually completely avoid this.[64] Estimating the overpopulation of pets, especially cats and dogs, is a difficult task, but it has been a continuous problem. It has been hard to determine the number of shelters and animals in each shelter around even just the US.[65] Animals are constantly being moved around or euthanized, so it is difficult to keep track of those numbers across the country. It is becoming universally agreed upon that sterilization is a tool that can help reduce population size so that less offspring are produced in the future[66] With less offspring, pet populations can start to decrease which reduces the amount that get killed each year.[66]

Population cycles
Main articles: Population cycle and Lotka–Volterra equations

In the wild, rampant population growth of prey species often causes growth in the populations of predators.[1] Such predator-prey relationships can form cycles, which are usually mathematically modelled as Lotka–Volterra equations.[67][68]

In natural ecosystems, predator population growth lags just behind the prey populations. After the prey population crashes, the overpopulation of predators causes the entire population to be subjected to mass starvation. The population of the predator drops, as less young are able to survive into adulthood. This could be considered a perfect time for wildlife managers to allow hunters or trappers to harvest as much of these animals as necessary, for example lynx in Canada, although on the other hand this may impact the ability of the predator to rebound when the prey population begins to exponentially increase again.[1] Such mathematical models are also crucial in determining the amount of fish which may be sustainably harvested in fisheries,[69] this is known as the maximum sustainable yield.[70]

Predator population growth has the effect of controlling the prey population, and can result in the evolution of prey species in favour of genetic characteristics that render it less vulnerable to predation (and the predator may co-evolve, in response).[71]

In the absence of predators, species are bound by the resources they can find in their environment, but this does not necessarily control overpopulation, at least in the short term. An abundant supply of resources can produce a population boom followed by a population crash. Rodents such as lemmings and voles have such population cycles of rapid growth and subsequent decrease.[72][73] Snowshoe hares populations similarly cycle dramatically, as did those of one of their predators, the lynx.[1] Another example is the cycles among populations of grey wolves and moose in Isle Royale National Park.[74] For some still unexplained reason, such patterns in mammal population dynamics are more prevalent in ecosystems found at more arctic latitudes.[72]

Some species such as locusts experience large natural cyclic variations, experienced by farmers as plagues.[75]

Determining population size/density

When determining whether a population is overpopulated a variety of factors must be looked at. Given the complexity of the issue, scientists and wildlife managers often differ in judging such claims. In many cases scientists will look to food sources and living space to gauge the abundance of a species in a particular area. National parks collect extensive data on the activities and quality of the environment they are established in. This data can be used to track whether a specific species is consuming larger amounts of their desired food source over time.[76]

This is done typically in four ways, the first being "total counting". Researchers will use aerial photography to count large populations in a specific area such as deer, waterfowl, and other "flocking" or "herd" animals. Incomplete counts involve counting a small subsection of a population and extrapolating the data across the whole area. This method will take into account the behavior of the animals such as how much territory a herd may cover, the density of the population, and other potential factors that may come into question.[77]

The third method is "indirect counts"; this is done by looking at the environment for signs of animal presence. Typically done by counting fecal matter or dens/nesting of a particular animal. This method is not as accurate as direct counting, but gives general counts of a population in a specific locale.[77]

Lastly the method of mark-recapture is used extensively to determine general population sizes. This method involves the trapping of animals after which some form of tag is placed on the animal and it is released back into the wild. After which, other trappings will determine population size based on the number of marked versus unmarked animals.[77]

Fish populations

Similar methods can be used to determine the population of fish however some key differences arise in the extrapolation of data. Unlike many land animals in-land fish populations are divided into smaller population sizes. Factors such as migration may not be relevant when determining population in a specific locales while more important for others such as the many species of salmon or trout.[78] Monitoring of waterways and isolated bodies of water provide more frequently updated information on the populations in specific areas. This is done using similar methods to the mark-recapture methods of many land animals.

Introduced species
Main articles: Introduced species and Invasive species

The introduction of a foreign species has often caused ecological disturbance, such as when deer and trout were introduced into Argentina,[79] or when rabbits were introduced to Australia and predators were introduced in turn to attempt to control the rabbits.[80]

When an introduced species is so successful that its population begins to increase exponentially and causes deleterious effects to farmers, fisheries, or the natural environment, these introduced species are called invasive species.

In the case of the Mute swan, Cygnus olor, their population has rapidly spread across much of North America as well as parts of Canada and western Europe.[81] This species of swan has caused much concern for wildlife management as they damage aquatic vegetation, and harass other waterfowl, displacing them. The population of the Mute swan has seen an average increase of around 10-18% per year which further threatens to impact the areas they inhabit.[82] Management of the species comes in a variety of ways. Similar to overpopulated or invasive species, hunting is one of the most effective methods of population control. Other methods may involve trapping, relocation, or euthanasia.[83]

Criticism

In natural ecosystems, populations naturally expand until they reach the carrying capacity of the environment; if the resources on which they depend are exhausted, they naturally collapse. According to the animal rights movement, calling this an 'overpopulation' is more an ethics question than a scientific fact. Animal rights organisations are commonly critics of ecological systems and wildlife management.[84] Animal rights activists and locals earning income from commercial hunts counter that scientists are outsiders who do not know wildlife issues, and that any slaughter of animals is evil.[5]

Various case studies indicate that use of cattle as 'natural grazers' in many European nature parks due to absence of hunting, culling or natural predators (such as wolves),may cause an overpopulation because the cattle do not migrate. This has the effect of reducing plant biodiversity, as the cattle consume native plants. Because such cattle populations begin to starve and die in the winter as available forage drops, this has caused animal rights activists to advocate supplemental feeding, which has the effect of exacerbating the ecological effects, causing nitrification and eutrophication due to excess faeces, deforestation as trees are destroyed, and biodiversity loss.[85][86]

Despite the ecological effects of overpopulation, wildlife managers may want such high populations in order to satisfy public enjoyment of seeing wild animals.[45] Others contend that introducing large predators such as lynx and wolves may have similar economic benefits, even if tourists rarely actually catch glimpses of such creatures.[11]

In regards to population size, most of the methods used give estimates that vary in accuracy to the actual size and density of the population. Criticisms of theses methods generally fall onto the efficacy of methods used.[87]

Human overpopulation
Main article: Human overpopulation

Overpopulation can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates against the background of high fertility rates.[88][89] It is possible for very sparsely populated areas to be overpopulated if the area has a meagre or non-existent capability to sustain life (e.g. a desert). Advocates of population moderation cite issues like quality of life and risk of starvation and disease and human pressures on the environment as a basis to argue against continuing high human population growth and for population decline.[26][90]

See also

References
  1. K. G. Poole. (1994). Characteristics of an Unharvested Lynx Population during a Snowshoe Hare Decline The Journal of Wildlife Management, 58(4), 608-618
  2. Gortázar, Christian; Acevedo, Pelayo; Ruiz-Fons, Francisco; Vicente, Joaquin (June 2006). "Disease risk and overabundance of game species". European Journal of Wildlife Research. 52 (2): 81–87. doi:10.1007/s10344-005-0022-2. S2CID 31209588.
  3. Côté, Steeve D.; Rooney, Thomas P.; Tremblay, Jean-Pierre; Dussault, Christian; Waller, Donald M. (2004). "Ecological Impacts of Deer Overabundance". Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 35: 113–147. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105725. JSTOR 30034112.
  4. Andersen, Reidar; Linnell, John D. C. (2000). "Irruptive potential in roe deer: Density-dependent effects on body mass and fertility". The Journal of Wildlife Management. 64 (3): 698–706. doi:10.2307/3802739. JSTOR 3802739. Retrieved 17 November 2020.
  5. Flyn, Cal (20 February 2018). "'People think the deer are lovely. Then they learn more about it': the deer cull dilemma". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  6. Mule Deer: Changing Landscapes, Changing Perspectives: Supplemental Feeding—Just Say No (PDF) (Report). Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Mule Deer Working Group. pp. 25–26. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 May 2020 – via Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
  7. "The cormorant invasion. No assistance from fisheries department". Queanbeyan Age and Queanbeyan Observer. 4 April 1919. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
  8. Russell, Michael (March 2016). "Reduce wild deer densities". 50 for the Future. Scottish Wildlife Trust. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  9. Davidson, Colin (30 August 2011). "Deer Culling and Immunocontraception". uk.rec.birdwatching. SB Poley. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  10. "Venison producer Highland Game wins £13m supply deal". BBC. 3 March 2020. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  11. Bliss, Dominic (16 September 2019). "Lynx and wolf may soon be roaming Britain's wild places again. Is it a good idea?". National Geographic. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  12. Connelly, Tony (10 October 2014). "THE lynx effect could be the answer to deer overpopulation in Scotland". Deadline. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  13. Smith, Kenny (10 January 2019). "Red deer will be frozen out after cull". Wildlife & Conservation. Scottish Field. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  14. Duncan, Calvin. "Immunocontraception as a Tool for Management of Free-ranging American Bison (bison Bison)". CSU Fullerton Theses and Dissertations. hdl:20.500.12680/bv73c2439. ISBN 978-1-369-83652-3.
  15. Gutierrez, Jara; de Miguel, Javier (17 November 2020). "Pilot Project: A Theoretical Framework for the Control of Fertility in a Population Sample of Red Deer from el Monte de el Pardo (Spain)". doi:10.31219/osf.io/uxb94. S2CID 233207628. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  16. "Frequently Asked Questions". Botstiber Institute for Wildlife Fertility Control. 11 September 2017. Archived from the original on 25 July 2021. Retrieved 13 February 2022.
  17. "Grey squirrel fertility control research. Frequently asked questions" (PDF). February 2021. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 February 2022. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
  18. Kirkpatrick, Jay F.; Lyda, Robin O.; Frank, Kimberly M. (July 2011). "Contraceptive Vaccines for Wildlife: A Review: CONTRACEPTIVE VACCINES FOR WILDLIFE". American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. 66 (1): 40–50. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0897.2011.01003.x. PMID 21501279. S2CID 3890080.
  19. Warren, R. J. (8 April 2011). "Deer overabundance in the USA: recent advances in population control". Animal Production Science. 51 (4): 259–266. doi:10.1071/AN10214. ISSN 1836-5787.
  20. Kirkpatrick, Jay F.; Turner, Allison (22 October 2008). "Achieving population goals in a long-lived wildlife species (Equus caballus) with contraception". Wildlife Research. 35 (6): 513–519. doi:10.1071/WR07106. ISSN 1448-5494.
  21. Massei, G.; Cowan, D.; Eckery, D.; Mauldin, R.; Gomm, M.; Rochaix, P.; Hill, F.; Pinkham, R.; Miller, L.A. (April 2020). "Effect of vaccination with a novel GnRH-based immunocontraceptive on immune responses and fertility in rats". Heliyon. 6 (4): e03781. Bibcode:2020Heliy...603781M. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03781. PMC 7170952. PMID 32322739.
  22. Oliviero, Claudio; Lindh, Lena; Peltoniemi, Olli (30 May 2019). "BOARD INVITED REVIEW: Immunocontraception as a possible tool to reduce feral pig populations: recent and future perspectives". Journal of Animal Science. 97 (6): 2283–2290. doi:10.1093/jas/skz066. ISSN 0021-8812. PMC 6541807. PMID 30753509.
  23. Hardee, K., Newman, K., Bakamjian, L., Kumar, J., Harris, S., Rodríguez, M., & Willson, K. (2013). Voluntary family planning programs that respect, protect and fulfill human rights: a conceptual framework. Futures Group.
  24. Hardin, Garrett (22 April 1993). "Living within Limits". doi:10.1093/oso/9780195078114.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-507811-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  25. Higgs, Kerryn (1 October 2017). "Limits to growth: human economy and planetary boundaries". The Journal of Population and Sustainability. 2 (1). doi:10.3197/jps.2017.2.1.15. ISSN 2398-5496.
  26. Crist, Eileen; Ripple, William J.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Rees, William E.; Wolf, Christopher (2022). "Scientists' warning on population" (PDF). Science of the Total Environment. 845: 157166. Bibcode:2022ScTEn.845o7166C. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157166. PMID 35803428. S2CID 250387801.
  27. Shragg, K. (2015). Move upstream: a call to solve overpopulation. Freethought House.
  28. Tucker, C. (2019). A Planet of 3 Billion. Atlas Observatory Press.
  29. Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Galetti, Mauro; Alamgir, Mohammed; Crist, Eileen; Mahmoud, Mahmoud I.; Laurance, William F. (13 November 2017). "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice". BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125. ISSN 0006-3568.
  30. Wackernagel, Mathis; Schulz, Niels B.; Deumling, Diana; Linares, Alejandro Callejas; Jenkins, Martin; Kapos, Valerie; Monfreda, Chad; Loh, Jonathan; Myers, Norman; Norgaard, Richard; Randers, Jørgen (9 July 2002). "Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 99 (14): 9266–9271. Bibcode:2002PNAS...99.9266W. doi:10.1073/pnas.142033699. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 123129. PMID 12089326.
  31. Higgs, K. (2017). Limits to growth: Human economy and planetary boundaries. Journal of Population and Sustainability, 2, 15–36.
  32. IPCC. (2014). Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  33. IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Secretariat.
  34. Examples include Theodore Lianos and Anastasia Pseiridis, "Sustainable Welfare and Optimum Population Size," 2016; Christopher Tucker, A Planet of 3 Billion: Mapping Humanity's Long History of Ecological Destruction and Finding Our Way to a Resilient Future, 2019; Partha Dasgupta, Time and the Generations: Population Ethics for a Diminishing Planet, 2019; Lucia Tamburino and Giangiacomo Bravo, "Reconciling a Positive Ecological Balance with Human Development: A Quantitative Assessment," 2021.
  35. Cafaro, Philip (11 March 2022). "Reducing Human Numbers and the Size of our Economies is Necessary to Avoid a Mass Extinction and Share Earth Justly with Other Species". Philosophia. 50 (5): 2263–2282. doi:10.1007/s11406-022-00497-w. ISSN 0048-3893. S2CID 247433264.
  36. Foreman, D., & Carroll, L. (2014). Man swarm: How overpopulation is killing the wild world. Live True Books.
  37. Hardin, Garrett (29 April 1960). "The Competitive Exclusion Principle". Science. 131 (3409): 1292–1297. Bibcode:1960Sci...131.1292H. doi:10.1126/science.131.3409.1292. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 14399717.
  38. Rolston III, Holmes (1994). Conserving Natural Value. Columbia University Press.
  39. Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half Earth: Our planet's fight for life. WW Norton & Company.
  40. Crist, Eileen; Kopnina, Helen; Cafaro, Philip; Gray, Joe; Ripple, William J.; Safina, Carl; Davis, John; DellaSala, Dominick A.; Noss, Reed F.; Washington, Haydn; Rolston, Holmes; Taylor, Bron; Orlikowska, Ewa H.; Heister, Anja; Lynn, William S. (18 November 2021). "Protecting Half the Planet and Transforming Human Systems Are Complementary Goals". Frontiers in Conservation Science. 2: 761292. doi:10.3389/fcosc.2021.761292. ISSN 2673-611X.
  41. Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford University Press.
  42. Aldo Leopold, 1966. A Sand County Almanac with Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books.
  43. Cafaro, Philip; Hansson, Pernilla; Götmark, Frank (August 2022). "Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left" (PDF). Biological Conservation. 272. 109646. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109646. ISSN 0006-3207. S2CID 250185617.
  44. "There'll be a deer price to pay if we don't grasp the issue of overpopulation". The Scotsman. 14 December 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  45. Emma Goldberg (2003). English Nature Research Reports Number 548 Proceedings of the Future for Deer Conference 28 & 29 March 2003 (Report). English Nature. pp. 1–104. ISSN 0967-876X. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  46. Soriano, Fran (15 December 2017). "The Effects Of The Growing Deer Population". Finding Nature - The Wildlife Gateway. Finding Nature Ltd. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  47. Deer Working Group (5 February 2020). The management of wild deer in Scotland: Deer Working Group report (Report). Scottish Government. ISBN 978-1-83960-525-3. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  48. Kinver, Mark (2013). "Roe deer numbers 'changing woodland ecosystems'". BBC News Online. Retrieved 2 January 2013.
  49. "Wisconsin Department of Transportation Car-Killed Deer". wisconsindot.gov. Retrieved 4 March 2022.
  50. Baker, Karis H.; Hoelzel, A. Rus (January 2013). "Evolution of population genetic structure of the British roe deer by natural and anthropogenic processes (Capreolus capreolus)". Ecology and Evolution. 3 (1): 89–102. doi:10.1002/ece3.430. PMC 3568846. PMID 23403955. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  51. Algemeen Dagblad; Hoera, daar ligt weer een dode otter
  52. Anderson, Trevor (2006). Pacific Reef Fisheries Guthalungra Farm, Draft property management plan - Predator management (PDF). Pacific Reef Fisheries.
  53. Kameda, Kayoko; Tsuboi, Jun-ichi (2013). "Cormorants in Japan: Population development, conflicts and management" (PDF). European Commission - EU Cormorant Platform. Retrieved 30 December 2014.
  54. Woolf, Marie (28 July 2004). "Anglers urge cull of cormorants for eating too many fish". The Independent. Retrieved 30 December 2014.
  55. King, Richard J. "To kill a cormorant". Natural History. Retrieved 31 December 2014.
  56. Oosthoek, Sharon (26 May 2009). "Cormorant debate: Which part of the ecosystem to protect?". CBC News. Retrieved 30 December 2014.
  57. Kenneth F. Abraham; Robert L. Jefferies (1997). Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Part II High Goose Populations: causes, impacts and implications (PDF) (Report). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. p. 17. ISBN 0-9617279-3-4. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  58. Erickson, Laura (16 August 1999). "Canada Goose Overpopulation in Cities". For the Birds Radio Program. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  59. Elliott, Josh K. (4 July 2019). "Denver culling Canada geese, donating meat to 'needy families'". Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc. Denver, Colorado. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  60. Petrie, Mark. "Geese in the 21st Century". Ducks Unlimited. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  61. "Pets by the numbers", HSUS, January 30, 2014.
  62. "Why You Should Spay/Neuter Your Pet: Curb pet overpopulation and make your pet healthier", HSUS, August 24, 2014.
  63. "A Humane Nation: Wayne Pacelle's Blog: Setting Aside Semantics: Not Killing Pets Must Be Our Goal", HSUS, December 8, 2007.
  64. "Selected Bibliography", Fertility and Family Planning in the United States, Princeton University Press, pp. 433–438, 31 December 1966, doi:10.1515/9781400877447-018, ISBN 978-1-4008-7744-7
  65. Rowan, Andrew N. (September 1992). "Shelters and Pet Overpopulation: A Statistical Black Hole". Anthrozoös. 5 (3): 140–143. doi:10.2752/089279392787011430. ISSN 0892-7936.
  66. Wenstrup, John; Dowidchuk, Alexis (June 2010). "Pet Overpopulation: Data and Measurement issues in Shelters". Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2 (4): 303–319. doi:10.1207/s15327604jaws0204_5. ISSN 1088-8705. PMID 16363935.
  67. Goel, N. S.; et al. (1971). On the Volterra and Other Non-Linear Models of Interacting Populations. Academic Press.
  68. Berryman, A. A. (1992). "The Origins and Evolution of Predator-Prey Theory" (PDF). Ecology. 73 (5): 1530–1535. doi:10.2307/1940005. JSTOR 1940005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 31 May 2010.
  69. Kingsland, S. (1995). Modeling Nature: Episodes in the History of Population Ecology. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-43728-6.
  70. Clark, Colin (1990). Mathematical bioeconomics: the optimal management of renewable resources. New York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-50883-0.
  71. Scott, Joe. "Predators and their prey - why we need them both". Conservation Northwest. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
  72. Oli, Madan K. (10 May 2019). "Population cycles in voles and lemmings: state of the science and future directions". Mammal Review. 49 (3): 226–239. doi:10.1111/mam.12156. S2CID 164360836.
  73. The Lemming Cycle Nils Christian Stenseth, University of Oslo
  74. Jost, C.; Devulder, G.; Vucetich, J.A.; Peterson, R.; Arditi, R. (2005). "The wolves of Isle Royale display scale-invariant satiation and density dependent predation on moose". J. Anim. Ecol. 74 (5): 809–816. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00977.x.
  75. Simpson, Stephen J.; Sword, Gregory A. (2008). "Locusts". Current Biology 18:r364-366. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.02.029open access
  76. Clark, Douglas, Choi, Mary Ann, Mathew, Jung (28 March 2018). Biology 2e. Houston, Texas: OpenStax. p. 45.1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  77. "Estimating Population size". Retrieved 21 November 2021.
  78. Pope, Kevin. "Methods for assessing fish populations". ResearchGate.
  79. Speziale, Karina; Sergio, Lambertucci; Jose´, Tella; Martina, Carrete. "Dealing with Non-native Species: what makes the Difference in South America?" (PDF). Digital.CSIC Open Science. Retrieved 2 October 2014.
  80. Zukerman, Wendy (2009). "Australia's Battle with the Bunny". ABC Science.
  81. "Mute Swan - Encyclopedia of Life". eol.org. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
  82. Ellis, Martha M.; Elphick, Chris S. (2007). "Using a stochastic model to examine the ecological, economic and ethical consequences of population control in a charismatic invasive species: mute swans in North America". Journal of Applied Ecology. 44 (2): 312–322. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01265.x. ISSN 1365-2664.
  83. Marks, David (February 2018). "Mute Swans" (PDF). United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
  84. Decker, Daniel J.; Shanks, Roland E.; Nielsen, Larry A.; Parsons, Gary R. (1991). "Ethical and Scientific Judgements in Management: Beware of Blurred Distinctions". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19 (4): 523–527. JSTOR 3782167.
  85. Barkham, Patrick (27 April 2018). "Dutch rewilding experiment sparks backlash as thousands of animals starve". The Guardian. Oostvaardersplassen. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  86. "Oostvaardersplassen: should animals be saved from starvation?". Resource. Wageningen University. 18 November 2010. Retrieved 14 November 2020.
  87. Petrovskaya, Natalia (2011). "Challenges of ecological monitoring: estimating population abundance from sparse trap counts". Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 9 (68): 420–435. doi:10.1098/rsif.2011.0386. PMC 3262429. PMID 21831888.
  88. "Dhirubhai Ambani International Model United Nations 2013" (PDF). Daimun. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2018. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
  89. Zinkina J., Korotayev A. Explosive Population Growth in Tropical Africa: Crucial Omission in Development Forecasts (Emerging Risks and Way Out). World Futures 70/2 (2014): 120–139.
  90. Cafaro, Philip (2022). "Reducing Human Numbers and the Size of our Economies is Necessary to Avoid a Mass Extinction and Share Earth Justly with Other Species". Philosophia. 50 (5): 2263–2282. doi:10.1007/s11406-022-00497-w. S2CID 247433264.
Look up overpopulation in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.