title: Ecological feedbacks can reduce population-level efficacy of wildlife fertility control.
abstract: Anthropogenic stress on natural systems, particularly the fragmentation of landscapes and the extirpation of predators from food webs, has intensified the need to regulate abundance of wildlife populations with management. Controlling population growth using fertility control has been considered for almost four decades, but nearly all research has focused on understanding effects of fertility control agents on individual animals. Questions about the efficacy of fertility control as a way to control populations remain largely unanswered.Collateral consequences of contraception can produce unexpected changes in birth rates, survival, immigration and emigration that may reduce the effectiveness of regulating animal abundance. The magnitude and frequency of such effects vary with species-specific social and reproductive systems, as well as connectivity of populations. Developing models that incorporate static demographic parameters from populations not controlled by contraception may bias predictions of fertility control efficacy.Many population-level studies demonstrate that changes in survival and immigration induced by fertility control can compensate for the reduction in births caused by contraception. The most successful cases of regulating populations using fertility control come from applications of contraceptives to small, closed populations of gregarious and easily accessed species.Fertility control can result in artificial selection pressures on the population and may lead to long-term unintentional genetic consequences. The magnitude of such selection is dependent on individual heritability and behavioural traits, as well as environmental variation.Synthesis and applications. Understanding species' life-history strategies, biology, behavioural ecology and ecological context is critical to developing realistic expectations of regulating populations using fertility control. Before time, effort and funding are invested in wildlife contraception, managers may need to consider the possibility that many species and populations can compensate for reduction in fecundity, and this could minimize any reduction in population growth rate.
authors.affiliation: U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center 2150 Centre Avenue, Building C, Fort Collins, CO, 80526, USA.
authors.forename: Jason I
authors.initials: JI
authors.lastname: Ransom
authors.affiliation: National Park Service, Biological Resource Management Division 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO, 80525, USA.
authors.forename: Jenny G
authors.initials: JG
authors.lastname: Powers
authors.affiliation: Colorado State University, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1499, USA.
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Thompson Hobbs
authors.affiliation: Colorado State University, Department of Biomedical Sciences Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1680, USA.
authors.forename: Dan L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Baker
keywords: behaviour; demography; ecological process; fertility control; fitness; immunocontraception; population dynamics; population ecology; wildlife contraception; wildlife management