Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Novak, Geronimus, and Martinez-Cardoso find fear of immigration can affect Latino birth outcomes

Frey's Scenario F simulation mentioned in account of the Democratic Party's tribulations

U-M Poverty Solutions funds nine projects

More News

Highlights

Workshops on EndNote, NIH reporting, and publication altmetrics, Jan 26 through Feb 7, ISR

2017 PAA Annual Meeting, April 27-29, Chicago

NIH funding opportunity: Etiology of Health Disparities and Health Advantages among Immigrant Populations (R01 and R21), open Jan 2017

Russell Sage 2017 Summer Institute in Computational Social Science, June 18-July 1. Application deadline Feb 17.

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at noon:
Decline of cash assistance and child well-being, Luke Shaefer

Wildlife loss through domestication: The case of endangered key deer

Publication Abstract

Peterson, M.N., R.R. Lopez, E.J. Laurent, P.A. Frank, N.J. Silvy, and Jianguo Liu. 2005. "Wildlife loss through domestication: The case of endangered key deer." Conservation Biology, 19(3): 939-944.

Wildlife extinction represents the ultimate failure of wildlife conservation. It has many causes, some of them natural, but is increasingly tied to anthropogenic factors. Wildlife loss via domestication, however, is sorely considered. We evaluated the potential for inadvertent domestication of wildlife by determining the effect of feeding and watering on Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) density, group size, and distribution. Key deer sightings were significantly higher in areas (42 ha) surrounding the households that provided food and water (0.18 deer/m; n= 8) than in randomly selected areas (0.03 deer/m; t = 3.82, 14 df, p = 0.002). Average distance to a household providing food and water decreased logistically as group size increased, and large groups (>2 individuals each) were observed more frequently in areas where food and water were provided (27.5%) than in the randomly selected areas (7.5%). The incidence of large groups outside feeding areas (7.5%), however; was similar to the incidence of large groups during early urbanization (5.1%; 1968-1973). Our results suggest illegal feeding caused changes in density, group size, and distribution indicative of domestication. Because fresh water and food were primary selective pressures for Key deer before illegal feeding and watering genetic changes may occur in the future. For those who value "wildness" in wildlife, domestication of wildlife species is a serious problem that must be addressed.

DOI:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00069.x (Full Text)

Country of focus: United States of America.

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next