You are here

Іnnovative approaches to the restoration of game animals populations in forest ecosystems: overview

In the context of global climate dynamics and intensification of anthropogenic pressure on the environment, significant changes in the animal world are inevitable. Large-scale chemicalisation of maintenance processes in forestry and agriculture, the practice of streamside lands, reduction of meadows negatively affects the reproduction and development processes of most game animals. Characteristic for different regions of Ukraine today are the tendencies of significant narrowing of their natural biotopes. The purpose of the study is to analyze modern directions of restoration of populations of hunting animals and to increase their productivity in forest ecosystems. The methodology is composed by analytical-synthetic methods, systematization and abstraction, comparison, generalization, which made it possible to identify cause-effect relationships, determining factors and preconditions. The theoretical and methodological basis of the study was formed from relevant primary sources from publications that are indexed in leading databases (Scopus, Web of Science). The criteria for inclusion and exclusion of publications were a spatial-time indicator and the level of information reliability. The study reveals that the hunting areas of Ukraine are characterized by low productivity in comparison with those of developed European countries. The official statistical data analysis is convincingly indicating the low efficiency of hunting management in different regions. It was determined that despite the regulated small volumes of the main game animals, the number of their populations does not increase, and some species sometimes even decrease. The main innovative approaches to the restoration of populations of game animals in forest ecosystems are analyzed, including the maximum reduction of animal losses by carrying out effective protective, biotechnical and veterinary measures; formation of highly productive populations by maintaining the optimal number of medieval groups; selection of low-productive, less viable and emigration-prone individuals of younger age groups; elimination of old animals; formation of highly productive populations by keeping an optimal number of middle-aged groups; selective shooting among other age groups. The role in this process of rational organization of forest hunting management and key tasks of prospective development of forest hunting management are defined.

Key words: population recovery, optimal abundance, management strategy, extraction rates, hunting grounds, anthropogenic load, selective shooting, forest ecosystems.

 

Reference: 
1. Lysenko, V.I., Nedovizii, Yu.Yu. (2020). Dynamika arealu kabana v Ukraini ta mozhlyvosti upravlinnia yoho chyselnistiu [Dynamics of the Kaban range in Ukraine and the possibility of managing its number]. In The 11th International scientific and practical conference «Eurasian scientific congress». Barca Academy Publishing, Barcelona, Spain. Available at: http://repositsc.nuczu.edu.ua/ bitstream/123456789/11477/1/EURASIAN-SCIENTIFIC-CONGRESS_1-3.11.20.pdf#page=42
2. Zyma, I.S., Halanin, D.S., Startsev, O.O. (2024). Shliakhy udoskonalennia protsesiv upravlinnia populiatsiiamy khutrovykh zviriv [Ways to improve the processes of management of populations of fur animals]. Haluzi lisovoho hospodarstva: zbirnyk materialiv II Vseukrainskoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii do 205-richchia z dnia narodzhennia V.Ie. fon Hraffa [Forestry branches: Collection of materials of the II All-Ukrainian Scientific and Practical Conference to the 205th anniversary of the birth of the V.E. von Graff]. Malyn, 85 p.
3. Vlasiuk, V.P. (2020). Osoblyvosti planuvannia chyselnosti osnovnykh vydiv myslyvskykh tvaryn [Features of planning the number of basic species of hunting animals]. Mizhdystsyplinarni naukovi doslidzhennia: osoblyvosti ta tendentsii [Interdisciplinary research: features and trends]. pp. 18–19.
4. Sheihas, I.M. (2021). Kharakterystyka dii limituiuchykh faktoriv na stan myslyvskoho resursu Ukrainy [Characteristics of the action of limiting factors on the state of the hunting resource of Ukraine]. Theriologia Ukrainica. Issue 21, pp. 141–151.
5. Pavlenko, A.V., Lisovyi, M.M., Chaika, V.M. (2016). Reaktsiia populiatsii khyzhykh tvaryn na pryrodookhoronni zakhody [Response of predatory animal populations to conservation measures]. Ahroekolohichnyi zhurnal [Agroecological journal]. Issue 3, pp. 19–23. DOI: 10.33730/2077- 4893.3.2016.248858
6. Muraviov, Y.V. (2019). Resursy myslyvskykh tvaryn yak peredumova stanovlennia ekoloho-ekonomichnoho rozvytku myslyvskoho hospodarstva [Resources of hunting animals as a prerequisite for the formation of ecological and economic development of hunting]. Scientific Bulletin of UNFU. Issue 29(4), pp. 86–88. DOI: 10.15421/40290418
7. Rizun, E. (2017). Oblik myslyvskykh zviriv u myslyvskykh uhiddiakh (ohliad metodyk) [Accounting for game animals in hunting grounds (review of methods)]. Novitates Theriologicae. Parts 10, pp. 121–132. Available at: http://terioshkola.org.ua/ library/nt10-fieldstudy/nt1017-rizun-huntcensus.pdf
8. Tajchman, K., Czyzowski, P., Drozd, L., Karpinski, M., Wojtas, J. (2018). Sustainable game management as one of the determinants of the welfare of hunting animals. Journal of Animal Science, Biology and Bioeconomy. Issue 36 (1), pp. 19–30. DOI: 10.24326/jasbbx.2018.1.2
9. Fukasawa, K., Osada, Y., Iijima, H. (2020). Is harvest size a valid indirect measure of abundance for evaluating the population size of game animals using 329 agrobiologiya.btsau.edu.ua Агробіологія, 2025, № 1 harvest based estimation? Wildlife Biology. Issue 4, pp. 1–7. DOI: 10.2981/wlb.00708
10. Gée, A., Sarasa, M., Pays, O. (2018). Long– term variation of demographic parameters in four small game species in Europe: opportunities and limits to test for a global pattern. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation. Issue 41(1), pp. 33–60. DOI: 10.32800/abc.2018.41.0033.
11. Hames, R. (2017). Game conservation or efficient hunting?. In Evolutionary perspectives on environmental problems. Routledge, pp. 54–66. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203792650-4/game...
12. Kawata, Y. (2016). Possibility of improvement in game animal utilization. Int. J. Adv. Agric. Environ. Eng. Issue 3, pp. 40–46. Available at: https:// web.archive.org/web/20180602034540id_/http://iicbe.org/upload/3000ER0116011.pdf
13. Gallo, T., Pejchar, L. (2016). Improving habitat for game animals has mixed consequences for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation. Issue 197, pp. 47–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.032
14. Lewis, J.S., Spaulding, S., Swanson, H., Keeley, W., Gramza, A. R., VandeWoude, S., Crooks, K.R. (2021). Human activity influences wildlife populations and activity patterns: implications for spatial and temporal refuges. Ecosphere. Issue 12 (5). DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.3487
15. Eikelboom, J.A., Wind, J., Van de Ven, E., Kenana, L.M., Schroder, B., De Knegt, H.J., Prins, H.H. (2019). Improving the precision and accuracy of animal population estimates with aerial image object detection. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Issue 10(11), pp. 1875–1887. DOI: 10.1111/2041- 210X.13277
16. Potentsial myslyvskoho hospodarstva Ukrainy. Porivniannia obsiahiv dobuvannia dychyny v Yevropi [The potential of hunting economy of Ukraine. Comparison of game production in Europe]. Vseukrainska asotsiatsiia myslyvtsiv ta korystuvachiv myslyvskykh uhid [All–Ukrainian Association of Hunters and Users of Hunting Land]. 2024. Available at: https://www.uahhg.org.ua/potencial-mislivskogo-gospodarstva-ukra%D1%97ni...
17. Novytskyi, V. (2023). Ukraina myslyvska: pidsumky 2023 roku [Hunting Ukraine: results of 2023]. Vseukrainska asotsiatsiia myslyvtsiv ta korystuvachiv myslyvskykh uhid [Ukrainian Association of Hunters and Users of Hunting Grounds]. Available at: https://www.uahhg.org.ua/ukra%D1%97na-mislivska-pidsumki-2023-roku/
18. Robinson, J.M., Harrison, P.A., Mavoa, S., Breed, M. F. (2022). Existing and emerging uses of drones in restoration ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 13(9), pp. 1899–1911. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.13912 19. Carver, S., Convery, I., Hawkins, S., Beyers, R., Eagle, A., Kun, Z., Soulé, M. (2021). Guiding principles for rewilding. Conservation Biology. Vol. 35(6), pp. 1882–1893. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13730
20. Holmes, G., Marriott, K., Briggs, C., Wynne-Jones, S. (2020). What is rewilding, how should it be done, and why? A Q-method study of the views held by European rewilding advocates. Conservation and Society. Vol. 18(2), pp. 77–88. DOI: 10.4103/ cs.cs_19_14
21. Mutillod, C., Buisson, É., Mahy, G., Jaunatre, R., Bullock, J. M., Tatin, L., Dutoit, T. (2024). Ecological restoration and rewilding: two approaches with complementary goals? Biological Reviews. Vol. 99(3), pp. 820–836. DOI: 10.1111/brv.13046
22. Egoh, B.N., Nyelele, C., Holl, K.D., Bullock, J.M., Carver, S., Sandom, C.J. (2021). Rewilding and restoring nature in a changing world. PloS one. Vol. 16(7), e0254249. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0254249
23. Johansson, M., Flykt, A., Frank, J., Hartig, T. (2024). Wildlife and the restorative potential of natural settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102233
Download this article: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon levandovska_1_2025.pdf972.78 KB