Review of contraception in ungulate species
Abstract
Most ungulate species are herd animals. In captivity, and increasingly so in the wild, space constraints limit natural behaviors associated with group dynamics, possibly resulting in inbreeding and/or overpopulation. This situation has necessitated research regarding contraception of various species of hoofstock. Differing management situations mandate different contraception protocols to achieve optimal results. Fertility control in hoofstock has been achieved through a number of different contraceptive methods predominantly surgical sterilization, mechanical contraception, synthetic steroid hormones, and immunocontraception. In this study successes and limitations of these techniques are reviewed. Zoo Biol 26:311-326, 2007. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is much evidence of zoos successfully implementing various contraceptive methods.
“However, there is much evidence of zoos' successful implementation of various methods [20][21][22].”
From The Concept of Agency, Animal Wellbeing, and the Practical Realities of Ex Situ Breeding Programs in Zoos and Aquariums (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Norman, M., & Brando, S. (2024) · Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens · doi:10.3390/jzbg5040038 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“For more in-depth reviews on the effectiveness of the many different methodologies available, see Agnew and Cheyne [20] for a review of reproductive control methods in primates, Patton et al. [21] for a review of ungulates, and Asa and Moresco [22] for a more general overview for wildlife species.”
- Authors
- Patton, M. L., Jöchle, W., & Penfold, L. M.
- Affiliations
- Association of Zoos and Aquariums (US)
- Corresponding author
- Patton, M.L.
- ORCID
- Penfold, L.M.
- Venue
- Zoo Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 311-326
- ISSN
- 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2361
- OpenAlex
- W2041056907
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Keywords
- contraception, ungulates, fertility control, surgical sterilization, immunocontraception, captive wildlife management, inbreeding, overpopulation, zoo animals
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
