Cross‐seasonal effects on waterfowl productivity: Implications under climate change
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Previous efforts to relate winter‐ground precipitation to subsequent reproductive success as measured by the ratio of juveniles to adults in the autumn failed to account for increased vulnerability of juvenile ducks to hunting and uncertainty in the estimated age ratio. Neglecting increased juvenile vulnerability will positively bias the mean productivity estimate, and neglecting increased vulnerability and estimation uncertainty will positively bias the year‐to‐year variance in productivity because raw age ratios are the product of sampling variation, the year‐specific vulnerability, and year‐specific reproductive success. Therefore, we estimated the effects of cumulative winter precipitation in the California Central Valley and the Mississippi Alluvial Valley on pintail ( Anas acuta ) and mallard ( Anas platyrhnchos ) reproduction, respectively, using hierarchical Bayesian methods to correct for sampling bias in productivity estimates and observation error in covariates. We applied the model to a hunter‐collected parts survey implemented by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and band recoveries reported to the United States Geological Survey Bird Banding Laboratory using data from 1961 to 2013. We compared our results to previous estimates that used simple linear regression on uncorrected age ratios from a smaller subset of years in pintail (1961–1985). Like previous analyses, we found large and consistent effects of population size and wetland conditions in prairie Canada on mallard productivity, and large effects of population size and mean latitude of the observed breeding population on pintail productivity. Unlike previous analyses, we report a large amount of uncertainty in the estimated effects of wintering‐ground precipitation on pintail and mallard productivity, with considerable uncertainty in the sign of the estimated main effect, although the posterior medians of precipitation effects were consistent with past studies. We found more consistent estimates in the sign of an interaction effect between population size and precipitation, suggesting that wintering‐ground precipitation has a larger effect in years of high population size, especially for pintail. When we used the estimated effects in a population model to derive a sustainable harvest and population size projection (i.e., a yield curve), there was considerable uncertainty in the effect of increased or decreased wintering‐ground precipitation on sustainable harvest potential and population size. These results suggest that the mechanism of cross‐seasonal effects between winter habitat and reproduction in ducks occurs through a reduction in the strength of density dependence in years of above‐average wintering‐ground precipitation. We suggest additional investigation of the underlying mechanisms and that habitat managers and decision‐makers consider the level of uncertainty in these estimates when attempting to integrate habitat management and harvest management decisions. Collection of annual data on the status of wintering‐ground habitat in a rigorous sampling framework would likely be the most direct way to improve understanding of mechanisms and inform management. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».