MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1544708234 · doi:10.14264/158147

Optimal monitoring and harvesting of a wild population under uncertainty

2006· dissertation· en· W1544708234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cindy E. Hauser

Bibliographic record

VenueThe University of Queensland · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationPopulation modelPopulation growthVital ratesPopulation sizePopulation controlCarrying capacityEcologyGeographyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harvesting a population sustainably as a resource is a common problem in wildlife and fisheries management. In a typical situation population size and other state variables are monitored at fixed intervals and the resulting estimates are used to determine a quota or harvest effort. Such decisions must be made in the face of a range of uncertainties: environmental variation, an imperfect ability to observe state variables, an imperfect ability to implement management decisions and imperfect knowledge about how the population fluctuates dynamically in response to management actions.  In this thesis I explore the effect of these uncertainties on the optimal management of wild populations. In chapters 2 and 3, populations with significant age or stage structure are examined. When individuals of different maturity within a population have significantly different life history traits, the structure of the population and of the harvest taken can have a large effect on the growth rate of the population. In chapter 2 a simple matrix model is used to make observations about the role of demographic structure when the objective is to maintain the population below its carrying capacity. Uncertainty in the structure of the population and the manager's ability to select the harvest structure complicate optimal harvesting. In chapter 3 plausible models are developed for the maintenance of the Atlantic population of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) within acceptable population bounds, given uncertainty about the strength of density dependent population regulation and the limited ability of managers to achieve large harvests. Stochastic dynamic programming is used to determine the optimal harvest strategy under each of the plausible models. It is found that the target long-term population size depends critically on the strength of density dependence. Under the density-independent model, limits to harvest also influence the target long-term population size.  Chapter 4 explores the theory of adaptive management. In adaptive management we seek the optimal harvest decision in the presence of model uncertainty. Plausible models are weighted according to the amount of evidence currently supporting them. The optimal harvest decision is obtained by weighting the expected returns under each model. When the population is monitored subsequent to harvesting, the evidence supporting each model can be re-evaluated. In this way the model best describing the system dynamics can be learnt over time (passive adaptive management). Particular harvest decisions may accelerate learning and provide better management in the long term. However these actions are often perceived as risky and so short-term losses must be balanced by long-term benefits (active adaptive management). To test these ideas, a simple population model with an uncertain parameter is constructed. Fixed, passive adaptive and active adaptive harvest strategies are developed using stochastic dynamic programming. It is found that the passive adaptive strategy is `certainty-equivalent', meaning that the current best estimate of the uncertain parameter is used as if it were the true parameter value. Over very long time horizons, the active adaptive strategy probes for information but in the short-term it is actually more precautionary than the certainty-equivalent strategy. The passive and active adaptive strategies perform similarly well in maximising harvest, and both outperform fixed non- adaptive strategies. Two different sets of plausible models produce consistent results, leading to the conclusion that it is important to incorporate model uncertainty, but the specific approach does not critically affect the results. In chapter 5 the problem of optimal adaptive monitoring is considered. The most common approach to harvest management is to use the same monitoring effort at regular intervals to estimate state variables. This approach neglects the large costs often involved in population monitoring, assuming that the level of accuracy achieved is both necessary and sufficient to make the appropriate harvest decision. I take an alternative approach, combining the costs of monitoring and the expected benefits for management in a single framework to determine the level of monitoring accuracy required. Monitoring effort becomes a state-dependent decision at each time interval, determined by prior information about the state variables. This approach is demonstrated using data for a red kangaroo (Macropus rufus) population in South Australia.  This document is not a comprehensive treatment of optimal harvesting under uncertainty. However it does indicate the ways in which uncertainty complicates the harvest of wildlife, and its potential effect on optimal harvesting and monitoring decisions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe University of QueenslandSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207