Effects of harvest and climate on population dynamics of northern bobwhites in south Florida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Hunting-related (hereafter harvest) mortality is assumed to be compensatory in many exploited species. However, when harvest mortality is additive, hunting can lead to population declines, especially on public land where hunting pressure can be intense. Recent studies indicate that excessive hunting may have contributed to the decline of a northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) population in south Florida. Aims This study aimed to estimate population growth rates to determine potential and actual contribution of vital rates to annual changes in population growth rates, and to evaluate the role of harvest and climatic variables on bobwhite population decline. Methods We used demographic parameters estimated from a six-year study to parameterise population matrix models and conduct prospective and retrospective perturbation analyses. Key results The stochastic population growth rate (?S = 0.144) was proportionally more sensitive to adult winter survival and survival of fledglings, nests and broods from first nesting attempts; the same variables were primarily responsible for annual changes in population growth rate. Demographic parameters associated with second nesting attempts made virtually no contribution to population growth rate. All harvest scenarios consistently revealed a substantial impact of harvest on bobwhite population dynamics. If the lowest harvest level recorded in the study period (i.e. 0.08 birds harvested per day per km2 in 2008) was applied, ?S would increase by 32.1%. Winter temperatures and precipitation negatively affected winter survival, and precipitation acted synergistically with harvest in affecting winter survival. Conclusions Our results suggest that reduction in winter survival due to overharvest has been an important cause of the decline in our study population, but that climatic factors might have also played a role. Thus, for management actions to be effective, assessing the contribution of primary (e.g. harvesting) but also secondary factors (e.g. climate) to population decline may be necessary. Implications Reducing hunting pressure would be necessary for the recovery of the bobwhite population at our study site. In addition, an adaptive harvest management strategy that considers weather conditions in setting harvest quota would help reverse the population decline further.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".