Sources and dynamics of international funding for waterfowl conservation in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context Funding for habitat-management programs to maintain population viability is critical for conservation of migratory species; however, such financial resources are limited and can vary greatly over time. The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America is an excellent system for examining spatiotemporal patterns of funding for waterfowl conservation, because this transboundary region is crucial for reproduction and migration of many duck species. Aims We examine large-scale spatiotemporal variation in funding for waterfowl habitat conservation in the PPR during 2007–2016. Specifically, we quantify major sources of funding and how funds were directed towards particular geographies within Canada and the USA. We further examine how sources and magnitude of funding changed over time and in relation to numbers of hunters. Methods We assembled data from multiple sources to quantify funding (in US$, 2016 values) from (1) USA states and non-government organisations (NGOs), (2) Canadian government and NGOs, and (3) major USA-based federal funding sources to the Canadian and US portions of the PPR between 2007 and 2016. We fit linear regressions to examine spatiotemporal variation in funding and in numbers of active waterfowl hunters in the USA. Key results Whereas annual funding for the Canadian portion was comparatively stable throughout the 10 years (range: US$25–41 million), funding for the US portion was dynamic and increased between the first (range: US$36–48 million) and second (range: US$43–117 million) 5-year intervals, despite concurrent declines in the number of active waterfowl hunters in the USA. Conclusions We discovered contrasting trends and dynamics in multiple streams of funding for habitat conservation on each side of the border bisecting the PPR. These findings and approaches warrant closer attention by wildlife professionals. Work is needed to analyse past and future funding for habitat conservation, which can then be used to refine plans for maintaining or recovering populations of migratory species. Implications Although funding for waterfowl habitat conservation in the PPR increased over the past decade, trends were inconsistent among subregions and uncertain for some major funding sources. Better understanding of the complexities in funding will help inform more efficient long-term planning efforts for conservation of waterfowl and other migratory species.
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 | 0.001 | 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".