MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124878133 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.3293

Projecting long‐term impacts of a mortality event on vertebrates: incorporating stochasticity in population assessment

2021· article· en· W3124878133 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nadav Nur, Russell W. Bradley, Derek Lee, Pete Warzybok, Jaime Jahncke

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceHellman Family FoundationMoore Family FoundationMarisla FoundationBently FoundationDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation
KeywordsPopulationPopulation modelWildlifeBiologyPopulation viability analysisPopulation growthDemographyVital ratesEcologyGeographyHabitatEndangered species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wildlife managers must be able to assess the long‐term, population‐wide impacts of mortality events on long lived vertebrates, taking into account the stochastic nature of population fluctuations. Here, we present a case study of the potential impacts on Western gulls ( Larus occidentalis ) of a single, non‐target mortality event, potentially resulting from exposure to rodenticide directed at eradicating house mice ( Mus musculus ) on the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Firstly, we conducted a population viability analysis based on over 25 yr of Farallon Western gull demographic data to model future population trends under varying environmental conditions. Future population trends for Farallon Western gulls, independent of any potential mouse eradication‐related mortality, depend on the frequency of years with near‐failure in reproductive success, as was observed in 2009, 2010, and 2011. We modeled population trends under three environmental scenarios defined by the probability of near‐failure in future breeding: optimistic (probability of near‐failure = 0.0), realistic (probability = 0.115), or pessimistic (probability = 0.25). Secondly, we determined the maximum level of additional mortality, C , that would result in a population outcome distribution that cannot be effectively distinguished from a no additional mortality scenario after 20 yr (defined as 95% overlap in the two frequency distributions). We determined the threshold of detection to be an additional mortality of 3.3% beyond normally observed levels under the realistic scenario, 2.8% under the optimistic scenario, and 4.2% under the pessimistic scenario. Results demonstrate that the greater the background stochasticity, the greater C must be to be able to discriminate a long‐term effect of the mortality event against the backdrop of environmental variability. We demonstrate that incorporation of stochasticity is critical for evaluating one‐time mortality events given the high degree of variability characterizing many ecosystems; deterministic projections alone may provide poor guidance. While the need to account for stochasticity in Population Viability Analysis models is well established, this study is innovative in addressing how to evaluate a future or retrospective one‐time mortality event in the context of stochasticity. Our approach can help resource managers' plan for both best‐case and worst‐case scenarios when evaluating impacts of mortality events.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207