MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293103834 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.14281

An initial assessment of the sustainability of waterbird harvest in the United Kingdom

2022· article· en· W4293103834 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew B. Ellis, Tom C. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyAnasPopulationSustainabilityPopulation growthWaterfowlOverwinteringPopulation sizeEcologyRange (aeronautics)Wildlife conservationWildlife managementBiologyWildlifeDemographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is a need to assess the sustainability of wild bird harvest in the United Kingdom (UK), and more widely, across Europe. Yet, data on populations and harvest sizes are limited. We used a demographic invariant method (DIM) to estimate potential excess growth (PEG) for populations of UK wintering waterbirds and calculated a sustainable harvest index (SHI) for each. We compared this with population trends and conservation classifications (e.g. Birds of Conservation Concern [BoCC]) to assess the sustainability of harvests and the utility of these classifications. Our approach found evidence for potential overharvest of mallard Anas platyrhynchos , Eurasian teal Anas crecca , gadwall Mareca strepera , Canada geese Branta canadensis , greylag geese Anser anser and woodcock Scolopax rusticola . Whether DIM methods predict overharvest is highly dependent on estimates of maximum population growth rates inferring PEG. We found estimates of maximum population growth to be variable across a range of different methods. We found no relationship between SHI and short‐term wintering trends or conservation classification under the UK's BoCC framework. There was however a positive relationship between SHI and long‐term wintering trends. Policy implications . Our results suggest that UK‐based harvest is unlikely to be a major determinant of population trends for the majority of UK overwintering waterbirds, but harvest rates for some species may exceed that required to maintain stationary population growth. The lack of a relationship between conservation classifications and SHI strongly suggests that such conservation classifications are not an appropriate tool for making decisions about harvest management. Instead, our assessment provides the basis for a framework to make evidence‐based decisions on sustainable harvest levels in the face of incomplete data. There is currently no clear policy instrument in the UK to support such a framework via controls on either harvest effort or mortality of waterfowl. We believe such an instrument is urgently needed to ensure the UK can adapt to changing pressures and ensure the sustainable use of our wildlife populations.

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)0.002
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207