Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31007719›Full record

ArticleConservation letters

Time series analysis reveals synchrony and asynchrony between conflict management effort and increasing large grazing bird populations in northern Europe.

Jeremy J Cusack, A Brad Duthie, O Sarobidy Rakotonarivo, Rocío A Pozo, Tom H E Mason, Johan Månsson, Lovisa Nilsson, Ingunn M Tombre, Einar Eythórsson, Jesper Madsen and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation letters. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Jeremy J CusackBiological and Environmental Sciences University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA United Kingdom.
A Brad DuthieBiological and Environmental Sciences University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA United Kingdom.
O Sarobidy RakotonarivoBiological and Environmental Sciences University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA United Kingdom.
Rocío A PozoBiological and Environmental Sciences University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA United Kingdom.
Tom H E MasonConservation Ecology Group, Department of Biosciences Durham University United Kingdom.
Johan MånssonWildlife Damage Center, Grimsö Research Station, Department of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Sweden.
Lovisa NilssonWildlife Damage Center, Grimsö Research Station, Department of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Sweden.
Ingunn M TombreDepartment of Arctic Ecology Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Norway.
Einar EythórssonHigh North Department Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research Tromsø Norway.
Jesper MadsenDepartment of Bioscience Aarhus University Denmark.
Ayesha TullochCentre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Queensland Brisbane Australia.
Richard D HearnWildfowl & Wetlands Trust Slimbridge Gloucestershire GL2 7BT United Kingdom.
Steve RedpathInstitute of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Aberdeen United Kingdom.
Nils BunnefeldBiological and Environmental Sciences University of Stirling Stirling FK9 4LA United Kingdom.

Funding

European Research Council 679651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management of conflicts between wildlife conservation and agricultural practices often involves the implementation of strategies aimed at reducing the cost of wildlife impacts on crops. Vital to the success of these strategies is the perception that changes in management efforts are synchronized relative to changes in impact levels, yet this expectation is never evaluated. We assess the level of synchrony between time series of population counts and management effort in the context of conflicts between agriculture and five populations of large grazing birds in northern Europe. We reveal inconsistent patterns of synchrony and asynchrony between changes in population counts and impact management effort relating to population harvesting, monetary payments, or scaring practices. This variation is likely due to differing management aims, the existence of lags between management decisions and population monitoring, and the inconsistent use of predictive models across case studies. Overall, our findings highlight the need for more adaptive and timely responses of management to changes in target species numbers so as not to unexpectedly increase social conflicts and jeopardize the status of wildlife populations.

Indexed as

compensationconflictcranegooseharvestmanagementpopulation countscaringtime series

Identifiers

PMID31007719
PMCPMC6472567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.