ArticleEcology and evolution2019
Experimental harvest regulations reveal that water availability during spring, not harvest, affects change in a waterfowl population.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A hierarchical model for jointly assessing ecological and anthropogenic impacts on animal demography.The Journal of animal ecology · 2022Article
- Experimental harvest regulations reveal that water availability during spring, not harvest, affects change in a waterfowl population.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Population change is regulated by vital rates that are influenced by environmental conditions, demographic stochasticity, and, increasingly, anthropogenic effects. Habitat destruction and climate change threaten the future of many wildlife populations, and there are additional concerns regarding the effects of harvest rates on demographic components of harvested organisms. Further, many population managers strictly manage harvest of wild organisms to mediate population trends of these populations. The goal of our study was to decouple harvest and environmental variability in a closely monitored population of wild ducks in North America, where we experimentally regulated harvest independently of environmental variation over a period of 4 years. We used 9 years of capture-mark-recapture data to estimate breeding population size during the spring for a population of wood ducks in Nevada. We then assessed the effect of one environmental variable and harvest pressure on annual changes in the breeding population size. Climatic conditions influencing water availability were strongly positively related to population growth rates of wood ducks in our study system. In contrast, harvest regulations and harvest rates did not affect population growth rates. We suggest efforts to conserve waterfowl should focus on the effects of habitat loss in breeding areas and climate change, which will likely affect precipitation regimes in the future. We demonstrate the utility of capture-mark-recapture methods to estimate abundance of species which are difficult to survey and test the impacts of anthropogenic harvest and climate on populations. Finally, our results continue to add to the importance of experimentation in applied conservation biology, where we believe that continued experiments on nonthreatened species will be critically important as researchers attempt to understand how to quantify and mitigate direct anthropogenic impacts in a changing world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.