Literature DB >> 21168259

Learning and adaptation in the management of waterfowl harvests.

Fred A Johnson1.   

Abstract

A formal framework for the adaptive management of waterfowl harvests was adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1995. The process admits competing models of waterfowl population dynamics and harvest impacts, and relies on model averaging to compute optimal strategies for regulating harvest. Model weights, reflecting the relative ability of the alternative models to predict changes in population size, are used in the model averaging and are updated each year based on a comparison of model predictions and observations of population size. Since its inception the adaptive harvest program has focused principally on mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), which constitute a large portion of the U.S. waterfowl harvest. Four competing models, derived from a combination of two survival and two reproductive hypotheses, were originally assigned equal weights. In the last year of available information (2007), model weights favored the weakly density-dependent reproductive hypothesis over the strongly density-dependent one, and the additive mortality hypothesis over the compensatory one. The change in model weights led to a more conservative harvesting policy than what was in effect in the early years of the program. Adaptive harvest management has been successful in many ways, but nonetheless has exposed the difficulties in defining management objectives, in predicting and regulating harvests, and in coping with the tradeoffs inherent in managing multiple waterfowl stocks exposed to a common harvest. The key challenge now facing managers is whether adaptive harvest management as an institution can be sufficiently adaptive, and whether the knowledge and experience gained from the process can be reflected in higher-level policy decisions. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21168259     DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Manage        ISSN: 0301-4797            Impact factor:   6.789


  6 in total

1.  Practical precautionary resource management using robust optimization.

Authors:  Richard T Woodward; David Tomberlin
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Double-Loop Learning in Adaptive Management: The Need, the Challenge, and the Opportunity.

Authors:  Byron K Williams; Eleanor D Brown
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Accumulating evidence in ecology: Once is not enough.

Authors:  James D Nichols; William L Kendall; Gregory Scott Boomer
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.912

4.  Adaptive management: from more talk to real action.

Authors:  Byron K Williams; Eleanor D Brown
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  State-Dependent Resource Harvesting with Lagged Information about System States.

Authors:  Fred A Johnson; Paul L Fackler; G Scott Boomer; Guthrie S Zimmerman; Byron K Williams; James D Nichols; Robert M Dorazio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Linking landscape-scale conservation to regional and continental outcomes for a migratory species.

Authors:  B J Mattsson; J H Devries; J A Dubovsky; D Semmens; W E Thogmartin; J J Derbridge; L Lopez-Hoffman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.