| Literature DB >> 29897991 |
Jean Fantle-Lepczyk1, Andrew Taylor1, David C Duffy2, Lisa H Crampton3, Sheila Conant1.
Abstract
Evolution in the Hawaiian Islands has produced a unique avian assemblage. Unfortunately, many of these bird species are highly endangered or extinct. Despite numerous and increasing threats and great effort aimed at saving endemic birds, we lack basic science necessary for understanding many species of concern. One such species is the critically endangered Puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri), a rare songbird endemic to the island of Kaua'i and the only remaining native thrush on the island. At present, the Puaiohi's breeding population is estimated to be ~500 birds restricted to the Alaka'i Wilderness Preserve. We collected demographic data from 2007-2012 and supplemented it with published sources. Using Vortex, we developed stochastic population models to represent Puaiohi population dynamics under current and potential management scenarios to determine management's potential efficacy in aiding species recovery. Management scenarios modeled included rat control, habitat improvement, general survival facilitation, and provision of nest boxes. The model indicated a decline in abundance with a growth rate (r) of -0.267 under baseline conditions. Female and juvenile survival appeared to be the most influential parameters related to population growth and persistence, so management should focus on increasing female and juvenile Puaiohi survival. Rat control, even at more conservative levels, appeared to be the most effective method of increasing Puaiohi abundance. Our results indicate that practical, attainable management activities can increase Puaiohi and bring the species back from the brink of extinction. Such findings provide an example for other endangered species conservation efforts.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29897991 PMCID: PMC5999280 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198952
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Vortex parameter inputs for the baseline Puaiohi population model.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Inbreeding Depression | |
| Lethal Equivalent | 6.29 |
| % due to Recessive Lethals | 50% |
| EV Concordance of Repro and Survival? | Yes |
| Reproductive System | monogamous, probably long term |
| Age of 1st Offspring Females | 1 |
| Age of 1st Offspring Males | 1 |
| Max Age of Repro | 10 |
| Max # Broods/Year | 4 |
| Max # Progeny/Brood | 2 |
| Sex Ratio at birth in % Males | 1 to 1 |
| Density Dependent Reproduction | yes |
| % Breeding at Low Density | 100% |
| % Breeding at K | 90% |
| Allee Parameter | 0 |
| Steepness Parameter | 8 |
| % Adult Females Breeding | Will be automatically calc'd from % Breedings, A, and B |
| EV (SD) in % Breeding | 10 |
| Distribution of Broods each Year | 0–13.16%; 1–42.11%; 2–36.84%; 3–5.26%; 4–2.63% |
| # Offspring/Female/brood (exact distribution of brood size) | 1–30.77%; 2–69.23% |
| Mortality of Females as % | |
| Mort from 0 to 1 | 0.77 |
| SD in Mort from 0 to 1 | 10 |
| Annual Mort after Age 1 | 0.54 |
| SD in Mort after Age 1 | 3 |
| Mortality of Males as % | |
| Mort from 0 to 1 | 0.77 |
| SD in Mort from 0 to 1 | 10 |
| Annual Mort after Age 1 | 0.29 |
| SD in Mort after Age 1 | 3 |
| % Males in Breeding Pool | 100% |
| Stable Age Distribution? | Yes |
| Initial Population Size | 500 |
| K | 1100 |
| SD in K due to EV | 10 |
Baseline candidate model results.
The model in bold, Baseline without inbreeding, was chosen as the baseline for all model scenario comparisons. Equivalency testing of model output (stochastic r and N extant) shows models with and without inbreeding depression to be equivalent, so we chose to exclude inbreeding depression. The Baseline without inbreeding model, with a steepness value of 8, was equivalent to models with steepness 4 or steepness 16. As a result, we chose to use a steepness value of 8 in our baseline model.
| Model | Prob of Extinct | PE SE | Stoch r mean | Stoch r SE | Stoch r SD | N in all pops mean | N SE | N SD | TE median | TE mean | TE SE | TE SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline w. inbreeding | 0.981 | 0.004 | -0.269 | 0.002 | 0.196 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.75 | 17.00 | 16.64 | 0.11 | 3.37 |
| Baseline wo. inbreeding, steep4 | 0.966 | 0.006 | -0.264 | 0.002 | 0.199 | 0.35 | 0.03 | 1.07 | 17.00 | 16.92 | 0.11 | 3.48 |
| Baseline wo. inbreeding, steep16 | 0.973 | 0.005 | -0.268 | 0.002 | 0.199 | 0.28 | 0.03 | 1.06 | 17.00 | 16.69 | 0.11 | 3.52 |
Vortex parameter input for management models.
| Model | K | Juv mort | Female mort | Male mortality | Fecundity (successful attempts/ year) | Fecundity (fledged/ successful attempt) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 1100 | 0.77 | 0.54 | 0.29 | 1.42 | 1--30.77%; 2--69.23% |
| Rat control | 1375 | 0.58 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 2.13 | 1--30.77%; 2--69.23% |
| Rat control-conservative | 1210 | 0.69 | 0.41 | 0.29 | 1.78 | 1--30.77%; 2--69.23% |
| Nest boxes | 1375 | 0.77 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 2.13 | 1--30.77%; 2--69.23% |
| Nest boxes-conservative | 1210 | 0.77 | 0.41 | 0.29 | 1.78 | 1--30.77%; 2--69.23% |
| Survival assistance | 1100 | 0.58 | 0.41 | 0.22 | 1.42 | 1--30.77%; 2--69.23% |
| Survival assistance-conservative | 1100 | 0.69 | 0.49 | 0.26 | 1.42 | 1--30.77%; 2--69.23% |
| Habitat improvement | 1210 | 0.69 | 0.49 | 0.26 | 1.95 | 1--13.46%; 2--86.54% |
| Habitat improvement-conservative | 1210 | 0.69 | 0.49 | 0.26 | 1.56 | 1--23.85%; 2--76.15% |
Fig 1Population trajectories of baseline and management models in Vortex.
Population viability model results from Vortex modeling software.
Probability of extinction and population size are within 25 years, and mean time to extinction is for all iterations that went extinct within 25 years.
| Model | Stoch r | Prob of extinct | Mean N | N SD | Median TE | Mean TE | TE SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | -0.267 | 0.97 | 0.32 | 1.24 | 17 | 16.72 | 3.53 |
| Rat control | 0.297 | 0 | 1344.15 | 124.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rat control-conservative | 0.075 | 0 | 972.21 | 207.36 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nest boxes | 0.082 | 0 | 1156.68 | 205.34 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nest boxes-conservative | -0.048 | 0.01 | 234.96 | 221.3 | 0 | 23 | 2.33 |
| Survival assistance | 0.075 | 0 | 958.02 | 117.02 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Survival assistance-conservative | -0.126 | 0.16 | 33.01 | 38.57 | 0 | 22.12 | 2.46 |
| Habitat improvement | 0.059 | 0 | 899.18 | 245.71 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Habitat improvement-conservative | -0.067 | 0.02 | 144.95 | 146.54 | 0 | 22.8 | 2.46 |
Fig 2Sensitivity index (SI) of growth rate (A) and final population size (B). Increased distance from X axis (sensitivity index of 0) indicates more sensitivity.
Fig 3Evaluation of varying mortality rate to achieve a stable growth rate in Vortex.
Management model outcomes.
Percentages represent the proportion of 1,000 iterations that resulted in one of three possible outcomes (Success, Not Needed, or Failure, see Robinson et al. (2015) for details). Also included is the probability that growth rate rose above stochastic r = 1 when starting below the target (management worked when needed, calculated as Success/Success + Fail).
| Success | Management Not Needed | Failure | Management Worked | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rat control | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Rat control-conservative | 98.3% | 0% | 1.7% | 98% |
| Nest box | 99.1% | 0% | 0.9% | 99% |
| Nest box-conservative | 11.9% | 0% | 88.1% | 12% |
| Survival assistance | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Survival assistance-conservative | 0.2% | 0% | 99.8% | 0% |
| Habitat improvement | 96.6 | 0% | 3.4% | 97% |
| Habitat improvement-conservative | 4% | 0% | 96% | 4% |