Literature DB >> 31743363

Population dynamics of foxes during restricted-area culling in Britain: Advancing understanding through state-space modelling of culling records.

Tom A Porteus1, Jonathan C Reynolds2, Murdoch K McAllister3.   

Abstract

Lethal control is widely employed to suppress the numbers of target wildlife species within restricted management areas. The success of such measures is expected to vary with local circumstances affecting rates of removal and replacement. There is a need both to evaluate success in individual cases and to understand variability and its causes. In Britain, red fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations are culled within the confines of shooting estates to benefit game and wildlife prey species. We developed a Bayesian state-space model for within-year fox population dynamics within such restricted areas and fitted it to data on culling effort and success obtained from gamekeepers on 22 shooting estates of 2 to 36 km2. We used informative priors for key population processes-immigration, cub recruitment and non-culling mortality-that could not be quantified in the field. Using simulated datasets we showed that the model reliably estimated fox density and demographic parameters, and we showed that conclusions drawn from real data were robust to alternative model assumptions. All estates achieved suppression of the fox population, with pre-breeding fox density on average 47% (range 20%-90%) of estimated carrying capacity. As expected, the number of foxes killed was a poor indicator of effectiveness. Estimated rates of immigration were variable among estates, but in most cases indicated rapid replacement of culled foxes so that intensive culling efforts were required to maintain low fox densities. Due to this short-term impact, control effort focussed on the spring and summer period may be essential to achieve management goals for prey species. During the critical March-July breeding period, mean fox densities on all estates were suppressed below carrying capacity, and some maintained consistently low fox densities throughout this period. A similar model will be useful in other situations to quantify the effectiveness of lethal control on restricted areas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31743363      PMCID: PMC6863561          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225201

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  15 in total

1.  An assessment of integrated population models: bias, accuracy, and violation of the assumption of independence.

Authors:  Fitsum Abadi; Olivier Gimenez; Raphaël Arlettaz; Michael Schaub
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.499

2.  On the regulation of populations of mammals, birds, fish, and insects.

Authors:  Richard M Sibly; Daniel Barker; Michael C Denham; Jim Hone; Mark Pagel
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  On the estimation of biological populations.

Authors:  D B DeLURY
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1947-12       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  On observation distributions for state space models of population survey data.

Authors:  Jonas Knape; Niclas Jonzén; Martin Sköld
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 5.091

5.  Global models of growth and competition.

Authors:  M E Gilpin; F J Ayala
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1973-12       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Population growth in snow geese: a modeling approach integrating demographic and survey information.

Authors:  Gilles Gauthier; Panagiotis Besbeas; Jean-Dominique Lebreton; Byron J T Morgan
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.499

7.  Experimental evidence of competitive release in sympatric carnivores.

Authors:  Iain D Trewby; Gavin J Wilson; Richard J Delahay; Neil Walker; Richard Young; John Davison; Chris Cheeseman; Pete A Robertson; Martyn L Gorman; Robbie A McDonald
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2008-04-23       Impact factor: 3.703

8.  No evidence for spatial variation in predation risk following restricted-area fox culling.

Authors:  Jim-Lino Kämmerle; Sarah Niekrenz; Ilse Storch
Journal:  BMC Ecol       Date:  2019-04-25       Impact factor: 2.964

9.  The importance of observation versus process error in analyses of global ungulate populations.

Authors:  Farshid S Ahrestani; Mark Hebblewhite; Eric Post
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  State-space models' dirty little secrets: even simple linear Gaussian models can have estimation problems.

Authors:  Marie Auger-Méthé; Chris Field; Christoffer M Albertsen; Andrew E Derocher; Mark A Lewis; Ian D Jonsen; Joanna Mills Flemming
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.