EVALUATING MALLARD ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MODELS WITH TIME SERIES
Wildlife practitioners concerned with midcontinent mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) management in the United States have instituted a system of adaptive harvest management (AHM) as an objective format for setting harvest regulations. Under the AHM paradigm, predictions from a set of models that reflect...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of wildlife management 2004-10, Vol.68 (4), p.1065-1081 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1081 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1065 |
container_title | The Journal of wildlife management |
container_volume | 68 |
creator | CONN, PAUL B KENDALL, WILLIAM L |
description | Wildlife practitioners concerned with midcontinent mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) management in the United States have instituted a system of adaptive harvest management (AHM) as an objective format for setting harvest regulations. Under the AHM paradigm, predictions from a set of models that reflect key uncertainties about processes underlying population dynamics are used in coordination with optimization software to determine an optimal set of harvest decisions. Managers use comparisons of the predictive abilities of these models to gauge the relative truth of different hypotheses about density-dependent recruitment and survival, with better-predicting models giving more weight to the determination of harvest regulations. We tested the effectiveness of this strategy by examining convergence rates of “predictor” models when the true model for population dynamics was known a priori. We generated time series for cases when the a priori model was 1 of the predictor models as well as for several cases when the a priori model was not in the model set. We further examined the addition of different levels of uncertainty into the variance structure of predictor models, reflecting different levels of confidence about estimated parameters. We showed that in certain situations, the model-selection process favors a predictor model that incorporates the hypotheses of additive harvest mortality and weakly density-dependent recruitment, even when the model is not used to generate data. Higher levels of predictor model variance led to decreased rates of convergence to the model that generated the data, but model weight trajectories were in general more stable. We suggest that predictive models should incorporate all sources of uncertainty about estimated parameters, that the variance structure should be similar for all predictor models, and that models with different functional forms for population dynamics should be considered for inclusion in predictor model sets. All of these suggestions should help lower the probability of erroneous learning in mallard AHM and adaptive management in general. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[1065:EMAMMW]2.0.CO;2 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16197339</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3803662</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3803662</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b5365-275d4148f6c3ab40dbf378e2b146b6fd9d6c666dacd8955899f4641237560de33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkE1r2zAYgMXYYFnWf7CD2WGsB6f6tr1BwTiq685OusZtCmO8-EMGp2ncWQlb__1kPHLYsSeB3kePpAehM4JnlATsDGNKXcHJ_WeKMT_F0v9BsBRfVBZm2fonneFZtPxKX6GJpT2X-sR7jSbHU2_RO2M2GDNCfDlB5-ouTG_DPFnEThamaXgzd8J5eJ0nd8puLMJYZWqRO9lyrtKVs07ySydPMuWs1E2iVu_Rm6bYGn3yb52i2wuVR5duuoyTKEzdUjApXOqJmhPuN7JiRclxXTbM8zUtCZelbOqglpWUsi6q2g-E8IOg4ZITyjwhca0Zm6JPo_ep734dtNnDY2sqvd0WO90dDBBJAo-xwIIf_wM33aHf2bcBZdxinHsWikeo6jtjet3AU98-Fv0zEAxDZBhywZALhshgI8MQGcbIQAFDtLTGKfo2mn63W_38Ug1crbM4ENb2YbRtzL7rjzbmYyblcJk7jluz13-O46J_AOnZVLBexHB1__0iwxGHleXVyJdt1-30iz_5F0uvrrk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234161447</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>EVALUATING MALLARD ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MODELS WITH TIME SERIES</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>CONN, PAUL B ; KENDALL, WILLIAM L</creator><contributor>Peterson</contributor><creatorcontrib>CONN, PAUL B ; KENDALL, WILLIAM L ; Peterson</creatorcontrib><description>Wildlife practitioners concerned with midcontinent mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) management in the United States have instituted a system of adaptive harvest management (AHM) as an objective format for setting harvest regulations. Under the AHM paradigm, predictions from a set of models that reflect key uncertainties about processes underlying population dynamics are used in coordination with optimization software to determine an optimal set of harvest decisions. Managers use comparisons of the predictive abilities of these models to gauge the relative truth of different hypotheses about density-dependent recruitment and survival, with better-predicting models giving more weight to the determination of harvest regulations. We tested the effectiveness of this strategy by examining convergence rates of “predictor” models when the true model for population dynamics was known a priori. We generated time series for cases when the a priori model was 1 of the predictor models as well as for several cases when the a priori model was not in the model set. We further examined the addition of different levels of uncertainty into the variance structure of predictor models, reflecting different levels of confidence about estimated parameters. We showed that in certain situations, the model-selection process favors a predictor model that incorporates the hypotheses of additive harvest mortality and weakly density-dependent recruitment, even when the model is not used to generate data. Higher levels of predictor model variance led to decreased rates of convergence to the model that generated the data, but model weight trajectories were in general more stable. We suggest that predictive models should incorporate all sources of uncertainty about estimated parameters, that the variance structure should be similar for all predictor models, and that models with different functional forms for population dynamics should be considered for inclusion in predictor model sets. All of these suggestions should help lower the probability of erroneous learning in mallard AHM and adaptive management in general.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[1065:EMAMMW]2.0.CO;2</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JWMAA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>A priori knowledge ; Adaptive management ; additive mortality ; Anas platyrhynchos ; Animal populations ; Animal reproduction ; bootstrapping ; compensatory mortality ; CONTENTS ; Density dependence ; mallards ; Modeling ; Mortality ; Ponds ; Population dynamics ; population modeling ; Population size ; Prediction models ; reproduction ; simulation ; Simulations ; Time series ; Time series models ; Wildfowl ; Wildlife ecology ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2004-10, Vol.68 (4), p.1065-1081</ispartof><rights>The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright 2004 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>2004 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright Wildlife Society Oct 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b5365-275d4148f6c3ab40dbf378e2b146b6fd9d6c666dacd8955899f4641237560de33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b5365-275d4148f6c3ab40dbf378e2b146b6fd9d6c666dacd8955899f4641237560de33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3803662$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3803662$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Peterson</contributor><creatorcontrib>CONN, PAUL B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KENDALL, WILLIAM L</creatorcontrib><title>EVALUATING MALLARD ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MODELS WITH TIME SERIES</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>Wildlife practitioners concerned with midcontinent mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) management in the United States have instituted a system of adaptive harvest management (AHM) as an objective format for setting harvest regulations. Under the AHM paradigm, predictions from a set of models that reflect key uncertainties about processes underlying population dynamics are used in coordination with optimization software to determine an optimal set of harvest decisions. Managers use comparisons of the predictive abilities of these models to gauge the relative truth of different hypotheses about density-dependent recruitment and survival, with better-predicting models giving more weight to the determination of harvest regulations. We tested the effectiveness of this strategy by examining convergence rates of “predictor” models when the true model for population dynamics was known a priori. We generated time series for cases when the a priori model was 1 of the predictor models as well as for several cases when the a priori model was not in the model set. We further examined the addition of different levels of uncertainty into the variance structure of predictor models, reflecting different levels of confidence about estimated parameters. We showed that in certain situations, the model-selection process favors a predictor model that incorporates the hypotheses of additive harvest mortality and weakly density-dependent recruitment, even when the model is not used to generate data. Higher levels of predictor model variance led to decreased rates of convergence to the model that generated the data, but model weight trajectories were in general more stable. We suggest that predictive models should incorporate all sources of uncertainty about estimated parameters, that the variance structure should be similar for all predictor models, and that models with different functional forms for population dynamics should be considered for inclusion in predictor model sets. All of these suggestions should help lower the probability of erroneous learning in mallard AHM and adaptive management in general.</description><subject>A priori knowledge</subject><subject>Adaptive management</subject><subject>additive mortality</subject><subject>Anas platyrhynchos</subject><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Animal reproduction</subject><subject>bootstrapping</subject><subject>compensatory mortality</subject><subject>CONTENTS</subject><subject>Density dependence</subject><subject>mallards</subject><subject>Modeling</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Ponds</subject><subject>Population dynamics</subject><subject>population modeling</subject><subject>Population size</subject><subject>Prediction models</subject><subject>reproduction</subject><subject>simulation</subject><subject>Simulations</subject><subject>Time series</subject><subject>Time series models</subject><subject>Wildfowl</subject><subject>Wildlife ecology</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqdkE1r2zAYgMXYYFnWf7CD2WGsB6f6tr1BwTiq685OusZtCmO8-EMGp2ncWQlb__1kPHLYsSeB3kePpAehM4JnlATsDGNKXcHJ_WeKMT_F0v9BsBRfVBZm2fonneFZtPxKX6GJpT2X-sR7jSbHU2_RO2M2GDNCfDlB5-ouTG_DPFnEThamaXgzd8J5eJ0nd8puLMJYZWqRO9lyrtKVs07ySydPMuWs1E2iVu_Rm6bYGn3yb52i2wuVR5duuoyTKEzdUjApXOqJmhPuN7JiRclxXTbM8zUtCZelbOqglpWUsi6q2g-E8IOg4ZITyjwhca0Zm6JPo_ep734dtNnDY2sqvd0WO90dDBBJAo-xwIIf_wM33aHf2bcBZdxinHsWikeo6jtjet3AU98-Fv0zEAxDZBhywZALhshgI8MQGcbIQAFDtLTGKfo2mn63W_38Ug1crbM4ENb2YbRtzL7rjzbmYyblcJk7jluz13-O46J_AOnZVLBexHB1__0iwxGHleXVyJdt1-30iz_5F0uvrrk</recordid><startdate>200410</startdate><enddate>200410</enddate><creator>CONN, PAUL B</creator><creator>KENDALL, WILLIAM L</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>The Wildlife Society</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200410</creationdate><title>EVALUATING MALLARD ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MODELS WITH TIME SERIES</title><author>CONN, PAUL B ; KENDALL, WILLIAM L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b5365-275d4148f6c3ab40dbf378e2b146b6fd9d6c666dacd8955899f4641237560de33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>A priori knowledge</topic><topic>Adaptive management</topic><topic>additive mortality</topic><topic>Anas platyrhynchos</topic><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Animal reproduction</topic><topic>bootstrapping</topic><topic>compensatory mortality</topic><topic>CONTENTS</topic><topic>Density dependence</topic><topic>mallards</topic><topic>Modeling</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Ponds</topic><topic>Population dynamics</topic><topic>population modeling</topic><topic>Population size</topic><topic>Prediction models</topic><topic>reproduction</topic><topic>simulation</topic><topic>Simulations</topic><topic>Time series</topic><topic>Time series models</topic><topic>Wildfowl</topic><topic>Wildlife ecology</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>CONN, PAUL B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KENDALL, WILLIAM L</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>CONN, PAUL B</au><au>KENDALL, WILLIAM L</au><au>Peterson</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>EVALUATING MALLARD ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MODELS WITH TIME SERIES</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>2004-10</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1065</spage><epage>1081</epage><pages>1065-1081</pages><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><coden>JWMAA9</coden><abstract>Wildlife practitioners concerned with midcontinent mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) management in the United States have instituted a system of adaptive harvest management (AHM) as an objective format for setting harvest regulations. Under the AHM paradigm, predictions from a set of models that reflect key uncertainties about processes underlying population dynamics are used in coordination with optimization software to determine an optimal set of harvest decisions. Managers use comparisons of the predictive abilities of these models to gauge the relative truth of different hypotheses about density-dependent recruitment and survival, with better-predicting models giving more weight to the determination of harvest regulations. We tested the effectiveness of this strategy by examining convergence rates of “predictor” models when the true model for population dynamics was known a priori. We generated time series for cases when the a priori model was 1 of the predictor models as well as for several cases when the a priori model was not in the model set. We further examined the addition of different levels of uncertainty into the variance structure of predictor models, reflecting different levels of confidence about estimated parameters. We showed that in certain situations, the model-selection process favors a predictor model that incorporates the hypotheses of additive harvest mortality and weakly density-dependent recruitment, even when the model is not used to generate data. Higher levels of predictor model variance led to decreased rates of convergence to the model that generated the data, but model weight trajectories were in general more stable. We suggest that predictive models should incorporate all sources of uncertainty about estimated parameters, that the variance structure should be similar for all predictor models, and that models with different functional forms for population dynamics should be considered for inclusion in predictor model sets. All of these suggestions should help lower the probability of erroneous learning in mallard AHM and adaptive management in general.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[1065:EMAMMW]2.0.CO;2</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-541X |
ispartof | The Journal of wildlife management, 2004-10, Vol.68 (4), p.1065-1081 |
issn | 0022-541X 1937-2817 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16197339 |
source | Wiley Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | A priori knowledge Adaptive management additive mortality Anas platyrhynchos Animal populations Animal reproduction bootstrapping compensatory mortality CONTENTS Density dependence mallards Modeling Mortality Ponds Population dynamics population modeling Population size Prediction models reproduction simulation Simulations Time series Time series models Wildfowl Wildlife ecology Wildlife management |
title | EVALUATING MALLARD ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MODELS WITH TIME SERIES |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T15%3A40%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=EVALUATING%20MALLARD%20ADAPTIVE%20MANAGEMENT%20MODELS%20WITH%20TIME%20SERIES&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=CONN,%20PAUL%20B&rft.date=2004-10&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1065&rft.epage=1081&rft.pages=1065-1081&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft.coden=JWMAA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068%5B1065:EMAMMW%5D2.0.CO;2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3803662%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234161447&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3803662&rfr_iscdi=true |