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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of wildlife management 2004-10, Vol.68 (4), p.1065-1081
Hauptverfasser: CONN, PAUL B, KENDALL, WILLIAM L
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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