BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Increasing goose population sizes gives rise to conflicts with human socioeconomic interests and in some circumstances conservation interests. Grazing by high abundances of geese in grasslands is postulated to lead to a very short and homogeneous sward height negatively affecting cover for breeding meadow birds and impacting survival of nests and chicks. We studied the effects of spring grazing barnacle geese Branta leucopsis and brent geese Branta bernicla on occupancy of extensively farmed freshwater grasslands by nesting and brood‐rearing waders on the island Mandø in the Danish Wadden Sea. We hypothesized that goose grazing would lead to a shorter grass sward, negatively affecting the field occupancy by territorial/nesting and chick‐rearing waders, particularly species preferring taller vegetation. Goose grazing led to a short grass sward (<5 cm height) over most of the island. To achieve a variation in sward height, we kept geese off certain fields using laser light. We analyzed effects of field size, sward height, mosaic structure of the vegetation, proximity to shrub as cover for potential predators, and elevation above ground water level as a measure of wetness on field occupancy by nesting and chick‐rearing waders. The analysis indicated that the most important factor explaining field occupancy by nesting redshank Tringa totanus, black‐tailed godwit Limosa limosa, oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus and lapwing Vanellus vanellus as well as by chick‐rearing black‐tailed godwit and lapwing was short vegetation height. Distance to shrub cover and elevation were less important. Hence, despite very intensive goose grazing, we could not detect any negative effect on the field occupancy by nesting nor chick‐rearing waders, including redshank and black‐tailed godwit, which are known to favor longer vegetation to conceal their nests and hide their chicks. Possible negative effects may be buffered by mosaic structures in fields and proximity to taller vegetation along fences and ditches.

Documenting complex models has long been a problem. Models are currently developed, implemented, and applied before review. Combined this leads to details hidden in the appendices or too little detail in the methods section to be reproducible. Modellers involve reviewers too late in the process. This does not allow them to flag issues, suggesting redesigns and reruns only after the analysis is complete. We propose splitting the model documentation, before analysis, into three steps: the Formal Model, Implementation Documentation, and Evaluation and Testing. Researchers can then use the well-built model for analysis. We introduce the first of these, the Formal Model as a peer-reviewed paper format that lays out the intentions for the model. The Formal Model includes reviewed literature that identifies the components of the model. Lays out the theoretical framework, modelling approaches and externalities. Plans to implement each process, with equations, descriptions, state variables and scales. Finally, the Formal Model gives the model’s strengths, weaknesses, exclusions, and place in the literature. We provide a flexible template for a Formal Model to aid in establishing a new common format. The Formal Model aims to improve transparency and provide a formal approach to documentation. Reviewers can help improve the model by identifying problems early. The Formal model contains the details needed to allow for reproducibility. It also encourages modellers to think about the consequences of what is and is not included within the model. And finally, it gives the credit that modellers deserve for the involved process of creating a model.