2018
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13186
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Banding age ratios reveal prairie waterfowl fecundity is affected by climate, density dependence and predator–prey dynamics

Abstract: Fecundity estimates for demographic modelling are difficult to acquire at the regional spatial scales that correspond to climate shifts, land use impacts or habitat management programmes. Yet they are important for evaluating such effects. While waterfowl managers have historically used harvest‐based age ratios to assess fecundity at continental scales, widely available age ratios from late summer banding (ringing) data present an underutilized opportunity to examine a regional fecundity index with broad tempo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

7
49
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
7
49
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Annual survival in scaup increased with small‐mammal abundance. This result is consistent with an alternate prey hypothesis where predation on alternate prey such as ducks and their eggs and young declines as populations increase for primary prey species like small mammals (Brook et al , Specht and Arnold ). Contrary to our predictions, however, we did not find a relationship between apparent survival and small‐mammal index in scoters.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Annual survival in scaup increased with small‐mammal abundance. This result is consistent with an alternate prey hypothesis where predation on alternate prey such as ducks and their eggs and young declines as populations increase for primary prey species like small mammals (Brook et al , Specht and Arnold ). Contrary to our predictions, however, we did not find a relationship between apparent survival and small‐mammal index in scoters.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…These fecundity estimates complemented estimates of juvenile and adult survival that analysts have typically obtained from tag‐recovery data (Brownie et al., ; Siriwardena et al., ) and allowed me to construct models that included all of the demographic components of population growth. For pintails, data were sufficient to estimate annual variation in all three vital rates and these estimates suggested that observed population declines during 1970–1993 were driven primarily by reductions in annual fecundity, which is consistent with other recent studies of historical pintail data (Bartzen & Dufour, ; Specht & Arnold, ). For juncos, my estimate of adult survival (0.493, SD : 0.034) was slightly larger than estimates of apparent survival from constant‐effort ringing stations (0.453, SD : 0.030; DeSante et al., ), whereas my estimate of recruitment ( F × S juv = 1.889 × 0.276 = 0.521) was slightly lower than estimates derived from reverse‐time analyses (0.554, SD : 0.032; DeSante et al., ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Wildlife managers have long used age ratios of harvested individuals ( H j,t / H a,t ) to measure annual fecundity, but because juveniles are often more vulnerable to harvest than adults, tag‐recovery data are needed to adjust these data for relative vulnerability to harvest: trueF^normalt=Hj,t/Ha,ttruef^j,t/truef^a,twhere truef^j,t/truef^a,t is the ratio of juvenile to adult harvest rates (Zimmerman et al., ). Age ratios at capture can provide similar estimates of population‐level fecundity (Specht & Arnold, ), but if capture probabilities differ between age classes, fecundity estimates will be biased. However, live recaptures during the initial banding period could be used to assess age‐specific vulnerability to capture and estimate the true underlying age distribution, similarly to vulnerability‐adjusted age ratios at harvest (Alisauskas, Arnold, Leafloor, Otis, & Sedinger, ; Zimmerman et al., ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations