Management on the basis of the best scientific data or integration of ecological research within management? Lessons learned from the Northern spotted owl saga on the connection between research and management in conservation biology

Gosselin, Frédéric

doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9449-6

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, such habitat‐type categories correlate relatively weakly or in contradictory patterns with population performance measures among northern spotted owls (e.g., Raphael et al 1996, Franklin et al 2000, Olson et al 2004, Dugger et al 2005). Such variation led Boyce et al (2005) and Gosselin (2009) to suggest that the habitat issue for northern spotted owls remains unclear. We suggest that the confusion resulted because vegetation cover‐types inadequately capture fine‐scale, complex interactions and features that influence population performance among spotted owls, as has been observed for other bird species (Cushman et al 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat selection by northern spotted owls in mixed‐coniferous forests

Irwin

Rock

2011

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation planning for the federally threatened northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) requires an ability to predict their responses to existing and future habitat conditions. To inform such planning we modeled habitat selection by northern spotted owls based upon fine-scale (approx. 1.0 ha) characteristics within stands comprised primarily of mixed-aged, mixed coniferous forests of southwestern Oregon and north-central California. We sampled nocturnal (i.e., primarily foraging) habitat use by 71 radio-tagged spotted owls over 5 yr in 3 study areas and sampled vegetative and physical environmental conditions at inventory plots within 95% utilization distributions of each bird. We compared conditions at available forest patches, represented by the inventory plots, with those at patches used by owls using discretechoice regressions, the coefficients from which were used to construct exponential resource selection functions (RSFs) for each study area and for all 3 areas combined. Cross-validation testing indicated that the combined RSF was reasonably robust to local variation in habitat availability. The relative probability that a fine-scale patch was selected decreased nonlinearly with distances from nests and streams; varied unimodally with increasing average diameter of coniferous trees and also with increasing basal area of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees; increased linearly with increasing basal areas of sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) and hardwood trees and with increasing density of understory shrubs. Large-diameter trees (>66 cm) appeared important <400 m from nest sites. The RSF can support comparative risk assessments of the short-versus long-term effects of silvicultural alternatives designed to integrate forest ecosystem restoration and habitat improvement for northern spotted owls. Results suggest fine-scale factors may influence population fitness among spotted owls. ß 2011 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat selection by northern spotted owls in mixed‐coniferous forests

Irwin

Rock

2011

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to papers describing applications of AM, 13 studies appraised the benefits and drawbacks of AM, including instances of premature assessment (Simberloff 2009), benefits in relation to the integration of ecological research within management decision-making (Gosselin 2009), collaborative governance Sagoff 2009), dealing with complex problems and uncertainty (Boyd & Svejar 2009;Prato 2009a, b, c), evaluations of its utility through modelling (Bond & Loomis 2009;Martin et al 2009, Rout et al 2009, and discussion of separate discourses (Jacobson et al 2009;Owens 2009). None assessed the benefits or costs of AM in the field, including in relation to possible alternatives.…”

Section: Appraising Adaptive Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive management: where are we now?

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYAdaptive management (AM) emerged in the literature in the mid-1970s in response both to a realization of the extent of uncertainty involved in management, and a frustration with attempts to use modelling to integrate knowledge and make predictions. The term has since become increasingly widely used in scientific articles, policy documents and management plans, but both understanding and application of the concept is mixed. This paper reviews recent literature from conservation and natural resource management journals to assess diversity in how the term is used, highlight ambiguities and consider how the concept might be further assessed. AM is currently being used to describe many different management contexts, scales and locations. Few authors define the term explicitly or describe how it offers a means to improve management outcomes in their specific management context. Many do not adhere to the idea as it was originally conceived, despite citing seminal work. Significant confusion exists over the distinction between active and passive approaches. Over half of the studies reporting to implement AM claimed to have done so successfully, yet none quantified specific benefits, or costs, in relation to possible alternatives. Similarly those studies reporting to assess the approach did so only in relation to specific models and their parameterizations; none assessed the benefits or costs of AM in the field. AM is regarded by some as an effective and wellestablished framework to support the management of natural resources, yet by others as a concept difficult to realize and fraught with implementation challenges; neither of these observations is wholly accurate. From a scientific and technical perspective many practical questions remain; in particular realworld assessments of the value of experimentation within a management framework, as well as of identified challenges and pathologies, are needed. Further discussion and systematic assessment of the approach is required, together with greater attention to its definition and description, enabling the assessment of new approaches to managing uncertainty, and AM itself.

show abstract

“…À l'opposé, un participant a rapporté que c'est parfois grâce aux chercheurs impliqués dans la discussion qu'il devient possible d'expliciter ce que recherchent les différentes parties prenantes, à formuler rationnellement les attentes et, finalement, à approcher d'une solution acceptable. On est là dans un domaine de la recherche qui mériterait de se développer, celui qui voit la recherche comme une partie prenante des problématiques de gestion (Gosselin, 2009). …”

Section: Les Acteurs De La Recherche : En Phase Avec La Demande Sociéunclassified

« Produire plus tout en préservant mieux ? ». Regards croisés de chercheurs et de gestionnaires forestiers. Quelques échosdes travaux en Ateliers Regefor 2009

Landmann¹

2011

Rev. For. Fr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management on the basis of the best scientific data or integration of ecological research within management? Lessons learned from the Northern spotted owl saga on the connection between research and management in conservation biology

Cited by 19 publications

References 39 publications

Habitat selection by northern spotted owls in mixed‐coniferous forests

Habitat selection by northern spotted owls in mixed‐coniferous forests

Adaptive management: where are we now?

« Produire plus tout en préservant mieux ? ». Regards croisés de chercheurs et de gestionnaires forestiers. Quelques échosdes travaux en Ateliers Regefor 2009

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About