2018
DOI: 10.1002/eap.1652
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mechanism matters: the cause of fluctuations in boom–bust populations governs optimal habitat restoration strategy

Abstract: Many populations exhibit boom-bust dynamics in which abundance fluctuates dramatically over time. Past research has focused on identifying whether the cause of fluctuations is primarily exogenous, e.g., environmental stochasticity coupled with weak density dependence, or endogenous, e.g., over-compensatory density dependence. Far fewer studies have addressed whether the mechanism responsible for boom-bust dynamics matters with respect to at-risk species management. Here, we ask whether the best strategy for re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 91 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These data support the conclusion that in this hotspot a classical boom-bust dynamic (57) developed during the FDP, which involved a recurring cycle of growth and subsequent collapse and near extirpation of immense (e.g., 10 6 to 10 7 ) rabbit populations (Fig. 2 D and SI Appendix , Table S1.36–38) linked to food and water supply and competition with domestic livestock and native herbivores.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 79%
“…These data support the conclusion that in this hotspot a classical boom-bust dynamic (57) developed during the FDP, which involved a recurring cycle of growth and subsequent collapse and near extirpation of immense (e.g., 10 6 to 10 7 ) rabbit populations (Fig. 2 D and SI Appendix , Table S1.36–38) linked to food and water supply and competition with domestic livestock and native herbivores.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 79%
“…With these data, we evaluated two models, a step model ( ) evaluating whether there was a demonstrable change in status (i.e., mean abundance) during the time period and a segmented model ( ) examining whether there was a change in the trend; we specifically tested for a reversal of trend from a period of decline to one of growth. We fit these models in R (R Core Team, 2018) with both the changepoint (Killick et al, 2016) and chngpt (Fong and Gilbert, 2017) packages to ensure correct model outputs (see Supplementary Datasheet S1). Assumptions of independent, normally distributed data (on a log e scale) with constant variance pre-and post-change were evaluated with Shapiro and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and inspection of quantile-quantile and autocorrelation plots.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Density-independent mortality, caused by a wide array of annually variable environmental stressors, is offset against density-dependent reproduction (Yakuba et al 2004, Drury and Dwyer 2006, Flockhart et al 2012, Marini and Zalucki 2017), and this tension between birth and death processes plays out over multiple generations and across the vastness of eastern North America (Flockhart et al 2015, Oberhauser et al2017). In some years, these processes complement one another, leading to booms or busts in the population (Himes Boor et al 2018). In other years, increases in one are offset by the other, mitigating any sizeable year-to-year change in population size.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%