4.8 Article

Framework for quantifying population responses to disturbance reveals that coastal birds are highly resilient to hurricanes

Journal

ECOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages 2039-2048

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.13384

Keywords

Bayesian population viability analysis; coastal birds; disturbance; hurricanes; resilience; stochastic population modelling

Categories

Funding

  1. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under the National Science Foundation [DBI-1052875a]
  2. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Birds, Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 [F15AC00163]
  3. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aid in Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration [U2-5-R-1]
  4. National Science Foundation [DEB-1340008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Changes in the frequency and severity of extreme weather may introduce new threats to species that are already under stress from gradual habitat loss and climate change. We provide a probabilistic framework that quantifies potential threats by applying concepts from ecological resilience to single populations. Our approach uses computation to compare disturbance-impacted projections to a population's normal range of variation, quantifying the full range of potential impacts. We illustrate this framework with projection models for coastal birds, which are commonly depicted as vulnerable to disturbances, especially hurricanes and oil spills. We found that populations of coastal specialists are resilient to extreme disturbances, with high resistance to the effects of short-term reductions in vital rates and recovery within 20 years. Applying the general framework presented here across disturbance-prone species and ecosystems would improve understanding of population resilience and generate specific projections of resilience that are needed for effective conservation planning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available