4.4 Article

Fitting Models of Multiple Hypotheses to Partial Population Data: Investigating the Causes of Cycles in Red Grouse

Journal

AMERICAN NATURALIST
Volume 174, Issue 3, Pages 399-412

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/603625

Keywords

aggressiveness; Bayesian statistics; cyclic population dynamics; Lagopus lagopus scoticus; state-space modeling; Trichostrongylus tenuis

Funding

  1. NERC [NE/D014352/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [smru10001, NE/D014352/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are two postulated causes for the observed periodic fluctuations (cycles) in red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus). The first involves interaction with the parasitic nematode Trichostrongylus tenuis. The second invokes delayed regulation through the effect of male aggressiveness on territoriality. Empirical evidence exists to support both hypotheses, and each hypothesis has been modeled deterministically. However, little effort has gone into looking at the combined effects of the two mechanisms or formally fitting the corresponding models to field data. Here we present a model for red grouse dynamics that includes both parasites and territoriality. To explore the single and combined hypotheses, we specify three versions of this model and fit them to data using Bayesian state-space modeling, a method that allows statistical inference to be performed on mechanistic models such as ours. Output from the three models is then examined to determine their goodness of fit and the biological plausibility of the parameter values required by each to fit the population data. While all three models are capable of emulating the observed cyclic dynamics, only the model including both aggression and parasites does so under consistently realistic parameter values, providing theoretical support for the idea that both mechanisms shape red grouse cycles.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available