4.6 Article

Using modeling to improve monitoring of structured populations: Are we collecting the right data?

期刊

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 241-252

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00561.x

关键词

Aquila heliaca; demography; Eastern Imperial Eagle; tife-stage simulation analysis; population monitoring; sensitivity analysis; stochastic simulation modeling

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [cpb010001] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. NERC [cpb010001] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Population monitoring is central to most demographic studies and conservation efforts, but it may not always be directed at the most appropriate life stage. We used stochastic simulation modeling to evaluate the effectiveness of a monitoring program for a well-studied population of Eastern Imperial Eagles (Aquila heliaca) in Kazakhstan. Specifically, we asked whether the most appropriate data were being collected to understand system state and population dynamics. Our models were parameterized with data collected over the course of 25 years of study of this population. We used the models to conduct simulation experiments to evaluate relationships between monitored or potentially monitored parameters and the demographic variables of interest-population size (N) and population growth (lambda). Static analyses showed that traditional territory-based monitoring was a poor indicator of eagle population size and growth and that monitoring survivorship would provide more information about these parameters. Nevertheless, these same traditionally monitored territory-based parameters bad greater power to detect long-term changes in population size than did survivorship or population structure. Regardless of the taxa considered, threats can have immediate impacts on population size and growth or longer-term impacts on population dynamics. Prudently designed monitoring programs for any species will detect the demographic effects of both types of threats.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据