Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcIntosh, ALS
dc.contributor.authorBearhop, S
dc.contributor.authorHilton, GM
dc.contributor.authorShaw, JM
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, FA
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-18T13:47:01Z
dc.date.issued2023-01-24
dc.date.updated2024-07-17T10:54:17Z
dc.description.abstractArctic-breeding goose populations have increased in recent decades and their expansion into agricultural areas has caused increasing conflict with farmers due to the damage they cause. Lethal control and scaring are common management strategies of conflict mitigation. Management typically focuses on local/national scales, making addressing the impact of localised control on the wider population challenging, particularly when populations move over large areas and cross international borders. We construct an integrated population model (IPM) to assess the cumulative impact of all shooting harvest (hunting and derogation shooting) on the Greenland barnacle goose, Branta leucopsis. We use data from monitoring schemes throughout the migratory flyway and use population projections to evaluate the impact of potential future shooting strategies on abundance. Our model suggests flyway abundance has declined since its 2012 peak, consistent with an increase in harvest rate and low productivity. Harvest rate increase was most pronounced on Islay (rising from 2% to 7% from 2011 to 2017), suggesting this was a probable cause of flyway abundance decline. Islay abundance has declined since derogation shooting began in 2000, while abundance at other wintering sites has increased. This may indicate that declines in Islay abundance may be due to both shooting mortality and emigration from Islay. Should future flyway-level harvest rates increase, further declines in abundance could be expected, and are likely to be more pronounced if harvests are extended to the entire winter range. Conversely, should harvest rates decline, an increase in abundance is predicted. Projections can therefore be used to allocate flyway-level harvest rates to alleviate local pressure without hindering flyway-level management objectives. Synthesis and applications. Our findings demonstrate the impact of local harvests on global abundance, emphasising the importance of internationally coordinated monitoring and management strategies of migratory species. IPMs provide a framework for adaptation to incorporate additional data when they become available and enable comparisons of future harvest scenarios to inform management strategies throughout the flyway.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNatureScoten_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipDepartment of Housing Local Government and Heritage, Irelanden_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNatural Environment Research Councilen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipWildfowl and Wetlands Trusten_GB
dc.format.extent764-777
dc.identifier.citationVol. 60 (5), pp. 764-777en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14369
dc.identifier.grantnumberNE/P010210/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/136764
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-5864-0129 (Bearhop, Stuart)
dc.identifierScopusID: 56840336400 | 6701787865 (Bearhop, Stuart)
dc.identifierResearcherID: G-3105-2012 (Bearhop, Stuart)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWiley / British Ecological Societyen_GB
dc.rights© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectBarnacle Gooseen_GB
dc.subjectDemographyen_GB
dc.subjectGeeseen_GB
dc.subjectHarvest rateen_GB
dc.subjectHuman–wildlife conflicten_GB
dc.subjectIntegrated population modelen_GB
dc.subjectShooting managementen_GB
dc.titleModelling harvest of Greenland barnacle geese and its implications in mitigating human–wildlife conflicten_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2024-07-18T13:47:01Z
dc.identifier.issn0021-8901
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.descriptionData availability statement. R code, data and metadata are available via the Dryad Digital Repository http://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.4tmpg4ffj (McIntosh et al., 2023).en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1365-2664
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Applied Ecologyen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Applied Ecology, 60(5)
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-01-09
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-01-24
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2024-07-18T13:37:21Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2024-07-18T13:47:08Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2023-01-24


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.