Overestimates of maternity and population growth rates in multi-annual breeders
- 157 Downloads
There has been limited attention to estimating maternity rate because it appears to be relatively simple. However, when used for multi-annual breeder species, such as the largest carnivores, the most common estimators introduce an upward bias by excluding unproductive females. Using a simulated dataset based on published data, we compare the accuracy of maternity estimates derived from standard methods against estimates derived from an alternative method. We show that standard methods overestimate maternity rates in the presence of unsuccessful pregnancies. Importantly, population growth rates derived from a matrix model parameterized with the biased estimates may indicate increasing populations although the populations are stable or even declining. We recommend the abandonment of the biased standard methods and to instead use the unbiased alternative method for population projections and assessments of population viability.
KeywordsMaternity rate Bias Grizzly bear Ursus arctos Growth rate
Funding and support was provided by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Laboratoire d’Ecologie; Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle Département Ecologie et Gestion de la Biodiversité; National Science Foundation; US Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Fish and Wildlife Program; Université d’Angers; Université Pierre et Marie Curie; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; and Washington State University.
- Akçakaya HR, Burgman MA, Ginzburg LR (1999) Applied population ecology: principles and computer exercises using RAMAS EcoLab 2.0. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
- Boyce MS, Blanchard BM, Knight RR, Servheen C (2001) Population viability for grizzly bears: a critical review. International Association for Bear Research and Management - Monograph Series 4Google Scholar
- Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
- Karanth UK, Stith BM (1999) Prey depletion as a critical determinant of tiger population viability. In: Seidensticker J, Christie S, Jackson P (eds) Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 110–113Google Scholar
- Logan KA, Sweanor LL (2001) Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- McLoughlin PD, Taylor MK, Cluff HD, Gau RJ, Mulders R, Case RL, Messier F (2003b) Population viability of barren-ground grizzly bears in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Arctic 56(2):185–190Google Scholar
- Miller SD (1997) Impacts of heavy hunting pressure on the density and demographics of brown bear populations in southcentral Alaska. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Research Final Report, Study 4.26, June 1997Google Scholar
- Schwartz CC, Keating KA, Reynolds Iii HV, Barnes VG Jr, Sellers RA, Swenson JE, Miller SD, McLellan BN, Keay J, McCann R, Gibeau M, Wakkinen WF, Mace RD, Kasworm W, Smith R, Herrero S (2003) Reproductive maturation and senescence in the female brown bear. Ursus 14(2):109–119Google Scholar
- Thomson DL, Cooch EG, Conroy MJ (2008) Modeling demographic processes in marked populations. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations: modeling, estimation, and decision making. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar