Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife

Abstract Human activity influences wildlife. However, the ecological and conservation significances of these influences are difficult to predict and depend on their population‐level consequences. This difficulty arises partly because of information gaps, and partly because the data on stressors are...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Todd E. Katzner, Melissa A. Braham, Tara J. Conkling, Jay E. Diffendorfer, Adam E. Duerr, Scott R. Loss, David M. Nelson, Hannah B. Vander Zanden, Julie L. Yee
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-03-01
Series:Ecosphere
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3046
_version_ 1811198934983376896
author Todd E. Katzner
Melissa A. Braham
Tara J. Conkling
Jay E. Diffendorfer
Adam E. Duerr
Scott R. Loss
David M. Nelson
Hannah B. Vander Zanden
Julie L. Yee
author_facet Todd E. Katzner
Melissa A. Braham
Tara J. Conkling
Jay E. Diffendorfer
Adam E. Duerr
Scott R. Loss
David M. Nelson
Hannah B. Vander Zanden
Julie L. Yee
author_sort Todd E. Katzner
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Human activity influences wildlife. However, the ecological and conservation significances of these influences are difficult to predict and depend on their population‐level consequences. This difficulty arises partly because of information gaps, and partly because the data on stressors are usually collected in a count‐based manner (e.g., number of dead animals) that is difficult to translate into rate‐based estimates important to infer population‐level consequences (e.g., changes in mortality or population growth rates). However, ongoing methodological developments can provide information to make this transition. Here, we synthesize tools from multiple fields of study to propose an overarching, spatially explicit framework to assess population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors on terrestrial wildlife. A key component of this process is using ecological information from affected animals to upscale from count‐based field data on individuals to rate‐based demographic inference. The five steps to this framework are (1) framing the problem to identify species, populations, and assessment parameters; (2) field‐based measurement of the effect of the stressor on individuals; (3) characterizing the location and size of the populations of interest; (4) demographic modeling for those populations; and (5) assessing the significance of stressor‐induced changes in demographic rates. The tools required for each of these steps are well developed, and some have been used in conjunction with each other, but the entire group has not previously been unified together as we do in this framework. We detail these steps and then illustrate their application for two species affected by different anthropogenic stressors. In our examples, we use stable hydrogen isotope data to infer a catchment area describing the geographic origins of affected individuals, as the basis to estimate population size for that area. These examples reveal unexpectedly greater potential risks from stressors for the more common and widely distributed species. This work illustrates key strengths of the framework but also important areas for subsequent theoretical and technical development to make it still more broadly applicable.
first_indexed 2024-04-12T01:39:36Z
format Article
id doaj.art-6bb098c866dd4a69805d8427ffaf4ad7
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2150-8925
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-12T01:39:36Z
publishDate 2020-03-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Ecosphere
spelling doaj.art-6bb098c866dd4a69805d8427ffaf4ad72022-12-22T03:53:14ZengWileyEcosphere2150-89252020-03-01113n/an/a10.1002/ecs2.3046Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlifeTodd E. Katzner0Melissa A. Braham1Tara J. Conkling2Jay E. Diffendorfer3Adam E. Duerr4Scott R. Loss5David M. Nelson6Hannah B. Vander Zanden7Julie L. Yee8U.S. Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Boise Idaho USADivision of Geology and Geography West Virginia University Morgantown West Virginia USAU.S. Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Boise Idaho USAU.S. Geological Survey Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center Denver Colorado USABloom Research Los Angeles California USADepartment of Natural Resource Ecology & Management Oklahoma State University Stillwater Oklahoma USAAppalachian Laboratory University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Frostburg Maryland USADepartment of Biology University of Florida Gainesville Florida USAU.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center Santa Cruz California USAAbstract Human activity influences wildlife. However, the ecological and conservation significances of these influences are difficult to predict and depend on their population‐level consequences. This difficulty arises partly because of information gaps, and partly because the data on stressors are usually collected in a count‐based manner (e.g., number of dead animals) that is difficult to translate into rate‐based estimates important to infer population‐level consequences (e.g., changes in mortality or population growth rates). However, ongoing methodological developments can provide information to make this transition. Here, we synthesize tools from multiple fields of study to propose an overarching, spatially explicit framework to assess population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors on terrestrial wildlife. A key component of this process is using ecological information from affected animals to upscale from count‐based field data on individuals to rate‐based demographic inference. The five steps to this framework are (1) framing the problem to identify species, populations, and assessment parameters; (2) field‐based measurement of the effect of the stressor on individuals; (3) characterizing the location and size of the populations of interest; (4) demographic modeling for those populations; and (5) assessing the significance of stressor‐induced changes in demographic rates. The tools required for each of these steps are well developed, and some have been used in conjunction with each other, but the entire group has not previously been unified together as we do in this framework. We detail these steps and then illustrate their application for two species affected by different anthropogenic stressors. In our examples, we use stable hydrogen isotope data to infer a catchment area describing the geographic origins of affected individuals, as the basis to estimate population size for that area. These examples reveal unexpectedly greater potential risks from stressors for the more common and widely distributed species. This work illustrates key strengths of the framework but also important areas for subsequent theoretical and technical development to make it still more broadly applicable.https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3046anthropogenic stressorsbatsbirdsdemographic impactsintegrated population modelrenewable energy
spellingShingle Todd E. Katzner
Melissa A. Braham
Tara J. Conkling
Jay E. Diffendorfer
Adam E. Duerr
Scott R. Loss
David M. Nelson
Hannah B. Vander Zanden
Julie L. Yee
Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife
Ecosphere
anthropogenic stressors
bats
birds
demographic impacts
integrated population model
renewable energy
title Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife
title_full Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife
title_fullStr Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife
title_full_unstemmed Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife
title_short Assessing population‐level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife
title_sort assessing population level consequences of anthropogenic stressors for terrestrial wildlife
topic anthropogenic stressors
bats
birds
demographic impacts
integrated population model
renewable energy
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3046
work_keys_str_mv AT toddekatzner assessingpopulationlevelconsequencesofanthropogenicstressorsforterrestrialwildlife
AT melissaabraham assessingpopulationlevelconsequencesofanthropogenicstressorsforterrestrialwildlife
AT tarajconkling assessingpopulationlevelconsequencesofanthropogenicstressorsforterrestrialwildlife
AT jayediffendorfer assessingpopulationlevelconsequencesofanthropogenicstressorsforterrestrialwildlife
AT adameduerr assessingpopulationlevelconsequencesofanthropogenicstressorsforterrestrialwildlife
AT scottrloss assessingpopulationlevelconsequencesofanthropogenicstressorsforterrestrialwildlife
AT davidmnelson assessingpopulationlevelconsequencesofanthropogenicstressorsforterrestrialwildlife
AT hannahbvanderzanden assessingpopulationlevelconsequencesofanthropogenicstressorsforterrestrialwildlife
AT julielyee assessingpopulationlevelconsequencesofanthropogenicstressorsforterrestrialwildlife