Conditions and Limitations on Learning in the Adaptive Management of Mallard Harvests

In 1995, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a protocol for the adaptive management of waterfowl hunting regulations (AHM) to help reduce uncertainty about the magnitude of sustainable harvests. To date, the AHM process has focused principally on the midcontinent population of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), whose dynamics are described by 4 alternative models. Collectively, these models express uncertainty (or disagreement) about whether harvest is an additive or a compensatory form of mortality and whether the reproductive process is weakly or strongly density-dependent. Each model is associated with a probability or "weight," which describes its relative ability to predict changes in population size. These Bayesian probabilities are updated annually using a comparison of population size predicted under each model with that observed by a monitoring program. The current AHM process is passively adaptive, in the sense that there is no a priori consideration of how harvest decisions might affect discrimination among models. We contrast this approach with an actively adaptive approach, in which harvest decisions are used in part to produce the learning needed to increase long-term management performance. Our investigation suggests that the passive approach is expected to perform nearly as well as an optimal actively adaptive approach, particularly considering the nature of the model set, management objectives and constraints, and current regulatory alternatives. We offer some comments about the nature of the biological hypotheses being tested and describe some of the inherent limitations on learning in the AHM process.

[1]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Estimating the effect of hunting on annual survival rates of adult mallards , 1984 .

[2]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources , 1986 .

[3]  David R. Anderson,et al.  The need for experiments to understand population dynamics of American black ducks , 1987 .

[4]  F. Johnson,et al.  Evaluation and experimentation with duck management strategies , 1989 .

[5]  A review of the evidence for the effects of hunting on American black duck populations , 1990 .

[6]  Graham W. Smith,et al.  Hunting and mallard survival, 1979-88 , 1992 .

[7]  R. Hilborn,et al.  Sustainable Exploitation of Renewable Resources , 1995 .

[8]  F. Johnson,et al.  MANAGING NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY , 1995 .

[9]  Byron K. Williams,et al.  Adaptive optimization of renewable natural resources: Solution algorithms and a computer program , 1996 .

[10]  F. Johnson,et al.  Uncertainty and the Adaptive Management of Waterfowl Harvests , 1996 .

[11]  B K Williams,et al.  Adaptive optimization and the harvest of biological populations. , 1996, Mathematical biosciences.

[12]  C. T. Moore,et al.  Uncertainty and the management of mallard harvests , 1997 .

[13]  Kenneth H. Williams,et al.  Protocol and Practice in the Adaptive Management of Waterfowl Harvests , 1999 .

[14]  Fred A. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Regulation of Waterfowl Harvests: Lessons Learned and Prospects for the Future , 2000 .

[15]  Michael C. Runge,et al.  THE IMPORTANCE OF FUNCTIONAL FORM IN OPTIMAL CONTROL SOLUTIONS OF PROBLEMS IN POPULATION DYNAMICS , 2002 .

[16]  C. Walters,et al.  Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: Choice, dynamics and uncertainty , 2004, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.