Conservation implications of a mismatch between data availability and demographic impact

• Published in: Ecology and Evolution
• Main Authors: Nicol‐Harper, Alex, Doncaster, C. Patrick, Hilton, Geoff M., Wood, Kevin A., Ezard, Thomas H. G.
• Other Authors: Natural Environment Research Council
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2023
• Subjects: Nature and Landscape Conservation; Ecology; Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics; Common Eider; Somateria mollissima
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10269; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ece3.10269

Abstract Cost‐effective use of limited conservation resources requires understanding which data most contribute to alleviating biodiversity declines. Interventions might reasonably prioritise life‐cycle transitions with the greatest influence on population dynamics, yet some contributing vital rates are particularly challenging to document. This risks managers making decisions without sufficient empirical coverage of the spatiotemporal variation experienced by the species. Here, we aimed to explore whether the number of studies contributing estimates for a given life‐stage transition aligns with that transition's demographic impact on population growth rate, λ . We parameterised a matrix population model using meta‐analysis of vital rates for the common eider ( Somateria mollissima ), an increasingly threatened yet comparatively data‐rich species of seaduck, for which some life stages are particularly problematic to study. Female common eiders exhibit intermittent breeding, with some established breeders skipping one or more years between breeding attempts. Our meta‐analysis yielded a breeding propensity of 0.72, which we incorporated into our model with a discrete and reversible ‘nonbreeder’ stage (to which surviving adults transition with a probability of 0.28). The transitions between breeding and nonbreeding states had twice the influence on λ than fertility (summed matrix‐element elasticities of 24% and 11%, respectively), whereas almost 15 times as many studies document components of fertility than breeding propensity ( n = 103 and n = 7, respectively). The implications of such mismatches are complex because the motivations for feasible on‐the‐ground conservation actions may be different from what is needed to reduce uncertainty in population projections. Our workflow could form an early part of the toolkit informing future investment of finite resources, to avoid repeated disconnects between data needs and availability thwarting evidence‐led conservation.