FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4246604410> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4246604410 endingPage "1009" @default.
• W4246604410 startingPage "1008" @default.
• W4246604410 abstract "Journal of Applied EcologyVolume 54, Issue 3 p. 1008-1009 CorrigendumFree Access Corrigendum First published: 05 March 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12890Citations: 1AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract This article corrects “Compensatory life-history responses of a mesopredator may undermine carnivore management efforts” by Minnie, Gaylard & Kerley (DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12581) and follows the publication of an Expression of Concern (DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12795). Minnie, L., Gaylard, A. & Kerley, G.I.H. (2016). Compensatory life history responses of a mesopredator may undermine carnivore management efforts. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 379-387. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12581. This corrigendum supersedes the previously published Expression of Concern (2016). In our article (Minnie, Gaylard & Kerley 2016) we compared the demographic structure and reproductive patterns of black-backed jackals (Canis mesomelas; hereafter jackal) between continually hunted (farms) and unhunted populations (reserves). However, this dichotomy between treatments may create some confusion, because of the understatement of the previous jackal hunting in two of the four reserves which represent the unhunted treatment. To clarify this aspect, we contrast the jackal management regimes between farms and reserves and present the a priori statistical analyses that justify the pooling of unhunted reserves and previously hunted reserves into a single unhunted treatment. In addition to this information, we also provide some clarifications required to reduce any misinterpretations in our previous publication. Variation in jackal management between treatments The distinction between the hunted and unhunted treatments reflects the fundamental difference in the management style of these different landuses. On the hunted treatment (farms) there is extreme intolerance of jackals and any detected jackal is likely killed. Thus, hunting pressure on farms is continuous and on-going. In contrast, the reserves represent conservation areas in which the full range of biodiversity is conserved. The reserve data (unhunted) represent data from Mountain Zebra National Park (MZNP), the Nyathi Section of Addo Elephant National Park, Karoo National Park (KrNP), and the Kuzuko Section of Addo Elephant National Park. There is no record of the former two National Park sites being hunted, and this has recently been confirmed by park management (D. Engelbrecht, pers.comm. 2017). Whereas, the latter two sites were subject to a short duration attempt to reduce jackal numbers in 2010. Jackal hunting is not standard practise in South African National Parks, and only one attempt of such hunting is on record for both KrNP and Kuzuko. All of these National Parks were subject to culls in 2013 which yielded the samples analysed for Minnie, Gaylard & Kerley (2016). Importantly, the cull undertaken in 2010 was not intended to eradicate jackal from the reserves, but to reduce population size as an experimental intervention to assess predation on small antelope species. Thus, despite this cull, the jackal populations persisted in these reserves. A priori statistical analyses Given the fact that two of the reserves were hunted before 2013, we tested the suitability of pooling the reserve samples to represent an unhunted treatment. We compared the age structure of jackal populations between hunted and unhunted reserves a priori using Log-likelihood ratio (G) tests corrected for multiple comparisons (Bonferonni P = 0·008). There was no statistical difference – at the corrected P-value of 0·008 – in the age structure between the hunted and unhunted reserves (Table 1), thus we grouped these reserves into a single treatment, namely unhunted reserves. This information was underrepresented in the original article, and therefore created some confusion regarding this treatment. Therefore, we now refer to the treatments as heavily hunted (farm) populations and infrequently hunted (reserve) populations throughout the published article (Minnie, Gaylard & Kerley 2016), as opposed to hunted (farms) and unhunted populations (reserves). This change in terminology does not affect any of the analyses and our conclusions remain valid, as the documented change in age structure and reproductive patterns occur when the populations are intensively and continually managed for an extended period of time. Table 1. A priori multiple comparisons (G-test) of age structure between reserves. Bonferroni P = 0·008. KrNP and Kuzuko were hunted in 2010, whereas MZNP and Nyathi have not been hunted before Comparison G d.f. P KrNP vs. Kuzuko 5·243 6 0·513 KrNP vs. MZNP 15·524 6 0·017 KrNP vs. Nyathi 9·499 7 0·219 Kuzuko vs. MZNP 6·636 6 0·356 Kuzuko vs. Nyathi 6·085 7 0·530 MZNP vs. Nyathi 18·096 7 0·012 Additional clarifications 1. P379 stated: ‘However, the highly adaptable nature of jackals and the combination of compensatory mechanisms such as increased reproduction and potential for immigration allow these predators to persist in the face of severe anthropogenic mortality, possibly through the formation of a source–sink system. These compensatory processes will continue to counter population management actions as long as recruitment from unmanaged areas persists.’ Revised to: ‘However, the combination of increased reproduction and potential for immigration in response to variations in anthropogenic mortality (i.e. infrequently hunted vs. heavily hunted) may allow mesopredators, such as jackals, to persist, possibly through the formation of a source–sink system. The strength of these compensatory mechanisms may vary locally in response to management intensity and technique (e.g. hunting vs. poisoning), and resource availability. Irrespective, these compensatory mechanisms may counter management actions as long as recruitment from unmanaged and/or infrequently managed areas persists.’ 2. P380-381 stated: ‘Our results indicate that the combined effects of reproductive compensation and, almost certainly, compensatory immigration are contributing to the persistence of jackal populations in the face of severe anthropogenic mortality.’ Revised to: ‘Our results indicate that the combined effects of reproductive compensation and, almost certainly, compensatory immigration may contribute to the persistence of jackals in areas where jackal populations are intensively and continually managed.’ 3. P382 stated: ‘The standardized age distributions were compared between treatments, to test if hunting results in a younger age structure (i.e. higher frequency of younger individuals in the hunted population), via a Pearson's chi-square test (Zar 1999).’ Revised to: ‘The standardized age distributions were compared between treatments, to test if variation in hunting intensity results in a younger age structure (i.e. higher frequency of younger individuals in the heavily hunted population), via a Pearson's chi-square test (Zar 1999).’ 4. P382 stated: ‘The prediction that hunting induces an increase in reproductive output was assessed by compared litter size and fecundity between treatments using a Welch t-test for unequal variances (Zar 1999).’ Revised to: ‘The prediction that increased hunting intensity induces an increase in reproductive output was assessed by comparing litter size and fecundity between treatments using a Welch t-test for unequal variances (Zar 1999).’ 5. P383 stated: ‘Although slightly male-biased on farms and slightly female-biased on reserves, neither ratio differed from parity (farm: χ2 = 0·24, d.f. = 1, P = 0·63; reserve: χ2 = 0·02, d.f. = 1, P = 0·90), thus hunting does not skew jackal sex ratios.’ Revised to: ‘Although slightly male-biased on farms and slightly female-biased on reserves, neither ratio differed from parity (farm: χ2 = 0·24, d.f. = 1, P = 0·63; reserve: χ2 = 0·02, d.f. = 1, P = 0·90), thus variation in hunting intensity does not skew jackal sex ratios.’ 6. P386 stated: ‘The findings from this study indicate that the combined effects of reproductive compensation and, in all likelihood, compensatory immigration contribute to the persistence of jackal populations in the face of severe anthropogenic mortality, possibly via the formation of a source–sink system.’ Revised to: ‘The findings from this study indicate that jackal populations may respond to variations in hunting intensity via a combination of reproductive compensation and, in all likelihood, compensatory immigration, which may contribute to their persistence, possibly via the formation of a source–sink system.’ 7. P386 stated: ‘The results presented here indicate that the lethal control of mesopredator populations, to reduce livestock losses, may be counteracted by compensatory immigration and reproduction. These compensatory processes are mediated by disruptions in social structure and may continue to counter population management actions as long as recruitment from unhunted areas persists.’ Revised to: ‘The results presented here indicate that the concerted lethal control of mesopredator populations, to reduce livestock losses, may be counteracted by compensatory immigration and reproduction. These compensatory processes are mediated by disruptions in social structure and may continue to counter population management actions as long as recruitment from unhunted and/or infrequently hunted areas persists.’ Reference Expression of Concern (2016) DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12795, Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 1891. Minnie, L., Gaylard, A. & Kerley, G.I.H. (2016) Compensatory life history responses of a mesopredator may undermine carnivore management efforts. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 379– 387. Citing Literature Volume54, Issue3June 2017Pages 1008-1009 ReferencesRelatedInformation" @default.
• W4246604410 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4246604410 date "2017-03-05" @default.
• W4246604410 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W4246604410 title "Corrigendum" @default.
• W4246604410 cites W2172635486 @default.
• W4246604410 cites W4239562842 @default.
• W4246604410 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12890" @default.
• W4246604410 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W4246604410 type Work @default.
• W4246604410 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4246604410 countsByYear W42466044102019 @default.
• W4246604410 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4246604410 hasBestOaLocation W42466044101 @default.
• W4246604410 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4246604410 hasConceptScore W4246604410C86803240 @default.
• W4246604410 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W4246604410 hasLocation W42466044101 @default.
• W4246604410 hasOpenAccess W4246604410 @default.
• W4246604410 hasPrimaryLocation W42466044101 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W1641042124 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W1990804418 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W1993764875 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W2013243191 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W2046158694 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W2051339581 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W2082860237 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W2130076355 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W2151865869 @default.
• W4246604410 hasRelatedWork W4234157524 @default.
• W4246604410 hasVolume "54" @default.
• W4246604410 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4246604410 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4246604410 workType "article" @default.