Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monitoring in the Context of Structured Decision‐Making and Adaptive Management

LYONS, JAMES E., RUNGE, MICHAEL C., LASKOWSKI, HAROLD P., KENDALL, WILLIAM L.·2008·The Journal of Wildlife Management

Abstract

Abstract: In a natural resource management setting, monitoring is a crucial component of an informed process for making decisions, and monitoring design should be driven by the decision context and associated uncertainties. Monitoring itself can play ≥3 roles. First, it is important for state‐dependent decision‐making, as when managers need to know the system state before deciding on the appropriate course of action during the ensuing management cycle. Second, monitoring is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of management actions relative to objectives. Third, in an adaptive management setting, monitoring provides the feedback loop for learning about the system; learning is sought not for its own sake but primarily to better achieve management objectives. In this case, monitoring should be designed to reduce the critical uncertainties in models of the managed system. The United States Geological Survey and United States Fish and Wildlife Service are conducting a large‐scale management experiment on 23 National Wildlife Refuges across the Northeast and Midwest Regions. The primary management objective is to provide habitat for migratory waterbirds, particularly during migration, using water‐level manipulations in managed wetlands. Key uncertainties are related to the potential trade‐offs created by management for a specific waterbird guild (e.g., migratory shorebirds) and the response of waterbirds, plant communities, and invertebrates to specific experimental hydroperiods. We reviewed the monitoring program associated with this study, and the ways that specific observations fill ≥1 of the roles identified above. We used observations from our monitoring to improve state‐dependent decisions to control undesired plants, to evaluate management performance relative to shallow‐water habitat objectives, and to evaluate potential trade‐offs between waterfowl and shorebird habitat management. With limited staff and budgets, management agencies need efficient monitoring programs that are used for decision‐making, not comprehensive studies that elucidate all manner of ecological relationships.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2193/2008-141

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
LYONS, J. E., RUNGE, M. C., LASKOWSKI, H. P., & KENDALL, W. L.
Venue
The Journal of Wildlife Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-11
Volume
72
Issue
8
Pages
1683-1692
ISSN
  • 0022-541X (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-2817
OpenAlex
W2143988373
Cited by
322
References
1
FWCI
22.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Monitoring in the Context of Structured Decision‐Making and Adaptive Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2193/2008-141
The paper
LYONS, J. E., RUNGE, M. C., LASKOWSKI, H. P., & KENDALL, W. L. (2008). Monitoring in the Context of Structured Decision‐Making and Adaptive Management. The Journal of Wildlife Management. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-141

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.