Typologizing Stakeholder Information Use to Better Understand the Impacts of Collaborative Climate Science

There is increasing interest among scholars in producing information that is useful and usable to land and natural resource managers in a changing climate. This interest has prompted transitions from scientist- to stakeholder-driven or collaborative approaches to climate science. A common indicator of successful collaboration is whether stakeholders use the information resulting from the projects in which they are engaged. However, detailed examples of how stakeholders use climate information are relatively scarce in the literature, leading to a challenge in understanding what researchers can and should expect and plan for in terms of stakeholder use of research findings. Drawing on theoretical, typological, and evaluation insights from the field of information use, we examine stakeholder use of climate information emerging from 13 collaborative climate science projects conducted in the western United States between 2012 and 2016. Three primary types of use emerge from our findings-conceptual, instrumental, and justification-reflecting common typologization of information use. Conceptual use was the most predominant. We suggest that researcher awareness of this typology can enable more systematic understanding of what project outputs stakeholders use and impacts of those outputs, giving way to new areas of inquiry and aiding in the conceptualization and design of climate information products for land and natural resource managers.

Effects of geolocators on hatching success, return rates, breeding movements, and change in body mass in 16 species of Arctic-breeding shorebirds

BACKGROUND

Geolocators are useful for tracking movements of long-distance migrants, but potential negative effects on birds have not been well studied. We tested for effects of geolocators (0.8-2.0 g total, representing 0.1-3.9 % of mean body mass) on 16 species of migratory shorebirds, including five species with 2-4 subspecies each for a total of 23 study taxa. Study species spanned a range of body sizes (26-1091 g) and eight genera, and were tagged at 23 breeding and eight nonbreeding sites. We compared breeding performance and return rates of birds with geolocators to control groups while controlling for potential confounding variables.

RESULTS

We detected negative effects of tags for three small-bodied species. Geolocators reduced annual return rates for two of 23 taxa: by 63 % for semipalmated sandpipers and by 43 % for the arcticola subspecies of dunlin. High resighting effort for geolocator birds could have masked additional negative effects. Geolocators were more likely to negatively affect return rates if the total mass of geolocators and color markers was 2.5-5.8 % of body mass than if tags were 0.3-2.3 % of body mass. Carrying a geolocator reduced nest success by 42 % for semipalmated sandpipers and tripled the probability of partial clutch failure in semipalmated and western sandpipers. Geolocators mounted perpendicular to the leg on a flag had stronger negative effects on nest success than geolocators mounted parallel to the leg on a band. However, parallel-band geolocators were more likely to reduce return rates and cause injuries to the leg. No effects of geolocators were found on breeding movements or changes in body mass. Among-site variation in geolocator effect size was high, suggesting that local factors were important.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative effects of geolocators occurred only for three of the smallest species in our dataset, but were substantial when present. Future studies could mitigate impacts of tags by reducing protruding parts and minimizing use of additional markers. Investigators could maximize recovery of tags by strategically deploying geolocators on males, previously marked individuals, and successful breeders, though targeting subsets of a population could bias the resulting migratory movement data in some species.