: As use of Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) for model selection has become increasingly common, so has a mistake involving interpretation of models that are within 2 AIC units (ΔAIC ≤ 2) of the top‐supported model. Such models are <2 ΔAIC units because the penalty for one additional parameter is +2 AIC units, but model deviance is not reduced by an amount sufficient to overcome the 2‐unit penalty and, hence, the additional parameter provides no net reduction in AIC. Simply put, the uninformative parameter does not explain enough variation to justify its inclusion in the model and it should not be interpreted as having any ecological effect. Models with uninformative parameters are frequently presented as being competitive in the Journal of Wildlife Management, including 72% of all AIC‐based papers in 2008, and authors and readers need to be more aware of this problem and take appropriate steps to eliminate misinterpretation. I reviewed 5 potential solutions to this problem: 1) report all models but ignore or dismiss those with uninformative parameters, 2) use model averaging to ameliorate the effect of uninformative parameters, 3) use 95% confidence intervals to identify uninformative parameters, 4) perform all‐possible subsets regression and use weight‐of‐evidence approaches to discriminate useful from uninformative parameters, or 5) adopt a methodological approach that allows models containing uninformative parameters to be culled from reported model sets. The first approach is preferable for small sets of a priori models, whereas the last 2 approaches should be used for large model sets or exploratory modeling.

No abstract

No abstract

Identifying the demographic parameters (e.g., reproduction, survival, dispersal) that most influence population dynamics can increase conservation effectiveness and enhance ecological understanding. Life table response experiments (LTRE) aim to decompose the effects of change in parameters on past demographic outcomes (e.g., population growth rates). But the vast majority of LTREs and other retrospective population analyses have focused on decomposing asymptotic population growth rates, which do not account for the dynamic interplay between population structure and vital rates that shape realized population growth rates (λt=Nt+1/Nt) in time-varying environments. We provide an empirical means to overcome these shortcomings by merging recently developed "transient life-table response experiments" with integrated population models (IPMs). IPMs allow for the estimation of latent population structure and other demographic parameters that are required for transient LTRE analysis, and Bayesian versions additionally allow for complete error propagation from the estimation of demographic parameters to derivations of realized population growth rates and perturbation analyses of growth rates. By integrating available monitoring data for Lesser Scaup over 60 yr, and conducting transient LTREs on IPM estimates, we found that the contribution of juvenile female survival to long-term variation in realized population growth rates was 1.6 and 3.7 times larger than that of adult female survival and fecundity, respectively. But a persistent long-term decline in fecundity explained 92% of the decline in abundance between 1983 and 2006. In contrast, an improvement in adult female survival drove the modest recovery in Lesser Scaup abundance since 2006, indicating that the most important demographic drivers of Lesser Scaup population dynamics are temporally dynamic. In addition to resolving uncertainty about Lesser Scaup population dynamics, the merger of IPMs with transient LTREs will strengthen our understanding of demography for many species as we aim to conserve biodiversity during an era of non-stationary global change.