Back

Exploring sources of uncertainty in the estimate of waterfowl harvest in the United Kingdom

Ellis, M. B.; Lewis, H. M.; Cameron, T. C.

2026-05-14 ecology
10.64898/2026.05.13.724812 bioRxiv
Show abstract

There is an urgent need to gather data on harvest rates of waterbirds in Europe to assess the sustainability of hunting. Estimates of total waterbird harvest in the United Kingdom (UK) and the relative harvest of different huntable species come from two separate surveys, the Value of Shooting (PACEC 2014) and National Gamebag Census (NGC, Aebischer 2019), and these have been recently used to explore the likelihood of unsustainable harvests of wild waterbirds by UK hunters (Ellis and Cameron 2022; Madden et al., 2025). The reliability of these sustainability estimates depends on how representative the original surveys are of hunter behaviour and success. There are also 1-3 million released game-farm mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) that takes up considerable and unquantified proportions of the UK waterbird harvest. Here we explore uncertainties in the UK winter harvest of wild waterfowl by comparing estimates from the NGC dataset with those from the Crown Estate coastal hunting clubs, and a novel approach using analysis of social-media images (2019/20 to 2023/24). We explore the difference in species-specific harvest with and without the uncertainties in the number of released mallard and the total number of duck harvested in the UK. Waterbird harvest estimates differ markedly depending on the input dataset and whether released mallard are included in the analysis. Confidence intervals of each estimate are inflated by uncertainties in the number of released game-farm mallard contributing to, and the size of that national bag. Estimates extrapolated from social media suggest the national harvest of several species may be considerably larger than the corresponding NGC estimates (e.g. Teal *2.07 and gadwall *11.2), while mallard harvests away from formal shoots represented by NGC are significantly lower (*0.71). Excluding released mallard reduces the statistical estimate of total wild duck harvest by 56-63%, which would have biologically significant effects if realised.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
2
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.1%
3
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
4
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.8%
6
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
7
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
8
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
9
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
10
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
11
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.5%
12
Animal Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
13
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.3%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 51%
2.0%
16
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
17
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
18
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.0%
19
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
20
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 43%
1.7%
22
Biodiversity and Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
23
Movement Ecology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
24
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
25
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
26
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
27
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
28
Ecology
70 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
29
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
30
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%