P. W. J. Baxter

Monitoring does not always count.

The gross under-resourcing of conservation endeavours has placed an increasing emphasis on spending accountability. Increased accountability has led to monitoring forming a central element of conservation programs. Although there is little doubt that information obtained from monitoring can improve management of biodiversity, the cost (in time and/or money) of gaining this knowledge is rarely considered when making decisions about allocation of resources to monitoring. We present a simple framework allowing managers and policy advisors to make decisions about when to invest in monitoring to improve management.

Using conservation evidence to guide management

Almost 10 years ago, Pullin and Knight (2001) called for an “effectiveness revolution in conservation” to be enabled by the systematic evaluation of evidence for conservation decision making. Drawing from the model used in clinicalmedicine, they outlined the concept of “evidencebased conservation” in which existing information, or evidence, from relevant and rigorous research is compiled and analyzed in a systematic manner to inform conservation actions (Cochrane 1972). The promise of evidencebased conservation has generated significant interest; 25 systematic reviews have been completed since 2004 and dozens are underway (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2010). However we argue that an “effectiveness revolution” (Pullin & Knight 2001) in conservation will not be possible unless mechanisms are devised for incorporating the growing evidence base into decision frameworks. For conservation professionals to accomplish the missions of their organizations they must demonstrate that their actions actually achieve objectives (Pullin & Knight 2009). Systematic evaluation provides a framework for objectively evaluating the effectiveness of actions. To leverage the benefit of these evaluations, we need resource-allocation systems that are responsive to their outcomes. The allocation of conservation resources is often the product of institutional priorities or reliance on intuition (Sutherland et al. 2004; Pullin & Knight 2005; Cook et al. 2010). We highlight the NICE technologyappraisal process because it provides an example of formal integration of systematic-evidence evaluation with provision of guidance for action. The transparent process, which clearly delineates costs and benefits of each alternative action, could also provide the public with new insight into the environmental effects of different decisions. This insight could stimulate a wider discussion about investment in conservation by demonstrating how changes in funding might affect the probability of achieving conservation objectives. ©2010 Society for Conservation Biology

Subpopulation Triage: How to Allocate Conservation Effort among Populations

Threatened species often exist in a small number of isolated subpopulations. Given limitations on conservation spending, managers must choose from strategies that range from managing just one subpopulation and risking all other subpopulations to managing all subpopulations equally and poorly, thereby risking the loss of all subpopulations. We took an economic approach to this problem in an effort to discover a simple rule of thumb for optimally allocating conservation effort among subpopulations. This rule was derived by maximizing the expected number of extant subpopulations remaining given n subpopulations are actually managed. We also derived a spatiotemporally optimized strategy through stochastic dynamic programming. The rule of thumb suggested that more subpopulations should be managed if the budget increases or if the cost of reducing local extinction probabilities decreases. The rule performed well against the exact optimal strategy that was the result of the stochastic dynamic program and much better than other simple strategies (e.g., always manage one extant subpopulation or half of the remaining subpopulation). We applied our approach to the allocation of funds in 2 contrasting case studies: reduction of poaching of Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae) and habitat acquisition for San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). For our estimated annual budget for Sumatran tiger management, the mean time to extinction was about 32 years. For our estimated annual management budget for kit foxes in the San Joaquin Valley, the mean time to extinction was approximately 24 years. Our framework allows managers to deal with the important question of how to allocate scarce conservation resources among subpopulations of any threatened species.

Paying the extinction debt: woodland birds in the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia

Abstract Approximately 90% of the original woodlands of the Mount Lofty Ranges of South Australia has been cleared, modified or fragmented, most severely in the last 60 years, and affecting the avifauna dependent on native vegetation. This study identifies which woodland-dependent species are still declining in two different habitats, Pink Gum—Blue Gum woodland and Stringybark woodland. We analyse the Mount Lofty Ranges Woodland Bird Long-Term Monitoring Dataset for 1999–2007, to look for changes in abundance of 59 species. We use logistic regression of prevalence on lists in a Bayesian framework, and List Length Analysis to control for variation in detectability. Compared with Reporting Rate Analysis, a more traditional approach, List Length Analysis provides tighter confidence intervals by accounting for changing detectability. Several common species were declining significantly. Increasers were generally large-bodied generalists. Many birds have already disappeared from this modified and naturally isolated woodland island, and our results suggest that more specialist insectivores are likely to follow. The Mount Lofty Ranges can be regarded as a ‘canary landscape’ for temperate woodlands elsewhere in Australia—without immediate action their bird communities are likely to follow the trajectory of the Mount Lofty Ranges avifauna. Alternatively, with extensive habitat restoration and management, we could avoid paying the extinction debt.

Using food-web theory to conserve ecosystems

Food-web theory can be a powerful guide to the management of complex ecosystems. However, we show that indices of species importance common in food-web and network theory can be a poor guide to ecosystem management, resulting in significantly more extinctions than necessary. We use Bayesian Networks and Constrained Combinatorial Optimization to find optimal management strategies for a wide range of real and hypothetical food webs. This Artificial Intelligence approach provides the ability to test the performance of any index for prioritizing species management in a network. While no single network theory index provides an appropriate guide to management for all food webs, a modified version of the Google PageRank algorithm reliably minimizes the chance and severity of negative outcomes. Our analysis shows that by prioritizing ecosystem management based on the network-wide impact of species protection rather than species loss, we can substantially improve conservation outcomes.

Costs and benefits of ivory-billed woodpecker "re-discovery"

Several years ago, the purported re-discovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) in eastern Arkansas generated lively discussion in renowned scientific journals. The debate concerned both the central question of whether the bird videotaped in April 2004 really was an ivorybilled woodpecker (eg Fitzpatrick et al. 2005; Sibley et al. 2006) and the controversy around the resulting species recovery plan and its costs (McKelvey et al. 2008; Dalton 2010): was

Optimal eradication: when to stop looking for an invasive plant

14 million pointlessly spent?