Review of approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of weed biological control agents

We review key issues, available approaches and analyses to encourage and assist practitioners to develop sound plans to evaluate the effectiveness of weed biological control agents at various phases throughout a program. Assessing the effectiveness of prospective agents before release assists the selection process, while post-release evaluation aims to determine the extent that agents are alleviating the ecological, social and economic impacts of the weeds. Information gathered on weed impacts prior to the initiation of a biological control program is necessary to provide baseline data and devise performance targets against which the program can subsequently be evaluated. Detailed data on weed populations, associated plant communities and, in some instances ecosystem processes collected at representative sites in the introduced range several years before the release of agents can be compared with similar data collected later to assess agent effectiveness. Laboratory, glasshouse and field studies are typically used to assess agent effectiveness. While some approaches used for field studies may be influenced by confounding factors, manipulative experiments where agents are excluded (or included) using chemicals or cages are more robust but time-consuming and expensive to implement. Demographic modeling and benefit–cost analyses are increasingly being used to complement other studies. There is an obvious need for more investment in long-term post-release evaluation of agent effectiveness to rigorously document outcomes of biological control programs.

Evaluating the performance of weed containment programmes

Aim: To develop approaches to the evaluation of programmes whose strategic objectives are to halt or slow weed spread. Location: Australia. Methods: Key aspects in the evaluation of weed containment programmes are considered. These include the relevance of models that predict the effects of management intervention on spread, the detection of spread, evidence for containment failure and metrics for absolute or partial containment. Case studies documenting either near-absolute (Orobanche ramosa L., branched broomrape) or partial (Parthenium hysterophorus (L.) King and Robinson, parthenium) containment are presented. Results: While useful for informing containment strategies, predictive models cannot be employed in containment programme evaluation owing to the highly stochastic nature of realized weed spread. The quality of observations is critical to the timely detection of weed spread. Effectiveness of surveillance and monitoring activities will be improved by utilizing information on habitat suitability and identification of sites from which spread could most compromise containment. Proof of containment failure may be difficult to obtain. The default option of assuming that a new detection represents containment failure could lead to an underestimate of containment success, the magnitude of which will depend on how often this assumption is made. Main conclusions: Evaluation of weed containment programmes will be relatively straightforward if containment is either absolute or near-absolute and may be based on total containment area and direct measures of containment failure, for example, levels of dispersal, establishment and reproduction beyond (but proximal to) the containment line. Where containment is only partial, other measures of containment effectiveness will be required. These may include changes in the rates of detection of new infestations following the institution of interventions designed to reduce dispersal, the degree of compliance with such interventions, and the effectiveness of tactics intended to reduce fecundity or other demographic drivers of spread. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Multijurisdictional fisheries performance reporting: How Australia’s nationally standardised approach to assessing stock status compares

Australian marine wild-capture fisheries are managed by eight separate jurisdictions. Traditionally, fishery status reports have been produced separately by most of these jurisdictions, assessing the fish stocks they manage, and reporting on the effectiveness of their fisheries management. However, the format, the type of stock status assessments, the thresholds and terminology used to describe stock status and the classification frameworks have varied over time and among jurisdictions. These differences complicate efforts to understand stock status on a national scale. They also create potential misunderstanding among the wider community about how to interpret information on the status of fish stocks, and the fisheries management and science processes more generally. This is especially true when considering stocks that are shared across two or more jurisdictional boundaries. A standardised approach was developed in 2011 leading to production of the first national Status of key Australian fish stocks reports in 2012, followed by a second edition in 2014 (www.fish.gov.au). Production of these reports was the first step towards a broader national approach to reporting on the performance of Australian fisheries for target species and for wider ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences. This paper outlines the challenges associated with moving towards national performance reporting for target fish stocks and Australia’s successes so far. It also outlines the challenges ahead, in particular those relating to reporting more broadly on the status of entire fisheries. Comparisons are drawn between Australia and New Zealand and more broadly between Australia and other countries.

Multijurisdictional fisheries performance reporting: How Australia’s nationally standardised approach to assessing stock status compares

Australian marine wild-capture fisheries are managed by eight separate jurisdictions. Traditionally, fishery status reports have been produced separately by most of these jurisdictions, assessing the fish stocks they manage, and reporting on the effectiveness of their fisheries management. However, the format, the type of stock status assessments, the thresholds and terminology used to describe stock status and the classification frameworks have varied over time and among jurisdictions. These differences complicate efforts to understand stock status on a national scale. They also create potential misunderstanding among the wider community about how to interpret information on the status of fish stocks, and the fisheries management and science processes more generally. This is especially true when considering stocks that are shared across two or more jurisdictional boundaries. A standardised approach was developed in 2011 leading to production of the first national Status of key Australian fish stocks reports in 2012, followed by a second edition in 2014 (www.fish.gov.au). Production of these reports was the first step towards a broader national approach to reporting on the performance of Australian fisheries for target species and for wider ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences. This paper outlines the challenges associated with moving towards national performance reporting for target fish stocks and Australia’s successes so far. It also outlines the challenges ahead, in particular those relating to reporting more broadly on the status of entire fisheries. Comparisons are drawn between Australia and New Zealand and more broadly between Australia and other countries.