Capturing expert knowledge for threatened species assessments: a case study using NatureServe conservation status ranks

Assessments for assigning the conservation status of threatened species that are based purely on subjective judgements become problematic because assessments can be influenced by hidden assumptions, personal biases and perceptions of risks, making the assessment process difficult to repeat. This can result in inconsistent assessments and misclassifications, which can lead to a lack of confidence in species assessments. It is almost impossible to Understand an expert's logic or visualise the underlying reasoning behind the many hidden assumptions used throughout the assessment process. In this paper, we formalise the decision making process of experts, by capturing their logical ordering of information, their assumptions and reasoning, and transferring them into a set of decisions rules. We illustrate this through the process used to evaluate the conservation status of species under the NatureServe system (Master, 1991). NatureServe status assessments have been used for over two decades to set conservation priorities for threatened species throughout North America. We develop a conditional point-scoring method, to reflect the current subjective process. In two test comparisons, 77% of species' assessments using the explicit NatureServe method matched the qualitative assessments done subjectively by NatureServe staff. Of those that differed, no rank varied by more than one rank level under the two methods. In general, the explicit NatureServe method tended to be more precautionary than the subjective assessments. The rank differences that emerged from the comparisons may be due, at least in part, to the flexibility of the qualitative system, which allows different factors to be weighted on a species-by-species basis according to expert judgement. The method outlined in this study is the first documented attempt to explicitly define a transparent process for weighting and combining factors under the NatureServe system. The process of eliciting expert knowledge identifies how information is combined and highlights any inconsistent logic that may not be obvious in Subjective decisions. The method provides a repeatable, transparent, and explicit benchmark for feedback, further development, and improvement. (C) 2004 Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning

Conservation planning is the process of locating and designing conservation areas to promote the persistence of biodiversity in situ. To do this, conservation areas must be able to mitigate at least some of the proximate threats to biodiversity. Information on threatening processes and the relative vulnerability of areas and natural features to these processes is therefore crucial for effective conservation planning. However, measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning have been problematic. We develop a conceptual framework of the role of vulnerability assessments in conservation planning and propose a definition of vulnerability that incorporates three dimensions: exposure, intensity, and impact. We review and categorize methods for assessing the vulnerability of areas and the features they contain and identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of each broad approach, Our review highlights the need for further development and evaluation of approaches to assess vulnerability and for comparisons of their relative effectiveness.

Conservation action in the Galapagos: Feral pig (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island

Introduced mammals are major drivers of extinction and ecosystem change. As omnivores, feral pigs (Sus scrofa) are responsible for wholesale adverse effects on islands. Here, we report on the eradication of feral pigs from Santiago Island in the Galápagos Archipelago, Ecuador, which is the largest insular pig removal to date. Using a combination of ground hunting and poisoning, over 18,000 pigs were removed during this 30-year eradication campaign. A sustained effort, an effective poisoning campaign concurrent with the hunting program, access to animals by cutting more trails, and an intensive monitoring program all proved critical to the successful eradication. While low and fluctuating control efforts may help protect select native species, current eradication methods, limited conservation funds, and the potential negative non-target impacts of sustained control efforts all favor an intense eradication effort, rather than a sustained control program. The successful removal of pigs from Santiago Island sets a new precedent, nearly doubling the current size of a successful eradication, and is leading to more ambitious projects. However, now we must turn toward increasing eradication efficiency. Given limited conservation funds, we can no longer afford to spend decades removing introduced mammals from islands.

A new method for conservation planning for the persistence of multiple species

Although the aim of conservation planning is the persistence of biodiversity, current methods trade-off ecological realism at a species level in favour of including multiple species and landscape features. For conservation planning to be relevant, the impact of landscape configuration on population processes and the viability of species needs to be considered. We present a novel method for selecting reserve systems that maximize persistence across multiple species, subject to a conservation budget. We use a spatially explicit metapopulation model to estimate extinction risk, a function of the ecology of the species and the amount, quality and configuration of habitat. We compare our new method with more traditional, area-based reserve selection methods, using a ten-species case study, and find that the expected loss of species is reduced 20-fold. Unlike previous methods, we avoid designating arbitrary weightings between reserve size and configuration; rather, our method is based on population processes and is grounded in ecological theory.

Assessing the taxonomic status of dingoes Canis familiaris dingo for conservation

1. The conservation status of the dingo Canis familiaris dingo is threatened by hybridization with the domestic dog C. familiaris familiaris. A practical method that can estimate the different levels of hybridization in the field is urgently required so that animals below a specific threshold of dingo ancestry (e.g. 1/4 or 1/2 dingoes) can reliably be identified and removed from dingo populations. 2. Skull morphology has been traditionally used to assess dingo purity, but this method does not discriminate between the different levels of dingo ancestry in hybrids. Furthermore, measurements can only be reliably taken from the skulls of dead animals. 3. Methods based on the analysis of variation in DNA are able to discriminate between the different levels of hybridization, but the validity of this method has been questioned because the materials currently used as a reference for dingoes are from captive animals of unproven genetic purity. The use of pre-European materials would improve the accuracy of this method, but suitable material has not been found in sufficient quantity to develop a reliable reference population. Furthermore, current methods based on DNA are impractical for the field-based discrimination of hybrids because samples require laboratory analysis. 4. Coat colour has also been used to estimate the extent of hybridization and is possibly the most practical method to apply in the field. However, this method may not be as powerful as genetic or morphological analyses because some hybrids (e.g. Australian cattle dog x dingo) are similar to dingoes in coat colour and body form. This problem may be alleviated by using additional visual characteristics such as the presence/absence of ticking and white markings.

Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning

Data on the occurrence of species are widely used to inform the design of reserve networks. These data contain commission errors (when a species is mistakenly thought to be present) and omission errors (when a species is mistakenly thought to be absent), and the rates of the two types of error are inversely related. Point locality data can minimize commission errors, but those obtained from museum collections are generally sparse, suffer from substantial spatial bias and contain large omission errors. Geographic ranges generate large commission errors because they assume homogenous species distributions. Predicted distribution data make explicit inferences on species occurrence and their commission and omission errors depend on model structure, on the omission of variables that determine species distribution and on data resolution. Omission errors lead to identifying networks of areas for conservation action that are smaller than required and centred on known species occurrences, thus affecting the comprehensiveness, representativeness and efficiency of selected areas. Commission errors lead to selecting areas not relevant to conservation, thus affecting the representativeness and adequacy of reserve networks. Conservation plans should include an estimation of commission and omission errors in underlying species data and explicitly use this information to influence conservation planning outcomes.

Conservation planning with irreplaceability: does the method matter?

A number of systematic conservation planning tools are available to aid in making land use decisions. Given the increasing worldwide use and application of reserve design tools, including measures of site irreplaceability, it is essential that methodological differences and their potential effect on conservation planning outcomes are understood. We compared the irreplaceability of sites for protecting ecosystems within the Brigalow Belt Bioregion, Queensland, Australia, using two alternative reserve system design tools, Marxan and C-Plan. We set Marxan to generate multiple reserve systems that met targets with minimal area; the first scenario ignored spatial objectives, while the second selected compact groups of areas. Marxan calculates the irreplaceability of each site as the proportion of solutions in which it occurs for each of these set scenarios. In contrast, C-Plan uses a statistical estimate of irreplaceability as the likelihood that each site is needed in all combinations of sites that satisfy the targets. We found that sites containing rare ecosystems are almost always irreplaceable regardless of the method. Importantly, Marxan and C-Plan gave similar outcomes when spatial objectives were ignored. Marxan with a compactness objective defined twice as much area as irreplaceable, including many sites with relatively common ecosystems. However, targets for all ecosystems were met using a similar amount of area in C-Plan and Marxan, even with compactness. The importance of differences in the outcomes of using the two methods will depend on the question being addressed; in general, the use of two or more complementary tools is beneficial.

Tempus: Barriers, Borders, Boundaries: Proceedings of the 2001 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference

The conference aimed to provide a forum for the exploration of barriers, borders and boundaries in Australian archaeological methods and practice, frameworks of interpretation and epistemological structures. Sessions were designed to have broad appeal to a range of archaeological stakeholders including academics, consultants, Indigenous peoples, students, cultural heritage managers and policy formulators.