Unexpected outcomes of invasive predator control: the importance of evaluating conservation management actions

作者: J. C. Walsh , K. A. Wilson , J. Benshemesh , H. P. Possingham

DOI: 10.1111/J.1469-1795.2012.00537.X

关键词:

摘要: Decisions regarding the implementation of conservation management actions should be based on effectiveness past investments. However, because limited evaluation existing data, may prescribed without evidence producing a beneficial outcome. We analysed empirical collected over 23 years across southern Australia, impact fox baiting malleefowl to determine its effectiveness. employed data from extensive monitoring surveys evaluate observed relationships between investment in control, intensity, presence and two alternative measures malleefowl's response: number breeding pairs population growth. This study is first quantify return control context. discovered there quantitative for benefit malleefowl, despite it being main action implemented this nationally threatened, well-studied iconic species. found that did not significantly decrease foxes was positively correlated with conservation. Malleefowl size increased baiting, although relationship depended site had been baited. Nonetheless, most sites negative population. In contrast, growth suggesting generally cost-effective provides powerful example why decisions evidence, rather than ecological intuition. Even though one best-monitored species concern we are still uncertain how cost-effectively manage emphasize urgent need assess what have which evaluation.

参考文章(40)
G. R. Saunders, L. J. McLeod, T. J. Kabat, Do control interventions effectively reduce the impact of European red foxes on conservation values and agricultural production in Australia Systematic Review - Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation. ,(2008)
D. Pimentel, M. Bomford, Q. Hart, Non-indigenous vertebrates in Australia. Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal, and microbe species. pp. 25- 44 ,(2002)
Elena N. Ieno, Anatoly A. Saveliev, Neil P. J. Walker, Graham M. Smith, Alain F. Zuur, Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R ,(2009)
REBECCA K. SMITH, ANDREW S. PULLIN, GAVIN B. STEWART, WILLIAM J. SUTHERLAND, Effectiveness of Predator Removal for Enhancing Bird Populations Conservation Biology. ,vol. 24, pp. 820- 829 ,(2010) , 10.1111/J.1523-1739.2009.01421.X
Douglas M. Bates, Josae C. Pinheiro, Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS ,(2000)
Nigel Leader-Williams, Georgina M. Mace, Hugh P. Possingham, Prioritizing choices in conservation Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. pp. 17- 34 ,(2007)
William R. Shadish, Donald Thomas Campbell, Thomas D. Cook, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference ,(2001)
J. J. H. St Clair, S. Poncet, D. K. Sheehan, T. Székely, G. M. Hilton, Responses of an island endemic invertebrate to rodent invasion and eradication Animal Conservation. ,vol. 14, pp. 66- 73 ,(2011) , 10.1111/J.1469-1795.2010.00391.X
Daniel B Segan, Madeleine C Bottrill, Peter WJ Baxter, Hugh P Possingham, None, Using conservation evidence to guide management. Conservation Biology. ,vol. 25, pp. 200- 202 ,(2011) , 10.1111/J.1523-1739.2010.01582.X
Valerie Kapos, Andrew Balmford, Rosalind Aveling, Philip Bubb, Peter Carey, Abigail Entwistle, John Hopkins, Teresa Mulliken, Roger Safford, Alison Stattersfield, Matt Walpole, Andrea Manica, Outcomes, not implementation, predict conservation success Oryx. ,vol. 43, pp. 336- 342 ,(2009) , 10.1017/S0030605309990275