Trends in Ecology & Evolution
OpinionMonitoring for conservation
Section snippets
Monitoring, efficiency and Platt (1964)
It has been four decades since the publication of ‘Strong inference’ by Platt [1], which dealt broadly with the conduct of science, focusing on the crucially important step of discriminating among competing hypotheses. He criticized the unfocused collection of detailed data that are perhaps generally relevant to the investigation, but not directed at hypothesis discrimination. His paper has been hugely influential and is widely cited as an important contribution to the philosophy and conduct of
Monitoring for active conservation
As an active process of decision making to achieve objectives, conservation is rooted in decision theory, sharing an intellectual foundation with many other disciplines 2, 3. Essential elements in a framework for informed decision making include objectives, potential management actions, models of system response to management actions, measures of confidence in the models, and a monitoring program providing estimates of system state and possibly other relevant variables 4, 5, 6. There are
Monitoring for science
In some situations, the monitoring of a biological system is needed before active management, so as to improve the biological understanding on which such management can be based. In such cases, the focus of monitoring is not necessarily to make state-dependent decisions or assess the degree to which conservation objectives are being met. Rather, it is to produce estimates of system status and other attributes that can be compared against model-based predictions for the explicit purpose of
Surveillance monitoring
Surprisingly, monitoring for decision making or science does not appear to be widely used in conservation biology. Instead, a different approach is taken, involving omnibus surveillance monitoring of biological populations and communities [9]. Surveillance monitoring is frequently characterized as ‘omnibus’ because of its potential use for many different purposes and its inclusion of many different species and locations. However, it is not a focus on multiple species and large areas that
A critique of surveillance monitoring
Surveillance monitoring in conservation typically involves a two-step process. First, population declines are identified by means of a statistical test of a null hypothesis of no decline versus a decline. Following the statistical detection of a decline, either of two actions is recommended as a second step. One is to initiate active conservation immediately, and the other is to initiate studies to understand the ‘cause’ of the decline, followed by active conservation. Key to both is the
Surveillance monitoring: arguments and rejoinders
Proponents of surveillance monitoring often emphasize the use of trend estimates for planning and setting conservation priorities, with the declines found through monitoring used to prioritize follow-up actions [13]. However, substantive declines are frequently recognized through information sources other than surveillance monitoring. In fact, surveillance monitoring typically provides weak inferences about species that are neither abundant nor widespread, the very species that are most in need
Caveats
The most difficult aspect of our recommendation is the need to develop detailed hypotheses and associated models of system response to management actions. Hypotheses about the dynamics of biological populations and communities are likely to be more complex than many of the hypotheses considered by Platt [1]. Hypotheses about responses of communities and ecosystems will typically involve numerous interactions and will probably be especially difficult to develop. Even with single populations, the
Conclusions
If surveillance monitoring can be an inefficient use of scarce conservation funding, it also can become a form of political and intellectual displacement behavior [22], or worse, a deliberate delaying tactic. We are all familiar with situations in which declarations of a need for ‘more study’ appear to be stalling tactics, with crucial actions delayed for reasons that have little to do with information needs. From a somewhat less cynical perspective, it is much easier to postpone a difficult
Acknowledgements
We thank Steve Buckland, Paul Doherty, Mike Runge, John Sauer and Nigel Yoccoz for providing constructive criticisms and comments on early drafts of this article. We also thank various other colleagues, some who share our views and many who do not, for discussions of ecological monitoring and conservation. We thank Mark Koneff for useful discussions and for the photograph in Figure I, Box 2.
References (32)
Adaptive optimization and the harvest of biological populations
Math. Biosci.
(1996)Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2001)Strong inference
Science
(1964)Dynamic Programming
(1957)Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming
(1994)Developing an adaptive management strategy for harvesting waterfowl in North America
Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf.
(1993)Using models to facilitate complex decisions
Analysis and Management of Animal Populations
(2002)Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources
(1986)- et al.
Power of monitoring programmes to detect decline and recovery of rare and vulnerable fish
J. Appl. Ecol.
(2005)
The relevance of population studies to the conservation of threatened birds
Risk-based viable population monitoring
Conserv. Biol.
Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States: the Partners in Flight approach
Using the North American Breeding Bird Survey as a tool for conservation: a critique of Bart et al. (2004)
J. Wildl. Manage.
Trends in the abundance of farmland birds: a quantitative comparison of smoothed Common Birds Census indices
J. Appl. Ecol.
Trends in Duck Breeding Populations, 1955–2006
Cited by (915)
Bird species recognition using transfer learning with a hybrid hyperparameter optimization scheme (HHOS)
2024, Ecological InformaticsMonitoring for the adaptive management of rivers
2024, Journal of Environmental ManagementStrategic monitoring to minimize misclassification errors from conservation status assessments
2023, Biological ConservationEcological non-equilibrium and biological conservation
2023, Biological ConservationLessons for conservation from the mistakes of the COVID-19 pandemic: The promise and peril of big data and new communication modalities
2024, Conservation Science and Practice