Planning for effective restoration - Decision Point

Connecting conservation policy makers, researchers and practitioners

Issue #106 / October 2018

Planning for effective

restorationDon’t forget the weather

In this issue

Can crowdfunding conservation make a difference?Planning wetland reserves using portfolio theoryTelemetry for the conservation of shy albatrossGrowing seedlings in quenda spoil heaps

2 DECISION POINT #106 | October 2018

Our cover: Planting natives for restoration could be a lot more effective if seasonal weather forecasts were included in the planning. See the story on page 18 to find out why. (Photo by David Salt)

Decision Point is the free research magazine of the Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED). CEED is a network of conservation researchers working on the science of effective decision making to better conserve biodiversity. Our members are largely based at the University of Queensland, the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Western Australia and RMIT University.

Editor: David SaltWebsite: decision-point.com.au Decision Point Online: Michelle Baker

On the point Saving the best till last (?)Here’s a good decision problem: Do you save the best till last? I don’t. Indeed, in the many years I have been producing science magazines I have always believed you use your best material in the issue you’re currently putting together, don’t hold back. Indeed, make ‘that current issue’ as good as you can, as if it was the last one.

That message resonates with Decision Point #106 (this issue) on several levels because it may well be the last issue of Decision Point. CEED’s funding finishes with 2018 and while we’re busy looking at options for beyond this year there’s considerable uncertainty about what will actually happen.

One final issue of Decision Point (#107) is planned for 2018 after this one but that will be a special edition containing expanded versions of the decision theory stories we have been running in each issue over recent years (and will look quite different to a standard issue).

Therefore, Decision Point #106 could well be your final issue of Decision Point. And as is my creed, though I didn’t save the best till last, I reckon this issue is a corker that well represents the length, breadth and depth of what CEED has to offer.

We talk about new things (crowdfunding conservation, p4; purchase-protect-resale schemes, p6; a new blog on psychology and conservation, p20), old things (four pages of alumni stories p24-27), fundamental things (models, p12; smart decision making, p3), and quirky things (quenda-dug soil). There are stories from CIs (p12), post docs (p10), PhD students (p18) and Honours students (p22). And to cap it off we have Dave Pannell’s discussion on how to measure CEED’s impact.

So, if this is the last issue of Decision Point, it’s a great note to go out on. Hope you think so too.

David Salt Editor, Decision Point [email protected]

DECISION POINT #106 October 2018

Inside this issueEffective conservation and smart decisions �� 3

Crowdfunding biodiversity conservation �� 4

Buying land to resell (for conservation) �� 6

Evaluating the difference CEED has made �� 8

Planning reserves using portfolio theory �� 10

Building models for better decisions �� 12

Growing seedlings in quenda-dug soils �� 16

Ecological restoration & seasonal forecasting�� 18

Psychology and conservation science collide �� 20

Telemetry and conserving shy albatross �� 22

CEED alumni make their mark �� 24

The readers have spoken �� 28

DECISION POINT #106 | October 2018 3

Effective conservation is all about making smart decisionsPrioritising what to do, where and whenBy Kerrie Wilson (Director, CEED)

sought for the sake of flexibility and the ease of calculation and communication.

Now you know all the ingredients for solving a conservation problem. It’s not rocket science and, indeed, it’s not even new; decision theory has been around for centuries and can be applied to many problems (including how to organise your weekly shopping through to planning your next holiday). However, the application of decision theory to the environment

(and specifically biodiversity conservation) is only a recent development, and CEED has made many important

contributions to how decision theory can be applied to generate smart environmental decisions.

So, what types of actions might we undertake (and when) for the environment? In contemporary Western society, the creation of protected areas has traditionally been the primary action to achieve conservation goals.

Natural resource managers routinely invest in a diverse array of activities such as fire management,

invasive species control, and habitat restoration, either in protected areas, or on government-owned or privately

owned land.

In many places, land acquisition simply isn’t feasible or appropriate. More recent approaches to conservation

prioritisation seek to prioritise between multiple actions (and locations) to achieve conservation objectives.

Some approaches are also dynamic, capable of prioritising actions through time as well as over space.

In dynamic versions of the multiple-action prioritisation problem our management decision is how much of our budget to allocate

to each environmental action at each time step. For each action we need to know what it costs

per unit area and the benefits that will be delivered. We can then generate dynamic investment schedules

that reflect shifts in the allocation of funds as the return from investing in each conservation action diminishes and as uncertainty associated with the relative effectiveness of actions is reduced.

A significant next frontier in conservation prioritisation is the inclusion of predictive models of human behaviour to better

capture socio-ecological dynamics.

All of which suggests there is considerable complexity and sophistication behind a truly smart

decision. Though we should never lose sight of the fact that behind all of these calculations we are still answering those three basic questions in our decision making: What?, where? and when?

More info: Kerrie Wilson [email protected]

This is an edited excerpt from Kerrie Wilson’s recent reflection on ‘smart decisions on the environment’

(Wilson 2018).

Reference

Wilson K (2018). Smart decisions for the environment. Pacific Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC18036

What?, where? and when? If we could answer these three little questions when it comes to allocating our available limited resources to saving species and ecosystems then we would be going a long way towards fixing the biodiversity crisis as it unravels around us.

Smart decisions for the environment involve allocating available resources both efficiently and effectively. They are about answering the what?, where? and when? questions that face conservation policy makers and managers every day.

Yes, they are little questions but solving them requires careful consideration. These are, however, the very questions that can be solved using the principles of classic decision theory. This framework encapsulates the key elements of any problem, including the objective function, knowledge of the system, control variables, and constraints. This type of thinking is key for good environmental decision making yet, to my knowledge, most undergraduate and Masters programs rarely offer such teachings.

In its most basic form, ‘Decision Theory 101’ goes like this: In all problem formulations, the objective function reflects our goal. Importantly, it needs to include an explicit measure of performance. Conservation goals might be related to protecting species or preventing them going extinct. Often there is more than one objective, which means that trade-offs will likely be invoked and compromises must be made. Making those trade-offs explicit is key to good decisions because once they are clear the choices then become transparent.

What we are required to know about the system (the system knowledge) will depend on the particular problem at hand. In the context of conservation prioritisation, we might want to know where the species of interest occur, or the distribution of ecosystem types and the environmental and anthropogenic factors that determine these distributions, or the patterns of water flows through a catchment. We may also want to know what the threats are to the species and ecosystems, what actions can be taken to abate these threats, and the cost of carrying out those actions. And these factors may vary over the area of interest and through time.

The control variables reflect the options available to us. In the context of conservation prioritisation, we control how much money or resources we direct towards different conservation actions in any location and at a particular time.

The constraints limit the choice of control variables and may include a budget or how many parcels of land can be restored each year due to operational and seasonal limitations.

The overall aim of a prioritisation analysis is to find the best solution through manipulation of the control variables that has the highest possible value of the objective function subject to our constraints. While optimal solutions might be desired, multiple near-optimal solutions are often


Conservation from the crowdSo what does a crowdfunded conservation project look like? Here are three examples.

In a world experiencing massive declines in biodiversity coupled with inadequate government expenditure, raising funds from the public is becoming increasingly important for saving species. One new mechanism of funding to emerge in recent years is crowdfunding. It involves fund seekers reaching out to potential donors, usually many individuals each making a small contribution, through so-called crowdfunding platforms. Calls for support might be made through news outlets, email networks and even via Facebook posts. Crowdfunding recently raised over AU$140,000 to enable urgently needed management interventions for the critically endangered orange-bellied parrot.

Because crowdfunding has only recently been added to the conservation finance portfolio, most of what we know is anecdotal. The emergence of a novel financial mechanism requires scrutiny, so that pitfalls and opportunities can be identified. Consequently, we undertook a global empirical analysis to better understand how crowdfunding is being used for biodiversity conservation (Gallo-Cajiao et al, 2018).

We found that crowdfunding for biodiversity conservation has now become a global phenomenon. Since 2009, there have been almost 600 crowdfunding campaigns run that have been associated with a goal of biodiversity conservation. These have successfully raised around AU$6.5 million, with an average value of AU$11,170. While the campaigns were delivered across 80 countries in all continents, proponents developing each project were based in just 38 countries. This pattern signals a potential mechanism for resource mobilisation similar to that of international aid, where funds are transferred from high-income countries to lower income ones (Figure 1). Importantly, some of the countries with the highest inflow of projects include regions containing high levels of biodiversity (internationally recognized as global conservation priorities) that have relatively low financial capacity. Countries in this category include Indonesia and Costa Rica.

Taking it to the people (one at a time)Crowdfunding biodiversity conservationBy Eduardo Gallo-Cajiao and Carla Archibald (University of Queensland)

So who is using crowdfunding and what is being targetted? The main proponents of crowdfunding projects include people affiliated with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), universities, or with no affiliation at all (freelancers). Notably, most of those NGOs operate at a subnational level. Activities being funded include research, persuasion (eg, campaigns for threatened species advocacy or raising awareness), and on-ground actions (eg, building captive breeding facilities, restoring habitat, and pest control).

Most projects focused on species and terrestrial ecosystems, with marine and freshwater ecosystems receiving minor attention. In terms of species, over 200 were the explicit focus of crowdfunded initiatives, with a disproportionate number of the targets being threatened mammal and bird species. The species with most crowdfunded projects included those typically considered as charismatic, such as the black rhinoceros and Bornean orangutan. However, other species that are not so popular but may have further potential for garnering public support, also received some attention, such as the fishing cat.

Key messages:

Crowdfunding is a new addition to the portfolio of conservation finance mechanisms.

Since 2009 there have been almost 600 crowdfunding campaigns associated with biodiversity conservation (across 80 countries). These have raised around AU$6.5 million.

Crowdfunding raises only a small amount of money compared to other conservation finance mechanisms but its capacity to engage directly with people make it a potentially valuable additional source of conservation resources.

1. ‘From poacher to protector’ is an initiative for conserving marine turtles through the engagement of local communities on Maio Island, Cape Verde (Photo by Fundação Maio Biodiversidade)

2. ‘Tarkine in motion’ is a project aimed at raising funds for an awareness-raising documentary on a threatened forest region in Tasmania. (Photo by Rob Blackers)


Figure 1: Where are crowdfunded sources going? A weighted network of project flows for those countries with the highest outflows (ie, USA, UK, and Australia) and inflows (ie, Indonesia, South Africa, Costa Rica, Mexico).(From Gallo-Cajiao et al, 2018)

3. ‘Discovering Papua New Guinea’s mountain mammals’ is a study to improve our understanding of mammal species in the Torricelli Mountains of PNG. (Photo by Euan Ritchie and Jim Thomas)

While crowdfunding holds potential for raising additional resources, a word of caution is needed to manage expectations. The generation of millions of dollars from crowd-sourced donors may sound significant but it’s only a drop in the ocean compared with other financial mechanisms for conservation. For instance, the total amount of funds raised through crowdfunding corresponds to less than 2% of the annual expenditure of the World Bank to support national parks in developing countries.

That said, crowdfunding seems to have found a place within the broader context of conservation finance. Crowdfunding may be expanding the potential role of small NGOs, as well as giving a voice to independent conservationists. The process of crowdfunding is likely to be democratizing conservation by allowing more people to be actively engaged. Crowdfunding could also be considered as an incubator of novel, and perhaps risky, ideas that do not fit the mold of traditional donors. Some of these ideas have the potential to be initially funded through crowdfunding, allowing testing, which could subsequently lead to wider adoption. Crowdfunding can also unleash funds at time of urgency when funding from traditional donors is unavailable in a timely fashion due to red tape. Last but not least, crowdfunding is a potent form of public outreach, as fund raising campaigns need active engagement with the crowd to be successful.

In sum, crowdfunding is unlikely to replace traditional funding sources, but it is a welcome addition to the conservation finance mix. At times where others funding sources dry up or whose entry barriers become too high, crowdfunding may make the critical difference in saving species (and ecosystems) in desperate need.

More info: Eduardo Gallo-Cajiao [email protected]

Reference

Gallo-Cajiao E, C Archibald, R Friedman, R Stevens, E Game, TH Morrison, R Fuller & E Ritchie (2018). Crowdfunding biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.13144


Internationally, there is a growing focus on protecting important biodiversity found on privately owned land. Recently, the potential for Privately Protected Areas (PPAs) to contribute to conservation has been emphasised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Indeed, in some countries, PPAs are included in a nation’s effort to meet international conservation targets.

PPAs can be created in a variety of ways. These include acquiring land and holding it, or placing a conservation covenant on the land (see Decision Point #97). A major constraint on the creation of PPAs, however, can be a lack of financial resources, particularly where land is expensive to buy and manage as a private conservation reserve, or where existing landowners are reluctant to enter into permanent conservation agreements.

One strategy conservation organisations have employed to deal with these issues is to purchase land with ecological assets, and then resell that land to new conservation-minded owners, in the process adding a permanent conservation agreement (such as a

Buying land to resell (for conservation)A roundabout way to protect biodiversity?By By Mat Hardy (RMIT University), James Fitzsimons (The Nature Conservancy), Sarah Bekessy (RMIT University) & Ascelin Gordon (RMIT University)

covenant or easement). The proceeds from the sale can then be used to purchase and protect additional land. In Australia, this approach is referred to as a revolving fund (see Decision Point #102).

Sounds like a smart solution, right? Surprisingly, given that many revolving funds are in operation around the world, not much is known about the process of buying, protecting and reselling land for this purpose, and how it works. In fact, the approach has a variety of different names (and variants in the manner in which they operate), so for clarity here we refer to revolving funds established to enhance conservation as purchase-protect-resale programs, or PPR. What’s been achieved by the PPR approach to date? What are the benefits of buying and reselling land for conservation? What are the challenges? With these questions in mind, we systematically reviewed the literature on this approach to find out more.

Globally, we found more than US$384m available for land purchase and protection in these types of programs. Collectively, PPR has protected more than 684,000 hectares. Whilst most of the programs are operating in the United States, Australia’s programs have also made their mark, protecting more than a fifth of the global total (of PPR programs).

In reviewing the literature, we identified several common themes emerging from PPR programs around the world. To begin with, this strategy comes with a wide variety of benefits. Some of these benefits are unique to PPR, such as the ability to recycle money. Other benefits neatly aligned with the aspirations of mainstream conservation strategies. These

Key messages:

Purchase-protect-resale (PPR) approaches to conservation can potentially be financially self-sustaining

Implementation of PPR can be complex and uncertain, and subject to fluctuations in the market for conservation properties

Identifying property types that meet conservation objectives and recover costs within a reasonable time frame, and drawing insights from economics to assist decision making, could increase the effectiveness of PPR and improve conservation outcomes

Above: A Tasmanian property for sale through the Tasmanian Land Conservancy revolving fund program. Proceeds from the sale will fund the purchase of more private land with high conservation value. (Photo by M Newton)

http://decision-point.com.au/article/conservation-covenants/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/swings-and-roundabouts-and-private-land-conservation/



include the ability to target important conservation land, and shifting land to conservation-minded ownership.

We also uncovered a number of challenges. Again, some of these challenges were unique to PPR, such as the limited market demand for buying conservation land, and the pressure for continual purchase and resale (turnover) to achieve conservation. And some challenges were similar to those experienced by other conservation approaches, such as finding ways to recover costs, working within a dynamic market, and having to make decisions based on incomplete information.

The ability to recover costs through resale suggests an important role for PPR in private land conservation, particularly where land is expensive. And its ability to intervene in the property market suggests that, at least at the point of sale, it can step in and protect land where the previous owner has been unwilling or unable to protect their land.

However, whilst it all sounds promising, we also found few evaluations of PPR programs. PPR is also likely restricted to certain types of properties, and won’t be appropriate in all circumstances. In a previous study, we showed how managers focus their acquisitions on properties with values beyond conservation, such as amenity (see Decision Point #102). The role

A revolving fund property up for sale in rural Victoria. PPR programs such as this enable private land with high ecological values to be placed under conservation covenants. (Photo by Mat Hardy).

A very short history of PPRThe first PPR fund was established in 1955, in the US, where the majority of current programs operate (13 out of the 21 we evaluated), along with an additional two programs that are based in the US but operate in both the US and Canada. In Australia, the first of six revolving fund programs was established in 1989, with five currently in operation. In Chile, one program has been established and has been operating for 9 years. We identified a total of eight PPR programs that have ceased operating after they were established.

The PPR approach has facilitated the protection of almost 684,000 ha worldwide, 66% (450,000 ha) of which are in the US. Almost US$384 million are held in PPR funds globally; with the average PPR program size being around $12.8 million.

Figure 1: Time lines showing the years of operation of purchase–protect–resale (PPR) programs and the total number of programs worldwide that are conserving private land. Most of the 21 programs currently operating have emerged over the past 15 years. The “×” symbols indicate programs that have ceased operations. Data were collated based on a review of academic and grey literature, as well as consultation with experts on PPR programs. (From Hardy et al, 2018)

PPR in a nutshellPurchase–protect–resale (PPR) programs allow conservation organisations to acquire private land with important ecological assets, and resell it with an agreement to protect biodiversity, enabling cost recovery. As of June 2018, globally more than US$384m is available for land protection through purchase-protect-resale programs. Collectively more than 684,000 hectares have been protected to date.

of PPR is therefore likely as part of the broader mix of private land conservation approaches.

PPR requires complex decision-making, and we suggest further research could help programs identify and prioritise suitable properties. In particular, economic theory could prove useful for thinking about how to use PPR strategically, for example should managers focus their efforts on smaller properties likely to be resold faster, or accept slow turnover of properties with exceptionally high conservation value?

Our review suggests that where suitable market conditions exist, and with appropriate property selection, PPR programs show promise as a self-sustaining approach for permanently protecting biodiversity on private land. Whilst these programs are unlikely to work in all circumstances, they appear a valuable complement to other approaches used by conservation organisations to create PPAs. PPR may be particularly useful where land is expensive or the creation of conservation reserves is otherwise unlikely.

More info: Mathew Hardy [email protected]

Reference

Hardy MJ, JA Fitzsimons, SA Bekessy & A Gordon (2018). Purchase, protect, resell, repeat: an effective approach for conserving biodiversity on private land? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16, 336-344. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee.1821



Academic impactCEED has always been noted for its high academic performance. The study confirmed this by bringing the various metrics of academic impact together.

CEED produced more than 887 journal publications from 2011 to 2016 with an average journal impact factor of 5.4. More than a quarter of CEED publications are in the top 10% of the literature, based on their citations. Based on data from Essential Science Indicators, 39 CEED publications (one in every 22 of the CEED publications covered in the Web of Science) are ‘Highly Cited’, which is defined as having received enough citations to place them in the top 1% of their academic fields. There have been 58 publications in journals with an Impact Factors greater than 10, including nine papers in Nature and 14 in Science.

CEED has also played an important role in facilitating research collaboration: 82% of the publications have involved cross-institutional collaboration. Further, CEED has facilitated a steady annual increase in the number of international collaborations, with a total of 60% of all CEED publications involving international collaborations.

People close to CEED are well aware that CEED researchers have made many important contributions to environmental policy and management. However, measuring these impacts is notoriously difficult.

Even if environmental policy or management have changed, it can be very difficult to know the extent to which the change can be attributed to research. Policy development is a complex and messy process, with many players involved. And the eventual impacts of policy change on environmental outcomes are often uncertain, unclear and delayed. Maybe that is why quantitative analyses of the impact of research on environmental management, environmental policy and environmental outcomes are rare.

Nevertheless, a small team from UWA took on the task of trying to capture CEED’s impacts, as well as documenting its academic outputs, collaborations and citations. We hope our approach might assist other environmental research networks and centres to measure the influence of their own research efforts.

The CEED impact evaluation collected data on 87 CEED projects and discussed nine of these in detail (see the box on report structure). It found that there was high academic performance in many of CEED’s outputs (see academic impact) and high policy and management impact in some projects, but not all.

Lessons and implicationsA number of important lessons and implications were identified in the impact analysis.

There have been many studies on the factors that underpin research impact, and most of them highlight the importance of engagement and good relationships with research users, the quality of communication (see Decision Point #73, Decision Point #74 and Decision Point #105).

Measuring science performance AND policy/management impact Evaluating the difference CEED has madeBy David Pannell (University of Western Australia)

However, the evaluation found that just as important was what research is actually done. If research is not providing insight or tools that are actually useful to policy makers or managers, even strong relationships and excellent communications won’t lead to impact.

Therefore, developing a research culture that values impact and considers how it may be achieved prior to the selection of research projects is potentially important. The role of the centre leadership team in this is critical. Embedding impact into the culture of a centre probably happens more effectively

Key messages:

The impacts of CEED’s activities were measured in terms of influence on policy; improvements to decision-making processes and management practices; levels of collaboration, engagement, and translation of the research with governments, industry, the community and other researchers; and outstanding academic performance.

Data were collected for 87 discrete projects that have operated within CEED. Engagement with end users was strong, involving 110 different end-users and stakeholders, 79 from within Australia, and 31 from overseas.

Results were highly heterogeneous. The majority of the observed impact has occurred in a minority of the projects, with 18% of projects being rated as high-impact. However, for almost half of the projects, the potential future increase in impact was assessed as being moderate or high. This reflects the time lags involved in research attempting to influence policy and management. The correlation between impact and academic performance was positive but low.

The report’s authors (from the left) Tas Thamo, Dave Pannell and Tammie Harold poured over the numbers, surveys and information relating to CEED and 87 of its most iconic research projects.

http://decision-point.com.au/article/strategies-to-bridge-the-divide/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/a-model-solution-for-good-conservation/


http://decision-point.com.au/article/decision-science-and-environmental-policy/


if expertise in research evaluation is available internally, either through training or appointments.

A challenge in conducting this analysis was obtaining information related to engagement and impact. There may be merits in institutionalising the collection of impact-related data from early in the life of a new research centre.

In this analysis, there was little correlation between academic performance and impact on policy and management. It should not be presumed that the most impactful projects will be those of greatest academic performance.

Finally, there are often long time lags between commencing research and delivering impact – decades in many cases. Therefore, there is a need to allow the longest possible time lag when assessing impact. On shorter time scales, it may be possible to detect engagement, but not the full impact that will eventually result.

More info: David Pannell [email protected]

Reference

Thamo T, T Harold, M Polyakov & D Pannell (2018). Assessment of Engagement and Impact for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions. University of Western Australia. Note: the final report will be available on the CEED website shortly.

Report structureThe evaluation of CEED’s impact involved asking CEED researchers what they were working on, what they thought the impact of this work was, and then asking users of that research what they believed the impact was, and to cite the evidence for this belief.

The report itself was divided into six sections.

First, there is a general discussion on the challenges of measuring the benefits of environmental research, with an outline of the conceptual framework that informed our approach.

Second, information about the impacts of 87 projects conducted within CEED is set out.

Third, more detailed information about nine case studies is discussed (these case studies being selected from the larger set of 87 projects). The nine case studies vary widely in the types of environmental issues addressed, type of research, and scale of impact. Evidence presented includes statements by end users of the research.

Fourth, is an assessment of publications, citations and collaborations within the Centre.

Fifth, there is a discussion on the role played by Decision Point (the Centre’s main outreach publication) in building a culture of engagement by environmental researchers, and a culture of using evidence and analysis among environmental managers and policy makers.

The report concludes with a discussion on the lessons and implications arising from the analysis.

A contributing factor to the impact of CEED is the research communication magazine, Decision Point. It is widely accepted as a valued vehicle for communication of academic findings in the field of environmental decision sciences, and is rated by people in government and academic institutions as relevant and informative. As one example; “One of the keys to its success is striking the right balance between providing engaging material and policy relevant insights,” observed Paul Grimes, Secretary, Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

http://ceed.edu.au/


Risky reservesPlanning for ecosystem services under sea-level rise using portfolio theory By Rebecca Runting & Jonathan Rhodes (University of Queensland)

When we think about climate change we often think about how hot or dry it is going to get, but don’t always make the connection to how this will affect all the benefits we get from the natural world, such as food, clothes and opportunities for recreation. Making this connection is crucial if we want to develop effective strategies for climate adaptation. But how do we do this given we are often really uncertain about how climate change will affect the benefits we get from nature? An inability to incorporate this uncertainty could mean our plans may fail to protect species and critical ecosystem services in the long-term.

We propose a method for incorporating this uncertainty into our planning. It involves extending a risk-sensitive approach to resource allocation from finance called Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT). The approach was developed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Harry Markowitz. It reduces risk by investing in combinations of (financial) assets that have negative correlations over future states of the world (or at least weak positive correlations). We’ve applied this approach to spatial reserve selection (Runting et al, 2018).

MPT has been applied to non-spatial problems in the management of species, populations, and ecosystem services. Some recent studies have also considered spatial planning units as ‘assets’ to allow for overall risk to be reduced by allocating conservation investment across space. However, these approaches cannot be directly applied to many planning problems that include discrete site selection, multiple objectives, and a consideration of connectivity.

We extended previous applications of MPT by incorporating these additional requirements into a risk-sensitive, spatially-explicit approach to reserve selection that maximises multiple conservation objectives, including ecosystem services, whilst hedging risk under climate change uncertainty and ensuring connectivity. This formulation closely resembles the types of problems conservation planners typically face, whilst accounting for risk in a mathematically rigorous way.

To demonstrate the value of our approach, we applied this approach to designing a reserve system under uncertain rates of sea level rise in Moreton Bay, Queensland. This area contains internationally important coastal wetlands and essential ecosystem services, while facing very high urban development pressures.

To design our reserve system, we first simulated hundreds of scenarios (804 to be exact) of how wetlands in Moreton Bay will change through to the year 2100. These scenarios incorporated uncertainties in future sea-level rise, elevation data, and other biophysical parameters using the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM; see Decision Point #67).

We then optimised our risk-sensitive reserve design for three conservation objectives (Figure 1);

• Wetland area (by hectare)

• Blue carbon sequestration (Mg CO2 per year)

• Nursery habitat for fisheries (by hectare)

For comparison, we also developed conservation plans based on the averages of each of the four IPCC projections of sea-level rise.

Our scenarios showed that as sea levels rise there would be substantial change in the distribution of wetlands by 2100. Mangroves would migrate landward, replacing saltmarsh, melaleuca, and dryland areas (Figure 1). However, there was also considerable uncertainty surrounding these future distributions. Spatially, the highest uncertainties occurred at the lowest and highest elevations of the future wetland distribution due to the variation in potential losses (continual inundation) and

Key messages:

We used Modern Portfolio Theory to help manage risk and uncertainty in planning wetland reserves for climate change.

We compared spatial plans that resulted from our risk-sensitive approach to reserve selection that ignored risk to determine whether explicitly accounting for risk alters planning outcomes.

We demonstrated that incorporating sea-level rise, but ignoring uncertainty, is a high-risk strategy. In contrast, diversifying site selection through Modern Portfolio Theory can ensure the supply of ecosystem services by reducing the risk of failure across all sea-level rise scenarios.

Figure 1: We applied our MPT approach to reserve design for coastal wetlands and ecosystem services under sea-level rise. Here, coastal wetlands were likely to move landward with sea-level rise, but the exact spatial distribution was uncertain.

http://decision-point.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DPoint_67.pdf#page=10


gains (landward movement) in the coastal wetland extent. This variation in the future extent and type of coastal wetlands also affects the ecosystem services that flow from these wetlands, which exhibited even greater variation than the distribution of wetlands (Figure 2).

We found that it is possible to reduce risk but this comes at the expense of reduced levels of ecosystem services (Figure 3). However, approximately 50% of the risk could be reduced for only a 25% reduction in the level of services. We also found that incorporating sea-level rise while ignoring uncertainty is always a high-risk strategy, even when planning for worst-case scenario sea-level rise.

Accounting for uncertainty resulted in conservation planning solutions that provided multiple ecosystem services with relatively low risk of failure across all climate scenarios. Reducing risk also changed the spatial configuration of the reserve network considerably, relative to planning solutions that ignored uncertainty. So, knowing how much risk you are

Figure 2: The variation in the total amount of ecosystem services provided by the study site in 2100. The units for each ecosystem service were standardised by the range of returns over the 804 scenarios. White circles indicate the mean, the black rectangle indicates the interquartile range and the black line represents the range less outliers. The grey shading shows the distribution of values.

willing to accept is important for determining which plans are likely to be best.

Accounting for risk improves the resilience of the reserve network through the diversification of sites and therefore helps ensure the continued supply of ecosystem services into the future. This method is likely to be of use in other spatial planning contexts, particularly for cases where the impacts of climate change on species, ecosystems, and their services vary spatially over different climate change scenarios.

Incorporating the impacts of climate change, and associated uncertainties, into spatial conservation planning is critical to ensure the continued provision of valuable ecosystem services. Our investigation advances our

understanding of how to spatially manage ecosystem services that are impacted by climate change, particularly where there are multiple objectives, uncertainties, and land use decisions to be made. In doing so we have provided tangible spatial solutions to manage our environment in an era of global change.

More info: Rebecca Runting [email protected]

Reference

Runting RK, H Beyer, Y Dujardin, CE Lovelock, BA Bryan & JR Rhodes (2018). Reducing risk in reserve selection using Modern Portfolio Theory: coastal planning under sea-level rise. Journal of Applied Ecology https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1365-2664.13190

Rising sea levels will dramatically change the distribution of mangroves. Future reserve systems will need to take this into account. Ignoring uncertainty in these plans comes with high risk. (Photo by Catherine Lovelock)

Figure 3: Risk-return trade-offs for conservation objectives when planning under uncertain sea-level rise. Comparisons with deterministic solutions (ie, ignoring uncertainty) are also shown.


Models are basic to good decision making. System models are representations of the dynamics of an ecological system, a conceptual map of how the system works. They enable us to specify our thinking on how the system responds to management. Without them in our decision frame it’s unlikely our choices will be well founded. What’s more, and just as important, without a system model the potential to learn is limited.

Of course, a good decision can be made without a formal model. However, it should be recognized that however a decision is made there is always at least a ‘mental model’ guiding the decision maker(s). A mental model is simply someone’s thinking about how something works in the real world. Sometimes it’s referred to as intuitive decision making; in other words, decisions are based on someone’s intuition.

Relying on a mental model can be problematic in that it is not documented, so the underpinning logic can’t be interrogated or transferred, and its compatibility with observed data cannot be tested. In addition, there is a greater risk that the model is myopic, and does not consider the suite of objectives or actions relevant to the context of the decision.

Formal models are documented for all to see. They can be qualitative or quantitative, and both have their uses. A qualitative model helps to clarify thinking, and test logic, coherence and communicability. A qualitative model may provide a starting point to sketch out the dynamics of the system as a way to brainstorm and check that the relevant values, threats and drivers, and associated interventions are captured in the model. Sometimes it becomes evident that knowledge is insufficient. The qualitative model provides the initial basis for understanding of structural uncertainty and key knowledge needs. Qualitative models can be subsequently

Building models for better decisionsThe role of ecological understanding, models & model makers in decision makingBy Peter Vesk and Libby Rumpff (University of Melbourne)

Above: Restoring native woodlands (right) on degraded land (left) can take considerable resources (time and money). Working without a good explicit conceptual model of how the ecosystem functions or responds to management interventions is a bit like shooting in the dark. Most of the time you miss your target and it’s very hard to learn from success or failure.

developed into quantitative models with the accumulation of (expert or empirical) knowledge and data.

Where a qualitative model falls down is in the capacity to be tested or updated with data; how does one accept, reject or modify a model in the light of observations when no quantitative prediction is made.

Models for Structured Decision Making Increasingly, policy makers and managers are encouraged to adopt structured approaches to addressing environmental problems. An explicit understanding of how ecological systems function (via system or process models) is essential for this for many reasons. Science and system models help to articulate the responses of the ecological objectives of interest, they assist in predicting the possible outcomes of management, and they aid in understanding the uncertainty and knowledge gaps that impede management decisions.

In Structured Decision Making (SDM), modelling has the role of making the predictions that link alternative actions to the desired outcomes (see Decision Point #104), and to identify whether there is critical uncertainty about the system that prevents making obvious decisions. In filling these needs, system models provide the backbone of any analysis of trade-offs and provides a plan for learning through the process of adaptive management (see Decision Point #102).

http://decision-point.com.au/article/navigating-the-field-of-decision-analysis/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/learning-about-adaptive-management/


Key messages:

1. System models can provide explicit representations of how an ecosystem functions. In the context of making decisions, this allows a manager to explore the impacts of management actions on the key values (objectives) at hand.

2. Models are sometimes developed in response to a demand for assistance from managers. Models are also developed by researchers to supply a solution to an environmental problem. Supply- and demand-driven models have different development pathways and these differences help explain some of the successes and frustrations in modelling for environmental problems.

3. Clarity about the context of the problem is critical; elements include values (objectives), performance measures, spatial and temporal scales, and alternative actions. a. In the case of a demand for a system model, it is crucial that decision makers and modellers define these elements of the problem context because they will shape the development and specification of the model. b. From a supply side, judging whether a given model is fit for purpose requires evaluating whether a model aligns with each of these elements of the problem context.

4. All models are ‘wrong’ but some can be useful if they help us improve management and assist us in learning. Understanding the purpose of the model is crucial; at times qualitative models can help creative thinking about how the system works and exploration of key uncertainties; at other times models are required to make quantitative predictions about critical performance measures under alternative management actions and scenarios. Understanding the context is important to managing frustration and providing effective decision support.

5. Models for decision support need to account for uncertainty to allow a decision maker to express their attitude to risk.

6. To be useful in decision support, models need to be understood and accepted by decision makers. This requires good communication about assumptions of structure and function of the models. Development of new models may benefit considerably from decision makers participating in model development.

Armed with clarity on the decision maker’s objectives and the alternatives available, there should be no barrier to developing a fit-for-purpose model (see Decision Point #74). However, often this doesn’t happen. Why is that? In our experience it has a lot to do with the social dynamics involved in building ‘decision support tools’ to support the decision-making process. In what follows we will examine this and discuss some of the triggers underpinning the development of system models.

The demand and supply of system modelsIn order to gain some understanding of the process of modelling to support decision-making, it’s useful to examine some of the triggers for their development. One obvious trigger is when decision makers ask for a model to be developed to help them choose between available options. For this discussion we call this scenario demand-driven.

Supply-driven modelling for environmental problems also exists. Commonly, models are available to describe ecological systems arising from years of ecological research. And when calls to make decisions for an environmental problem arise, the nearest, or most elaborate, or best-fitted models are proposed as suitable for the problem at hand.

Alternatively, researchers may become aware of an environmental problem and identify a knowledge gap or technological opportunity for extending model specification. Arising from discussions around policy for environmental problems, a scientist may respond to what they see as failings of existing knowledge or models concerning the problem at hand by developing models to incorporate processes that they identify as being omitted or ignored.

The funding and rewards for academic researchers tend to emphasize the supply-driven mode of knowledge acquisition. Problems can arise with this when applied to environmental decision making. Equally, the development of models for the SDM process in the demand-driven situation brings its own challenges to be resolved for a model to be fit for purpose (see Table 1).

Complex environmental challenges usually take considerable time to resolve. It’s not uncommon for these challenges to result in the development of many models answering different needs as different groups and decision makers become involved. Some of the models developed will likely be demand-driven, meeting the requirements of different groups and different decision makers. Some models will be supply-driven, developed by researchers attempting to understand the nature of the challenge. Such was the case when it was proposed that management should thin degraded woodlands in Victoria to restore some of their natural values. We were involved in the development of some of the models that were used to assist with decision making surrounding this challenge.

The following case study on thinning for conservation demonstrates many of the issues we have discussed here regarding demand- and supply-driven models, and how different managers may have different decision scope and values at hand.



Table 1: Issues relating to supply and demand approaches to modelling

Navigating the development of a fit-for-purpose model: Modelling thinning-for-conservation outcomes Box-ironbark forests and woodlands in Northern Victoria have been degraded through a history of timber exploitation, gold mining and pastoralism. Many of these forests have a structure characterized by dense stands of small, even-aged stems, few habitat resources for dependent fauna and sparse, low-diversity plant understories. How do you restore some of the natural values to these degraded forests?

Drawing on a history of thinning from production forestry, it was suggested that cutting down some trees in crowded stands might help restore a more natural forest structure. We became involved in thinning for conservation when Parks Victoria was implementing an experimental thinning trial. Parks Victoria wanted to model the consequences of thinning actions on public land for conservation objectives. Our part in this journey started as a small program of research that has continued now for more than a decade.

At the heart of the matter was the question: would thinning these forests result in improvements in the population status of native plants and animals (compared to continuing timber harvest or doing nothing)? Later, we worked with another agency of the Victorian government on a similar question, but arising from private landholders seeking funding through land stewardship schemes (Bush Tender) to conduct thinning activities on private land, notionally for conservation outcomes.

We developed and used several models over this time, including tree diameter growth models, non-spatial and static logic trees

Type Scenario Potential issues for decision support

Supply Existing model: A modeller believes a model is fit for purpose for a particular context

• The model focuses on different performance measures, or the incorrect spatial/temporal scale

• Plausible scenarios and actions may not be represented

• Model is perceived as ‘black box’ by managers and other end-users

• Uncertainty may not be explicitly presented to allow evaluation of which sources of uncertainty are critical

Supply Non-existing model: A modeller believes they could develop a process or decision model to assist with a technical gap relevant to a problem, or suite of problems

• The problem is not clearly specified in terms of one or all of the following steps of structured decision making: Decision context Objectives and performance measures Relevant or available alternative management actions

• The role of the model is unspecified as a decision support (trade-offs, support monitoring inputs) or process model

• Representation of uncertainty in model outputs is unclear or unspecified

• Tolerance to uncertainty in model outputs not clear or justified

• Model is perceived as ‘black box’ if managers not involved in decisions about structure and assumptions

Demand Non-existing model: A manager/decision maker requests development of a process or decision model to assist with a technical or knowledge gap relevant to a problem, or suite of problems

• Clarity on the role of the model may be unclear: where does it fit in the structured decision making process? Is it instrumental for qualitative or quantitative articulation and specification of the system elements, behaviour and key uncertainties?

• Is it a decision model to understand trade-offs?

• Is a decision actually on the table? Are the agency participants privy to that decision?

of wildlife population viability, expert-parameterized stand dynamics simulators, statistical models of stand density and vegetation condition, and decision trees. Each of these models had slightly different performance variables, at different scales, with different treatment of space and time.

• The logic trees of population viability concerned single animal species and the probability that a R>1 (positive population growth rate) could be supported on such a stand, given the species habitat requirements for foraging and breeding. These models were demand-driven; they were developed in response to a request from Parks Victoria.

• The stand dynamics models made predictions through time of proportions of simulated stands with desirable stand structures, principally high vs low density of large stems. These models were supply-driven, being developed to address shortcomings of the former, static models.

• The statistical models characterized relationships between vegetation condition or quality—the abundance and richness of native and exotic understorey plants—and stand density, and with effects from thinning actions. These were again demand-driven, arising in response to a request for information about private land thinning activities.

Those various models made different predictions about the likely benefits of thinning actions. The logic trees of population viability and the stand dynamics models both revealed such uncertainty, that no clearly identifiable winning action could be identified. By careful accounting of uncertainty, these illustrated that the decision needed to account for a decision maker’s attitude to risk. If a decision maker was risk-averse, worried about getting fewer large trees 100 years hence, they would


A checklist for an effective model?How can you be certain you’ve done a good job of developing a model? Basically, if it helps in better understanding how an ecosystem functions and assists in learning then you’re on the right track. Here’s a short checklist of what needs to be considered for an effective model. Of course, there’s a lot more that goes into an effective model but if you can’t check off these five basic points then the long term value of your effort is far from assured.

1. Identify the fundamental objective(s) of the decision maker. What do they really care about having more or less of? Which of these are the focus of your model?

2. Identify some attribute(s) valued by the decision maker that would serve as a performance variable(s).

3. Ensure your model makes predictions about your performance variable with uncertainty, and include management actions that would enable you to compare the outcome of scenarios and actions on a common, measurable scale. This allows for attitudes to risk to be accommodated

4. Ensure the spatial and temporal scales are relevant to those of the decision maker, both in terms of specification of performance measures, and the timeframes over which performance is examined; eg, if a manager is focused on national status of a threatened species, the performance measure may examine the potential national distribution of the species, over years to decades to centuries.

5. Have your model understood and accepted by the relevant decision maker and have it reviewed by a peer. Modelling is difficult and it is easy to make mistakes or to have missed inconsistencies in one’s model.

be best advised to not conduct any cutting. But if they were aspirational, favouring the best outcome with little regard to how likely it was, a manager would favour ecological thinning.

The statistical models of vegetation condition indicated that thinning could improve some aspects of the native plant diversity, but could also benefit weedy grasses—not a good outcome. They also specified the dependence of the outcome of the land use of the site and implications for seedbanks and soil condition.

How did those models perform or what purpose did they serve? The models served to highlight aspects of the problem: performance variables (stand structure, viable wildlife populations, aspects of vegetation condition) relevant to values; causal structure of the forest ecosystem and management interventions. The stand dynamics models highlighted the long lags in forest responses to intervention and large contribution of disagreement among experts about the fundamental processes driving stand dynamics in these forest and uncertainty about the rates at which some of processes occurred (eg growth rates, probability of cut stems resprouting). By accounting uncertainty and highlighting aspects most critical to resolve, these aided maximizing the chance of desirable outcomes for wildlife and plants (see Decision Point #105).

The statistical models were able to be incorporated into a decision tree to guide how the agency may choose to respond to landholder bids for funds from conservation incentive schemes. It enabled a reflection of the decision maker’s longer-term desire to learn about the outcome of interventions so as to respond to funding bids more effectively in the future.

If you’d like to read more about the challenge of thinning for conservation, see Czembor et al, 2009 and Jones et al, 2015.

On reflection, were the models effective in resolving the problem? It is possible to draw the conclusion that the models are not being used by the responsible agencies to justify a widespread decision on thinning activities, and so they have failed in being useful to the resolution of the environmental problem of high stem density in degraded forests. That is a harsh and rigid evaluation. As laid out early in this article, models play different roles in different contexts.

We were engaged to conduct research and modelling by agency staff at some remove from actual decision makers (ministers and elected representatives or deputy secretary of government agencies). A decision was probably not on the table, rather the research was commissioned to clarify the problem, prompting consideration of the scope of the problems, scales for consideration, necessary values and performance variables.

Did we address each of the potential issues in decision-support tools (Table 1)? No, but by framing and solving ‘toy’ versions or facsimiles of the problem of high stem density and the potential role of thinning, the decision problem becomes better understood. In hindsight there were situations where perhaps more effort to work with our partners to identify the real decision to be made, and the real decision maker, might have helped us address the right objectives, measures, scales etc. Perhaps that is because we were learning as we went, and trying to be play multiple roles: decision analysts and scientists and modellers.

More info: Peter Vesk [email protected]

ReferencesCzembor CA & PA Vesk (2009). Incorporating between-expert

uncertainty into state-and-transition simulation models for forest restoration. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 165-175.

Jones CS, DH Duncan, L Rumpff, FM Thomas, WK Morris & PA Vesk (2015). Empirically validating a dense woody regrowth ‘problem’ and thinning ‘solution’ for understory vegetation. Forest Ecology and Management 340: 153-162.

Young gum trees resprout after thinning opens up a degraded woodland. Appropriately thinning stands of trees has the potential to revitalize the ecosystem. Understanding what ‘appropriate’ means, however, requires a knowledge of how the system responds to interventions. Models are basic to generating this knowledge.

http://decision-point.com.au/article/valuing-information-for-management/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/valuing-information-for-management/


Scratching below the surface with marsupial diggersSeedlings grow bigger in the spoils of quenda-dug soilsBy Leonie Valentine, Katinka Ruthrof & Richard Hobbs*

Australia has many digging mammals, such as bettongs and bandicoots, who substantially disrupt and modify the soil and litter layer by creating foraging pits when searching for subterranean food. As they dig they create shallow pits with an associated spoil heap of the ejected soil (Figure 1). The combination of digging and discarding soil disrupts the microhabitat layer by exposing soil at the digging site, and burying organic matter and litter under the spoil heap. Although these actions might seem small at a local scale, they may be surprisingly important for broader-scale, landscape processes, influencing soil turnover, water infiltration and nutrient cycling.

The quenda or southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon fusciventer) is a medium-sized marsupial endemic to south-western Australia. It forages for underground invertebrates, fungi and tubers. Each night they create around 45 foraging pits as they dig for food. It’s been estimated an individual bandicoot is capable of turning over nearly 4 tonnes of soil each year. The digging actions of these ecosystem engineers have been shown to change soil moisture and hydrophobicity, alter the surface litter composition and influence seedling recruitment at a local scale (Valentine et al, 2017). Quenda have also been shown to transfer fungi via their scats to seedling roots. Given this, the foraging activity of quenda could play a significant role in changes to the chemical and biological characteristics of soils, and we wanted to investigate how these changes might influence seedling growth. That is, do quenda influence the growth of seedlings, and, if so, how?

In our recent study (Valentine et al, 2018), we collected soil from the base of 20 recently dug foraging pits, the associated spoil heaps and adjacent undisturbed (undug) soil, and analysed the soils for nutrients (phosphorus, potassium, sulphur, organic carbon and conductivity) and microbial activity. Soil cores were collected from the same locations, transferred to pots and seeds of the local dominant canopy species, tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala), were added to the soil under glasshouse conditions. Seedling growth (including height and maximum growth) was measured over a

four‐month period, with other measurements (stem width, shoot and root biomass) examined upon harvesting. Fungal colonisation rates of seedling roots (by arbuscular mycorrhizae, noted here as AM fungi) were also examined (native plants often depend on these colonising fungi for survival).

Results from our study showed that soil from the spoil heaps had the greatest levels of electrical conductivity and potassium. Both the spoil and undisturbed soil had greater amounts of microbial activity and organic carbon. In contrast, the pits had lowest levels of nutrients and microbial activity. Seedlings grown in spoil soil grew quicker than other seedlings and upon harvesting were taller, heavier, with thicker stems and a bigger root biomass than seedlings in the pit or undug soil. Colonisation with AM fungi

Key messages:

The quenda is a bandicoot endemic to south-western Australia that acts as an ecosystem engineer by turning over vast amounts of soil while digging for food.

Soil from the spoil heap, created by quenda while foraging, had greater levels of conductivity and potassium than either the pit or undug soil samples. Seedlings grown in spoil soil were larger and grew at a faster rate than seedlings growing in the pit or undug soil.

The foraging activities of quenda altered soil nutrients and microbial activity, thus facilitating seedling growth.

The quenda is a marsupial bandicoot, endemic to south-western Australia that digs prolifically while searching for subterranean food.

Figure 1: A schematic representation of how foraging pits, created by digging mammals, may alter abiotic and biotic processes (modified from Valentine et al, 2017).


A foraging pit created by a quenda while searching for food, showing the adjacent discarded spoil heap.

Will any digger do?When giving presentations on our native diggers we are often asked: What about rabbits? They dig. Surely they provide the same range of ecosystem services (and they’re not going extinct)? It’s a good question and in their native range rabbits (and hares) are considered ecosystem engineers. But rabbits are not native to Australia and the little research that has been done on this suggests they don’t replace the function of native digging marsupials.

Part of the reason is that rabbits are herbivorous as well as diggers. A lot of our bandicoots and bettongs are omnivorous, so aren’t always eating all the greenery whereas rabbits tend to eat everything. We also suspect that rabbits dig differently to bandicoots – they are likely to dig less and the pits are often visibly shallower. And native digging marsupials don’t just dig, they also move fungi about (which rabbits don’t we suspect).

So a dig is not just a dig, and any old digger isn’t necessarily enough, it’s got to be an Aussie digger.

Having said that, not much research has been done on this question so there’s much we have to dig up before we can give a definitive answer.

Seedling height and root biomass of tuart gum trees grown in soil collected from different locations of a foraging pit (undug, pit and spoil) created by quenda.

was greatest for seedlings grown in pit soil. The best predictors of seedling growth were greater amounts of potassium, electrical conductivity and microbial activity. The best predictor of higher colonisation rates of AM fungi was less phosphorus.

Our research showed that bioturbation by ecosystem engineers, such as quenda, can alter soil nutrients and microbial activity, and subsequently facilitate seedling growth.

Why is seedling growth better? We believe that foraging by quenda creates an environment conducive for litter decomposition in the spoil heap. This subsequently returns nutrients to the soil. These extra nutrients facilitate seedling growth. While foraging for food, digging mammals such as the quenda, manipulate and alter many soil properties and these microscale disturbances may be incredibly important for ecosystem functioning.

The majority of Australian digging mammals are threatened, with many suffering substantial population declines and range contraction due to predation by foxes and cats, and clearing of habitat. The widespread decline of Australian digging marsupials is likely to be linked to a reduction in key ecosystem processes.

We believe the persistence of our native digging mammals in landscapes plays an important role in maintaining the health and functioning of ecosystems. And the evidence dug up in this investigation underscores how important that role can be.

More info: Leonie Valentine [email protected]

References

*Leonie Valentine and Richard Hobbs are from the University of Western Australia. Katinka Ruthrof is from Kings Park Science, WA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.

References

Valentine LE, M Bretz, KX Ruthrof, G Hardy & PA Fleming PA (2017). Scratching beneath the surface: bandicoot bioturbation contributes to ecosystem processes. Austral Ecology 42: 265-276.

Valentine LE, KX Ruthrof, R Fisher, G Hardy, RJ Hobbs & PA Fleming (2018). Bioturbation by bandicoots facilitates seedling growth by altering soil properties. Functional Ecology Doi:10.1111/1365-2435.13179.


Don’t forget the weatherPerceptions and reality in ecological restoration and the use of seasonal forecastingBy Valerie Hagger (University of Queensland)

The need to restore the world’s ecosystems and landscapes to protect biodiversity and vital ecosystem services has resulted in significant international commitments over the last decade. Governments and non-government organisations are now looking at ways to scale up restoration efforts to meet those commitments (see Decision Point #68).

Efforts to restore native vegetation have had mixed outcomes. Some have worked, some haven’t, and there are many diverse opinions on the factors behind these successes and failures. However, not much is known about how these factors are perceived, and whether perceptions match realities.

We set out to throw some light on this. We surveyed 307 people who are involved in restoring native vegetation across Australia to find out what their perceptions were about the factors that influence a successful restoration project.

Restoration projects are influenced by a range of ecological, financial and social factors. These include invasive plant species, animals that consume or displace native plant species, existing conditions of the site, timeframes and funding, public acceptance, weather – the list is long and varied.

We asked the survey respondents to rate how strongly they agree that restoration success is limited by each factor on a five-point scale. The factors perceived by respondents to most strongly limit the success of restoration projects were financial constraints (Probability [P] = 0.9), weed invasion (P = 0.85), time constraints (P = 0.85), and pest animals (P = 0.82).

We also asked survey respondents to provide a case study of a specific restoration project for which they have been involved, and asked them which factors, if any, limited success in that project. Two hundred and twenty of the 307 respondents provided a case study example of a restoration project. Factors commonly identified as most important were financial constraints (22%), local climate (16%), natural events (15%), and weeds (13%).

Key messages:

We surveyed 307 people involved in the restoration of native vegetation to identify their perceptions on the factors influencing the success of restoration projects

The survey identified that weather (particularly drought and flooding) has affected the outcomes of restoration projects, but is not perceived to be an important risk when planning new projects

We demonstrated that seasonal forecasts provided by the Predictive Ocean Atmosphere Model for Australia detected unfavourable weather with sufficient skill and lead time to be useful for restoration projects

Above: Restoring native vegetation takes time and money. It can also often involve community participation. However it’s done, restoration is a considerable investment and every effort should be made to maximise successful outcomes. New research has found that planners can improve restoration outcomes simply by incorporating seasonal weather forecasts into their plans.

http://decision-point.com.au/article/how-can-global-restoration-targets-be-best-met/


Figure 1: Weather impacts on restoration planting in Chambers Flat, Queensland: (a) dry weather in first year, (b) severe frost in second year, (c) flooding in fifth year. (Photos: Logan City Council)

One hundred and thirty six respondents reported being involved in a restoration project that failed to deliver the expected outcomes. The main reasons reported were local climate (32%), weeds (17%) and natural events (15%). Other reasons reported were lack of maintenance (29%) and low plant survival rates (15%).

We found discrepancies between perceived risks to restoration projects in general and realised risks from specific case studies after implementation. People did not perceive local climate and natural events as important risks, but they recognised them as major reasons limiting the success of specific case studies. They also cited local climate as the main cause of failure of restoration projects.

While the impacts of weather, particularly drought and flooding on restoration projects, are well known, we found they are not considered to be an important risk in planning new restoration projects. This highlights the need for better recognition and management of weather risks, and the potential role of seasonal forecasting.

Forty five of the restoration case studies reported weather as a primary or secondary constraint to success. We were able to obtain further information for 16 of the case studies, across Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, on location of the restoration site, the date of revegetation, what the weather issues were and when they occurred, and how restoration outcomes were affected. For example a restoration site at Chambers Flat in Queensland was affected by three different weather events over several years (Figure 1).

Using these restoration case studies, we assessed the ability of seasonal forecasting from the Predictive Ocean Atmosphere Model for Australia (POAMA-2) to detect unfavourable weather with sufficient skill and lead time to be useful for restoration projects.

We found that rainfall and temperature variables in POAMA-2 predicted 88% of the weather issues encountered in restoration case studies, apart from strong winds and cyclones. Of those restoration case studies with predictable weather issues, POAMA-2 had the forecast skill to predict the dominant or first-encountered issue in 67% of cases.

Through consultation with restoration practitioners, we explored the challenges associated with the uptake of forecast products to develop a prototype forecast product (Figure 2).

The establishment success of restoration could be improved by integrating seasonal forecasting into decision making through identifying risk management strategies during restoration planning, accessing the forecast a month prior to revegetation activities, and adapting decisions if extreme weather is forecasted.

Seasonal forecasting has potential to reduce uncertainty in decision making and improve the success and cost-efficiency of restoration projects. It could also be useful for other conservation actions that rely on weather for successful implementation.

More info: Valerie Hagger [email protected]

Reference

Hagger V, J Dwyer, L Shoo & K Wilson (2018). Use of seasonal forecasting to manage weather risk in ecological restoration. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1769

Figure 2: National seasonal forecasts for Chambers Flat restoration planting (site marked in white on map) showing tercile probability forecasts for rainfall, minimum temperature Tmin and maximum temperature Tmax over Australia for lower (drier/cooler), middle (neutral) and upper (wetter/warmer) for the first fortnight (18 March - 1 April 2013), second fortnight (2-16 April 2013), first calendar month (1-30 April 2013) and first season (1 April - 30 June 2013).

(a) (b)

(c)


Please keep to the pathWhere psychology and conservation science collideBy Alex Kusmanoff and Matthew Selinske (RMIT University)

The behavioural sciences such as psychology and behavioural economics have a lot to offer conservation—from understanding people’s decision-making to evaluating the best way to change behaviours in a targeted population. Yet, given its breadth and depth, many of us find psychology, its jargon and research, impenetrable.

To increase understanding and use of psychology in conservation science and practice, we have recently launched a new web-based resource called Please keep to the path. The website (we’d never call it a blog) seeks to make research about human behaviour more accessible to all who are interested in applying it to promote nature conservation.

You can find it at the rather intuitive address: keeptothepath.com (‘intuitive’ is an important idea when it comes to behavioural science).

Unlike many blogs (but remembering we’re not a blog), our site is not a vessel for self-promotion, opinions or gripes. Rather, it is a flagship for disseminating the most relevant and useful conservation psychology research. We strive to make its contents both available and accessible to all, though we have a particular interest in reaching other researchers, managers, and policymakers.

While researchers continue to produce mountains of knowledge that may be useful for guiding nature conservation, this information is often difficult to access, sometimes held behind paywalls and usually reported in discipline-specific language. All this creates barriers for those who dare to venture beyond the safety of their own disciplinary field of expertise.

We have established Please keep to the path as one means to better share this knowledge and make it more available for the nurturing of nature. We do this by reporting the best classic and contemporary research in short and (hopefully) engaging ‘bytes’. Each byte captures the essential aspects of the original peer-reviewed research, including why it is useful for understanding the human aspects of nature conservation.

We read it so that you don’t have to!We read the original article, distil its essential learnings, and report this as succinctly as possible. In this way, each of our bytes is much like an article abstract, except that it:

• Avoids being exceedingly dull and dry;

• Is written to engage a general audience instead of researchers within a particular field; and

• Focusses on applications to conservation – it turns out not all research relevant to conservation psychology originates from conservation psychology research!

By perusing our growing database of bytes readers may more readily and easily become familiar with important research in the field than if they were to rely on accessing published journal abstracts, and certainly more quickly than by actually reading a multitude of individual articles in full. While no synopsis is ever a substitute for reading the real thing, our bytes will help you focus energy on those articles most useful for providing the information you seek.

RMIT scholars Alex Kusmanoff and Matthew Selinske have created a new web-based resource to encourage the application of psychological insights in conservation.

Behavioural tipping pointsThe authors of this 2018 study published in Science characterise the dynamics of social change by empirically demonstrating the uptake of minority behaviours by a majority of the population. They found that if a minority-held behaviour can reach a threshold of 25% of the population, it consistently shifted the conventional behaviour.

For more details on what they measured, see the entry at Please keep to the path

https://keeptothepath.com/2018/07/22/tipping-into-critical-mass/


Sign hereDo signs change behaviour?

In 2012, Canadian psychologists Reuven Sussman and Robert Gifford tested the effectiveness of two different sized signs at prompting users to turn the lights off when they were not in use. The authors tested two different sizes of the sign over 43 days. They used seventeen washrooms across five buildings on a university campus, and found that simple, well-designed signs can be effective at prompting people to turn off washroom lights. Bigger signs are more effective than smaller signs.

The authors concluded that the presence of a sign did make a difference – a small sign was six times as effective than no sign at prompting ‘lights off’ behaviour, and that large signs were almost twice as effective as small signs.

For more details on what they measured, see the entry at Please keep to the path

Why ‘please keep to the path’?Our titular plea, Please keep to the path, echoes the often futile messages found on signs posted around the world that implore pedestrians to Please keep off the grass, hikers to Please keep to the trail or public transport passengers to Please keep feet off seats (to list only several of the forms in which this ubiquitous appeal can be found).

Yet Please keep to the path also embodies a greater appeal to us all, that we navigate our lives in a way that treads more lightly upon nature. Because human behaviour is the cause of so many environmental problems, including the biodiversity crisis, shifting how people behave is key to achieving a future in which people better value and better protect nature. And sometimes, an appropriately worded sign in a strategically chosen place can nudge us in the right direction.

Get involved and promote great researchOwing to our limited resources (ie, the spare time of two active researchers), we make no pretence that this database will be exhaustive. Currently, the articles we report are simply the most interesting and useful pieces of research, both past and emerging, that we happen to encounter.

However, we do make sure that each byte is in itself reliable and accurate.

But, you can help our repository grow into a valuable and practical conservation psychology resource by contributing your own bytes. If you know of any important, useful or interesting research that is not yet in our database, or want to promote your own fantastic research then we would love to hear from you. Get in touch via the contact page, or email either [email protected] or [email protected].

The psychology in an environmental decisionOver the years we’ve covered many psychological dimensions of environmental decision making in Decision Point. Here are three examples:

The psychology of searching for hard-to-find species

Base-rate neglect, inverse-probability fallacy and poor environmental decisions. Our big brains struggle to coherently combine probabilities. It’s something that’s been noted time and again in studies on how doctors interpret a medical diagnosis but it’s a basic problem whenever we are presented information with several points of uncertainty. And this is a big problem commonly encountered in environmental management whenever we have imperfect detection.

Decision Point #57

Communicating environmental science to conservatives

The reason that environmental campaigns often don’t work is that it turns out that the effectiveness of campaigns depends on audiences’ existing attitudes and identities.

Decision Point #85

‘Bias’ and natural resource management

We recently explored the influence of bias in natural resource management (NRM) and found that we may be able to improve our performance if we recognise these influences and work to reduce them.

Decision Point #93

Please check us out for yourselves and be the first to tell your conservation colleagues.

More info: https://keeptothepath.com/

About the Keep-to-the-Path editors: Alex (below on the left) recently completed a PhD with the RMIT Interdisciplinary Conservation (ICON) Science Lab, in which he investigated use of framing techniques for enhancing conservation messages. He is currently continuing this research with the Threatened Species Recovery Hub. He is investigating the use of social and behavioural economic opportunities for threatened species recovery.

Matthew (on the right) is a PhD candidate with the ICON Science Lab at RMIT. His research can be broadly categorised as conservation psychology. He is currently evaluating the social dimensions of private land conservation, biodiversity footprint analysis, conservation behavior change and predictive modelling of human behaviour.

https://keeptothepath.com/2018/07/22/bigger-signs-are-more-effective-at-prompting-people-to-turn-off-washroom-lights/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/the-psychology-of-searching-for-hard-to-find-species/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/communicating-environmental-science-to-conservatives/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/bias-and-natural-resource-management/


Putting telemetry to workUsing telemetry data to assess conservation requirements of the shy albatrossBy Claire Mason (University of Tasmania)

The shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta) is an iconic Australian seabird. It breeds exclusively on three offshore Tasmanian islands. Like many seabirds around the world, the shy albatross is considered threatened. The Tasmanian Government has been monitoring the shy albatross since 1980.

Part of this monitoring program involves irregular deployments of satellite-tracking technology to better understand the bird’s behaviour and movement. Over 23 years, a total of 111 shy albatross were tracked at various times to answer a variety of research questions.

Our study was the first to collate and integrate the data collected from the telemetry monitoring into a cohesive dataset. We used this integrated dataset to assess how a marine protected area (MPA) system covers the distribution of the threatened shy albatross, as well as extracting other useful spatial information for managers.

Integrating the available date allowed us to identify core foraging areas for two critical life stages: early incubation and post-fledging (Figure 1). It also identified that important foraging areas were largely within waters managed by the Commonwealth Government as opposed to State government jurisdiction.

Our efforts show that MPAs, although not created specifically for shy albatross but currently the only spatial protection measure in their marine environment, are not adequately covering the distribution of this threatened species (Figure 1). Indeed, we demonstrated that the current MPA network performs worse than a random configuration.

Making the most of telemetryThe technology of telemetry has made incredible advances in recent years providing amazing insights on the behaviours of a wide a range of species. A constant refrain from environmental decision scientists has been the critical importance of using this information for better conservation outcomes. Consider these past stories from Decision Point:

Integrating animal-borne technology with conservation management

Value-of-information analysis enables a quantitative assessment on the return-on-investment of animal telemetry-derived data for conservation decision-making

Decision Point #101

Tracking turtles in the Mediterranean

Spatial priorities for sea turtle conservation are very sensitive to the type of information being used. This study demonstrated that setting conservation targets for turtle migration tracks (based on telemetry) altered the location of conservation priorities.

Decision Point #96

Tracking animals just got easier

V-Track is the first-step in the creation of a universal suite of R-based analysis tools for the animal acoustic-telemetry community.

Decision Point #69

Key messages:

We set out to assess the efficacy of marine reserves in Australia for shy albatross, using long-term tracking data

Our results suggest that shy albatross do not have adequate coverage by marine reserves in Australia

We demonstrate that long-term telemetry data, even when collected irregularly and under different research priorities, can be integrated to increase return-on-investment and provide valuable information for conservation and management

Above: The shy albatross is endemic breeder to Australia. It breeds on three island colonies: Albatross Island, Pedra Branca, and the Mewstone. Adults average between 90 to 99 cm in length with a wingspan often exceeding 2.5 metres. (Photo by Claire Mason)

http://decision-point.com.au/article/telemetry-technology-for-better-conservation/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/tracking-turtles-in-the-mediterranean/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/tracking-animals-just-got-easier/


Claire Mason attaches a satellite transmitter to the feathers of a juvenile shy albatross using Tesa tape and Loctite adhesive (on Albatross Island). Ross Monash (a Wildlife Biologist with the Marine Conservation Program) restrains the bird. (Photo by Rachael Alderman)

Animal telemetry is a valuable research tool for management and conservation. Given the substantial investment in collecting animal telemetry (and the potential disturbance to the tracked species), there is an ethical and practical obligation to maximize the benefit of these techniques for conservation outcomes (McGowan et al, 2017).

We demonstrated that it is possible to collate and integrate tracking data on shy albatross that had been collected across decades. We demonstrate how to overcome the challenges posed by such long-term tracking datasets to inform targeted conservation strategies.

MPAs are a valuable tool in the conservation toolbox for shy albatross. Although we are doing well on many fronts for shy albatross conservation, including climate adaptation strategies and in the fisheries bycatch sphere, this study shows MPA coverage is lacking. The information obtained from integrating this time-series of telemetry data can be used by the responsible agencies to enhance management for shy albatross in a range of contexts, including designing MPAs, targeted spatial and temporal management of fisheries, and decision-making for offshore development and resource use.

More info: Claire Mason [email protected]

http://www.tasmanianalbatrossfund.com.au/

Note: The study is a product of Claire Mason’s honours research project at The University of Queensland, with ARC CEED researchers: Justine Shaw, Hugh Possingham and Jennifer McGowan. It was carried out in collaboration with CSIRO and the Australian Antarctic Division. The project was inspired by, and used data from, the Marine Conservation Program, a government organisation responsible for the monitoring and conservation of marine mammals and seabirds in Tasmania, Australia. The shy albatross population at Albatross Island has been monitored since 1980 by the Marine Conservation Program and has been the focus of many applied conservation projects.

Figure 1: Foraging distribution of (a) incubating adults and (b) juveniles, and the overlap with current Marine Protected Areas. Core foraging areas (dark blue) have very little overlap with protected areas.

References

Mason C, R Alderman, J McGowan, HP Possingham, AJ Hobday, M Sumner & J Shaw (2018). Telemetry reveals existing marine protected areas are worse than random for protecting the foraging habitat of threatened shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta). Divers Distrib. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ddi.12830

McGowan J, M Beger, RL Lewison, R Harcourt, H Campbell, M Priest, RG Dwyer, HY Lin, P Lentini, C Dudgeon, C McMahon, M Watts & HP Possingham (2017). Integrating research using animal-borne telemetry with the needs of conservation management. Journal of Applied Ecology 54:423-429.


Alumni

Two global demographic databasesCOMADRE and COMPADRE are two demographic databases that I have been developing in collaboration with an international team (a project catalysed by the Max Planck Society and the ARC). COMPADRE is a Plant Matrix Database (the name comes from the letters in ‘Comparative Plant Matrix Database’), while COMADRE is an Animal Matrix Database (from ‘Comparative Animal Matrix Database’). Each database is unprecedented in terms of data quality, taxonomic richness and global coverage.

Reference

Salguero-Gómez et al. (2015). The COMPADRE Plant Matrix Database: an online repository for plant population dynamics. Journal of Ecology 103, 202-218. (See the story in Decision Point #94)

Gunning for resilience at Rottnest Island: The aim of this workshop was to assemble experimental data to compare the extent and speed of recovery from disturbance across different ecosystems and types of disturbances. In doing so, we attempted to learn more about resilience and improve its practical application to ecosystem management. Pictured here are the workshop participants (with Rachel pictured in the inset image). For more details, see Decision Point #77)

One of CEED’s greatest legacies will be its people. CEED commenced in 2011 and has now generated a well-connected alumni network that spans the globe. These incredibly capable researchers are receiving national and international recognition for their achievements. They are securing coveted positions in the academy, and also taking up leadership roles in in governmental and non-governmental organisations. We have been profiling a selection of this community in recent issues of Decision Point.

Alumni storiesCEED alumni make their mark

Rachel Standish CEED gave me the opportunity to work with people outside my discipline. Since my research sits at the nexus between ecological theory and practice, I was excited to join CEED in 2012. Being part of the centre gave me the opportunity to work collaboratively with other motivated researchers in a wide variety of disciplines outside my own. Through CEED, I developed new, productive and fulfilling collaborations and gained valuable mentoring experience through the CEED ECR mentoring program. Lastly, and perhaps what was most beneficial, CEED reporting improved my ability to communicate the impact and benefit of my research beyond academia.

I appreciated CEED initiatives to bring ecologists together. In December 2013, Jane Catford and I hosted a CEED/NERP workshop at Rottnest Island (a 20 minutes ferry ride from Fremantle, Western Australia). It was my first experience hosting a workshop and a great opportunity to collaborate with Jane and other internationally renowned ecologists. I have fond memories of the workshop—serious intellectual pursuit mixed with leisurely cycle-rides to the pub and beach—and it was productive too! We published a meta-analysis on the response of ecosystems to

disturbance using datasets attendees brought to the workshop.

I am now a senior lecturer in ecology at Murdoch University, Perth.

Roberto Salguero-Gómez At CEED I was a DECRA fellow in a group of 65 postdocs and 93 PhD students. I had never worked with such a large group before, but the interactions and way we carried out collaborative projects forever changed the way I think about global ecological impacts and how I network with colleagues around the world.

CEED provided me with unique opportunities to interact with world-leaders in conservation, science, and ecology both in Australia and abroad. One of the highlights of my work at CEED was working with my colleagues to organise a workshop on the application of big data in decisions science. Other valued achievements from my time with CEED include becoming an honorary fellow at UQ, and becoming involved in the CEED mentoring program, where I was lucky to work with the very talented PhD candidate Stephanie Avery-Gomm.

Because of CEED’s many nodes and connections, I was also able to collaborate with researchers from Melbourne and QAECO to obtain an ARC grant to evaluate the usefulness of various species distribution models and the interplay between these tools and population’s models. Working with CEED scientists has truly shaped the way in which I work and think (not to mention it is where I met my wife!).

More recently, I have worked in the UK funded by a NERC independent research fellowship, at the University of Oxford’s Department of Zoology. In late 2017, I was offered an Associate Professorship in ecology and tutorial fellowship with Pembroke College, Oxford.

http://decision-point.com.au/article/introducing-comadre-compadre/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/taking-resilience-back-to-its-ecological-roots/


The knob-tailed gecko (Nephrurus stellatus) thrives in open habitats created by fire. (Photo by Annabel Smith)

Maria Beger Being a part of CEED benefited me in every aspect of academic life. The most valuable aspect was probably the academic independence I had. I don’t think I particularly noticed a change in my operational procedures in going from a research fellowship at CEED to running my own lab.

Another aspect I valued was the lack of traditional hierarchy often apparent in many universities. Instead, at CEED everyone mingles and exchanges ideas. This was very special, and really enhanced the quality of everyone’s science.

During my time at CEED I derived a lot of inspiration about how to deal with students, run lab groups, and develop activities to support students and postdocs; all aspects of what it is to be part of a research centre. This has helped me to engage with the UK-based research centre where I am currently located. I’m now a management committee member of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds.

I had so many good experiences while at CEED, it’s hard to pin down a best memory. I have very fond memories of the fact that CEED people often meet and talk about science in social settings, such as a bird walk or at St Lucy’s. However, easily the best memory is the buzz associated with the Centre itself, a place where everyone is driven by wanting to conserve biodiversity to some degree.

I am now an Academic Fellow at Leeds. It’s kind of a cross between a Research Fellow and a Senior Lecturer. I still work on the same things that I also pursued at CEED (that is, incorporating ecological processes in spatial conservation decisions). However, lately, I have also focussed more on climate change related issues.

Editor’s note: Maria contributed many stories to Decision Point in her time at CEED. She has been a tireless and enthusiastic researcher (and communicator) on all things marine with a particular passion for coral ecosystems (that’s her on the left). In 2016, she proposed and assisted in the production of a Decision Point Special Issue on marine conservation, Decision Point #96 (in which she contributed stories on collaboration in the Coral Triangle and conserving subtropical reefs).

Annabel Smith CEED was also a great place to collaborate and form relationships with other researchers at different career stages. During a conference I co-led, I met Professor Yvonne Buckley, who I didn’t know at the time, and would later become my employer at Trinity College Dublin and one of the most influential mentors in my career to date.

During my time at CEED I was selected as a representative for the Australian Research Council’s mid-term review, where I provided feedback to the ARC on the impact the Centre has made to the scientific community, environmental policy makers and the general public at an international level.

Since finishing my appointment at CEED, I have worked as a freelance researcher, and in May 2016 I moved to Ireland to take up a position at Trinity College, where I led the landscape genomics component of the international research network PLANTPOPNET. The network uses Plantago lanceolata as a model species to analyse variation in plant population performance across global environmental gradients. During this time, I also won a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research Fellowship. I am also the Meetings Officer for the Irish Ecological Association and am on the Organising Committee for the second IEA conference to take place in Galway, December 2018 and Associate Editor of the Journal of Applied Ecology.

Being part of CEED benefited me in three big ways: It increased the impact my research had in policy and environmental management; it vastly increased my research network; and it provided future employment and funding opportunities in the global research community.

Fire in the malleeAnnabel published several stories in Decision Point on fire and biodiversity. In Decision Point #72 she reported on results of her doctoral research on reptiles and fire. She conducted a study in the mallee vegetation of South Australia to determine how reptiles respond to fire in their habitat. The field effort involved in this study was enormous. Her results suggest that management that is likely to be of greatest benefit to reptiles in mallee ecosystems would aim to protect long-unburnt habitat (eg, 40–50 years old, and potentially older) from fire because these post-fire habitat stages are uncommon.

Reference

Smith AL, Bull CM, Driscoll DA (2013) Successional specialization in a reptile community cautions against widespread planned burning and complete fire suppression. Journal of Applied Ecology DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12119

Conserving subtropical reefsIn a time of climate change, subtropical and temperate reefs are currently undergoing ‘tropicalisation’. Going from tropical to temperate reefs, species richness in corals and fishes declines, but that of algae, echinoderms and other invertebrates can increase. We should aim to conserve sites that consistently remain important for conservation through time.

Reference

Beger M, B Sommer, PL Harrison, SDA Smith, & JM Pandolfi (2014). Conserving potential coral reef refugia at high latitudes. Diversity and Distributions 20: 245-257. (See the story in Decision Point #96)

http://decision-point.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DPoint-96_website_ed.pdf

http://decision-point.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DPoint-96_website_ed.pdf

http://decision-point.com.au/article/counting-the-cost-fire-and-reptiles/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/conservation-of-subtropical-reefs/


Alumni

Climate change AND land-cover changeIn December 2015, Chrystal wrote in Decision Point about the impact of climate change when combined with the impact of land cover change.

Climate change can interact with land-cover change by exacerbating the impact of habitat loss and fragmentation on biodiversity. It does this by increasing the susceptibility of fragmented biological populations to extinction risks connected with random events (like fires or disease outbreaks). Climate change can also hinder the ability of species to cope with modified land-cover. If climate change depresses population sizes or causes increased variability in population dynamics, for example as a consequence of increased incidents of extreme events, then habitat networks may require larger patches and improved connectivity to maintain populations. Loss and fragmentation of habitat may also hinder the movement of species and their ability to cope with climate change through tracking of suitable climatic conditions.

Their analysis found that climate change will exacerbate the risk of mammal and bird declines due to future land-cover change by up to 24% for mammals and 43% for birds (Mantyka-Pringle et al, 2015).

Reference

Mantyka-Pringle CS, P Visconti, M Di Marco, TG Martin, C Rondinini & JR Rhodes (2015). Climate change modifies risk of global biodiversity loss due to land-cover change. Biological Conservation 187: 103- 111. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320715001615 See the story in Decision Point #93

Chrystal Mantyka-Pringle has taken her decision science to northern climes.

Chrystal Mantyka-PringleI’ll always remember the infectious enthusiasm and common passion for conservation at CEED.

What I value most from that time was the continuous exposure to such a diversity of researchers, cultures and projects that all had a common passion for conservation and environmental decision-making. One day I would be learning about the benefits of a possible ivory trade in South Africa, whereas the next day I would be hearing about landscape restoration activities for big cat conservation in the Amazon, or zoning approaches for protecting biodiversity on the Great Barrier Reef. Researchers and staff were all excited to be a part of CEED and the enthusiasm was infectious!

I joined CEED when I started my PhD with Jonathan Rhodes and Tara Martin. During my four years there, the Centre provided training and professional skills that I still use today – media training, R workshops, Marxan training, networking, writing retreats, and conference participation.

In 2012, I was awarded a Visiting Fellowship Grant scheme from CEED, which I used to visit the University of Saskatchewan to collaborate on an external project. This led to a new overseas network for me, and eventually led to a postdoc offer a few years later.

On graduating from my PhD, I worked for CSIRO on a short contract developing a quantitative Bayesian Belief Network model for minimizing the risk of invasive species colonisation in Australia. I them moved to Canada to accept a postdoctoral research fellowship with the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan. My research at Saskatchewan focused on collaborating with three First Nations and three Métis Nations from the Northwest Territories to develop a socio-ecological system model using both traditional indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge for understanding the cumulative environmental impacts of multiple stressors on Canadian River Deltas, including both social and ecological consequences.

I was then awarded a Mitacs Elevate Research Fellowship from the Canadian Government, in partnership with Ducks Unlimited and Environment and Climate Change Canada to initiate a research program modelling interactions between climate change, wetland drainage and habitat loss on prairie wetland chemistry and ecological biodiversity.

I am also currently developing a decision-support framework for land-use management efforts designed to provide optimal solutions to practitioners for maximizing wetland functioning while minimizing or mitigating costs to crop production. This work involves collaboration with hydrologists, aquatic biogeochemists, ecologists, climatologists, economists, social scientists, wetland managers, policymakers and farmers.

Amongst other things, I teach a graduate course on sustainable water resources at the University of Saskatchewan, but my greatest achievement since CEED is that I became a mum to two spirited little girls, Aurora and River, who inspire me daily for a better world.

http://decision-point.com.au/article/risk-exposure-x-vulnerability-x-hazard/


Sylvaine Giakoumi I joined CEED in 2012, just after also beginning postdoctoral fellowship funded by the European Union and the Greek Government. Thanks to financial support from CEED I was able organise international workshops, which also gave me the opportunity to meet and collaborate with leading scientists in my field of marine conservation. I was also able to participate in training sessions run by CEED which broadened my skills and capabilities. However, most importantly, being part of CEED gave me the opportunity to collaborate and share experiences on a daily basis with an amazing group of people.

I think my best memory is a workshop organised by Professor Salit Kark on Stradbroke Island. Not only did we do some great work, we got to watch dolphins and whales breaching just off shore.

While I am still an adjunct fellow at CEED, since physically leaving Australia in 2015 I have been a postdoc at the University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, France, where I led a collaborative project with the Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO). Currently, I am a principal investigator on a three-year project assessing the relationships between marine protected areas and invasive species, funded by the French National Research Agency. I am also a group leader on a four-year European Union COST project, investigating integrated conservation planning.

Prioritising actions to protect seagrass meadowsIn Decision Point #96, Sylvaine discussed a study she led on what’s the most cost effective approach to saving seagrass habitat.

Their analysis selected the most cost-effective actions to abate stoppable threats (trawling and anchoring), while avoiding areas affected by threats that are more difficult to manage, such as coastal development (Giakoumi et al, 2015). The relative improvement in cost achieved by using the proposed approach was examined by comparing with other common prioritisation criteria that do not consider cost, including choosing sites based on threat level or habitat cover alone.

The establishment of anti-trawling reefs (in the study region in the Mediterranean) was found to be the most cost-effective action to achieve the European Union conservation target for the protection of seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) meadows.

Reference

Giakoumi S, CJ Brown, S Katsanevakis, MI Saunders & Possingham HP (2015). Using threat maps for cost-effective prioritization of actions to conserve coastal habitats. Marine Policy 61: 95-102. See the story in Decision Point #96

Gary TaborI came to CEED as a Professional Fulbright Scholar in Climate Change and Clean Energy in 2013-2014. I chose CEED because of its pool of talented scholars who were making advances in decision support science using a range of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Being exposed to this cohort of innovators and their work proved to be a great inspiration for my own work in helping policymakers and conservation practitioners make better decisions using the best available science. I still stay in touch with my colleagues and collaborators at CEED, who continue to help me and inspire me.

After CEED, I returned to the United States where I was appointed to serve on two US Department of Interior advisory councils during the last years of the Obama Administration. The first was the International Landscape Conservation Cooperative Council of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. It oversees 22 large-scale federal conservation collaborative operations from the Pacific Islands to the Caribbean Sea, from the Arctic realms to the tropical forests of Puerto Rico.

The second was the National Invasive Species Council that advises the Secretary of Interior on the latest threats and potential solutions to address the nation’s invasive species problems.

In 2016, I was asked by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas to chair a new technical group to advance ecological connectivity conservation – the Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group (CCSG). We are developing a new conservation designation to conserve a critical ecological process – connectivity - through Areas of Connectivity Conservation. We hope that as the world develops more ambitious targets for conservation, connectivity will figure more prominently in these goals.

The CEED morning tea gatherings, where I was based at the UQ node, helped to foster a true collaborative community. In general, we don’t have these social breaks in the US and I miss them now that I have returned home. I think tea is a small thing, but it truly helps cement teams.

Gary Tabor is currently Executive Director of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation in Montana, USA.

http://decision-point.com.au/article/protecting-marine-coastal-habitats-cost-effectively/

http://decision-point.com.au/article/protecting-marine-coastal-habitats-cost-effectively/


CEED is a partnership between Australian and international universities and research organisations. We aim to be the world’s leading research centre for solving environmental management problems and for evaluating the outcomes of actions. More info: http://ceed�edu�au/

The readers have spokenAnd Decision Point still hits the markIn the last issue of Decision Point (Decision Point #105) we asked readers for feedback on what they thought about the value of Decision Point (as we come to the end of CEED funding). The feedback we received suggest we’re still hitting the mark in terms of quality and engaging stories on environmental decision science; and there is considerable support for Decision Point to continue beyond CEED if possible.

Exactly what business model would enable this is currently being discussed within CEED but your enthusiastic praise for the magazine is an important piece of evidence for when we engage with potential partners. As to a business model based on paid subscriptions (one of the options proposed in the survey), your responses suggested this isn’t a viable approach. In a hyperconnected digital world in which traditional media are struggling to keep afloat on paid subscriptions, this is hardly surprising.

And Dbytes bites Dbytes began back in 2011 as CEED’s internal newsletter and came out every week. Many CEED researchers were also involved in other research networks (eg, the National Environmental Research Program Environmental Decisions Hub) so Dbytes also served as an internal newsletter for these allied networks.

Whereas Decision Point has external focus, telling the world of about CEED research, Dbytes is more internal. Each issue of Dbytes carries general items on biodiversity conservation and a news item from each of our nodes (UQ, UMelb, RMIT, ANU and UWA).

In its first year, Dbytes had a subscriber base of around 150 people. However, many of our research stakeholders (eg, policy makers in the Department of the Environment) asked if they could receive Dbytes too, so we decided to open our subscriber base to everyone. Subscriptions now stand at over 700 and Dbytes is coming up to it’s 350th issue.

The feedback we get from our researchers is uniformly positive. For example, one CEED researcher told us: “I just love your DBytes! They are invaluable for me… they provide two things - 1) linking me to some of the grey literature and policy-related aspects of the group’s work and 2) highlighting articles I might otherwise never find/look at.”

And the feedback from readers outside of our research network suggests this internal newsletter is also making a significant contribution across many other sectors connected to biodiversity conservation (including education, policy development and management). For example, one Senior Project Officer with NSW National Parks told us: “Dbytes has become a highly reliable source of news for me in the conservation space, and is pitched perfectly for a quick overview and links to follow up for further information. As someone who works in both conservation science and management, I find it invaluable.”

So, while Dbytes is often the forgotten cousin of CEED’s better known output, Decision Point, it too has been making a significant contribution to better environmental decision making.

Dbytes is archived at https://ozdbytes.wordpress.com/

Here are a few comments we received from you in last issue’s survey:

“Such a valuable magazine, providing important insights into cutting edge conservation science.”

“I look forward to each issue and read it cover to cover. Can’t say that about any other journal. An invaluable resource!”

“Excellent resource capturing recent conservation and environmental research and innovations in a format that is well suited to a non-academic audience, particularly policy-makers”

“an excellent journal, bridging between scientists, decision makers, practitioners and students”

“Magnificent journal which broadens my viewpoints”

“Decision Point is a vital resource that sets the standard for information transfer from scientific researchers to policy makers and conservation practitioners. It is a model for describing, and promoting, the use of quantitative methods in conservation decision making.”

“it is one of the most effective bridges across the science-policy divide I have ever seen.”

“Great magazine with articles relevant to managers and dealing with management issues typical of these challenging times of ecosystem change. Few others focus in on this area as well as Decision Point, which is why I find it more helpful than many US products.”

http://decision-point.com.au/article/calling-all-readers/

Date post:	01-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Planning for effective restoration - Decision Point

Documents