The use and utility of surrogates in biodiversity monitoring programmes
- Sato, Chloe, Westgate, Martin, Barton, Philip, Foster, Claire, O'Loughlin, Luke
- Authors: Sato, Chloe , Westgate, Martin , Barton, Philip , Foster, Claire , O'Loughlin, Luke
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Applied Ecology Vol. 56, no. 6 (2019), p. 1304-1310
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: **Please note that there are multiple authors for this article therefore only the name of the first 5 including Federation University Australia affiliate “Philip Barton” is provided in this record**
- Authors: Sato, Chloe , Westgate, Martin , Barton, Philip , Foster, Claire , O'Loughlin, Luke
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Applied Ecology Vol. 56, no. 6 (2019), p. 1304-1310
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: **Please note that there are multiple authors for this article therefore only the name of the first 5 including Federation University Australia affiliate “Philip Barton” is provided in this record**
How practitioners integrate decision triggers with existing metrics in conservation monitoring
- Foster, Claire, O'Loughlin, Luke, Sato, Chloe, Westgate, Martin, Barton, Philip
- Authors: Foster, Claire , O'Loughlin, Luke , Sato, Chloe , Westgate, Martin , Barton, Philip
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 230, no. (2019), p. 94-101
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Decision triggers are defined thresholds in the status of monitored variables that indicate when to undertake management, and avoid undesirable ecosystem change. Decision triggers are frequently recommended to conservation practitioners as a tool to facilitate evidence-based management practices, but there has been limited attention paid to how practitioners are integrating decision triggers into existing monitoring programs. We sought to understand whether conservation practitioners’ use of decision triggers was influenced by the type of variables in their monitoring programs. We investigated this question using a practitioner-focused workshop involving a structured discussion and review of eight monitoring programs. Among our case studies, direct measures of biodiversity (e.g. native species) were more commonly monitored, but less likely to be linked to decision triggers (10% with triggers) than measures being used as surrogates (54% with triggers) for program objectives. This was because decision triggers were associated with management of threatening processes, which were often monitored as a surrogate for a biodiversity asset of interest. By contrast, direct measures of biodiversity were more commonly associated with informal decision processes that led to activities such as management reviews or external consultation. Workshop participants were in favor of including more formalized decision triggers in their programs, but were limited by incomplete ecological knowledge, lack of appropriately skilled staff, funding constraints, and/or uncertainty regarding intervention effectiveness. We recommend that practitioners consider including decision triggers for discussion activities (such as external consultation) in their programs as more than just early warning points for future interventions, particularly for direct measures. Decision triggers for discussions should be recognized as a critical feature of monitoring programs where information and operational limitations inhibit the use of decision triggers for interventions. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. **Please note that there are multiple authors for this article therefore only the name of the first 5 including Federation University Australia affiliate “Philip Barton” is provided in this record**
- Authors: Foster, Claire , O'Loughlin, Luke , Sato, Chloe , Westgate, Martin , Barton, Philip
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 230, no. (2019), p. 94-101
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Decision triggers are defined thresholds in the status of monitored variables that indicate when to undertake management, and avoid undesirable ecosystem change. Decision triggers are frequently recommended to conservation practitioners as a tool to facilitate evidence-based management practices, but there has been limited attention paid to how practitioners are integrating decision triggers into existing monitoring programs. We sought to understand whether conservation practitioners’ use of decision triggers was influenced by the type of variables in their monitoring programs. We investigated this question using a practitioner-focused workshop involving a structured discussion and review of eight monitoring programs. Among our case studies, direct measures of biodiversity (e.g. native species) were more commonly monitored, but less likely to be linked to decision triggers (10% with triggers) than measures being used as surrogates (54% with triggers) for program objectives. This was because decision triggers were associated with management of threatening processes, which were often monitored as a surrogate for a biodiversity asset of interest. By contrast, direct measures of biodiversity were more commonly associated with informal decision processes that led to activities such as management reviews or external consultation. Workshop participants were in favor of including more formalized decision triggers in their programs, but were limited by incomplete ecological knowledge, lack of appropriately skilled staff, funding constraints, and/or uncertainty regarding intervention effectiveness. We recommend that practitioners consider including decision triggers for discussion activities (such as external consultation) in their programs as more than just early warning points for future interventions, particularly for direct measures. Decision triggers for discussions should be recognized as a critical feature of monitoring programs where information and operational limitations inhibit the use of decision triggers for interventions. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. **Please note that there are multiple authors for this article therefore only the name of the first 5 including Federation University Australia affiliate “Philip Barton” is provided in this record**
Two roles for ecological surrogacy : indicator surrogates and management surrogates
- Hunter, Malcolm, Westgate, Martin, Barton, Philip, Calhoun, Aram, Pierson, Jennifer
- Authors: Hunter, Malcolm , Westgate, Martin , Barton, Philip , Calhoun, Aram , Pierson, Jennifer
- Date: 2016
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Ecological Indicators Vol. 63, no. (2016), p. 121-125
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Ecological surrogacy - here defined as using a process or element (e.g., species, ecosystem, or abiotic factor) to represent another aspect of an ecological system - is a widely used concept, but many applications of the surrogate concept have been controversial. We argue that some of this controversy reflects differences among users with different goals, a distinction that can be crystalized by recognizing two basic types of surrogate. First, many ecologists and natural resource managers measure "indicator surrogates" to provide information about ecological systems. Second, and often overlooked, are "management surrogates" (e.g., umbrella species) that are primarily used to facilitate achieving management goals, especially broad goals such as "maintain biodiversity" or "increase ecosystem resilience." We propose that distinguishing these two overarching roles for surrogacy may facilitate better communication about project goals. This is critical when evaluating the usefulness of different surrogates, especially where a potential surrogate might be useful in one role but not another. Our classification for ecological surrogacy applies to species, ecosystems, ecological processes, abiotic factors, and genetics, and thus can provide coherence across a broad range of uses. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. **Please note that there are multiple authors for this article therefore only the name of the first 5 including Federation University Australia affiliate “Philip Barton" is provided in this record**
- Authors: Hunter, Malcolm , Westgate, Martin , Barton, Philip , Calhoun, Aram , Pierson, Jennifer
- Date: 2016
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Ecological Indicators Vol. 63, no. (2016), p. 121-125
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Ecological surrogacy - here defined as using a process or element (e.g., species, ecosystem, or abiotic factor) to represent another aspect of an ecological system - is a widely used concept, but many applications of the surrogate concept have been controversial. We argue that some of this controversy reflects differences among users with different goals, a distinction that can be crystalized by recognizing two basic types of surrogate. First, many ecologists and natural resource managers measure "indicator surrogates" to provide information about ecological systems. Second, and often overlooked, are "management surrogates" (e.g., umbrella species) that are primarily used to facilitate achieving management goals, especially broad goals such as "maintain biodiversity" or "increase ecosystem resilience." We propose that distinguishing these two overarching roles for surrogacy may facilitate better communication about project goals. This is critical when evaluating the usefulness of different surrogates, especially where a potential surrogate might be useful in one role but not another. Our classification for ecological surrogacy applies to species, ecosystems, ecological processes, abiotic factors, and genetics, and thus can provide coherence across a broad range of uses. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. **Please note that there are multiple authors for this article therefore only the name of the first 5 including Federation University Australia affiliate “Philip Barton" is provided in this record**
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »