Monitoring,imperfect detection,and risk optimization of a Tasmanian devil insurance population |
| |
| Authors: | Tracy M Rout Christopher M Baker Stewart Huxtable Brendan A Wintle |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Biosciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia;2. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science & School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;3. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;4. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, QLD 4102, Australia;5. Save the Tasmanian Devil Program, Department of Primary Industries, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Most species are imperfectly detected during biological surveys, which creates uncertainty around their abundance or presence at a given location. Decision makers managing threatened or pest species are regularly faced with this uncertainty. Wildlife diseases can drive species to extinction; thus, managing species with disease is an important part of conservation. Devil facial tumor disease (DFTD) is one such disease that led to the listing of the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) as endangered. Managers aim to maintain devils in the wild by establishing disease‐free insurance populations at isolated sites. Often a resident DFTD‐affected population must first be removed. In a successful collaboration between decision scientists and wildlife managers, we used an accessible population model to inform monitoring decisions and facilitate the establishment of an insurance population of devils on Forestier Peninsula. We used a Bayesian catch‐effort model to estimate population size of a diseased population from removal and camera trap data. We also analyzed the costs and benefits of declaring the area disease‐free prior to reintroduction and establishment of a healthy insurance population. After the monitoring session in May–June 2015, the probability that all devils had been successfully removed was close to 1, even when we accounted for a possible introduction of a devil to the site. Given this high probability and the baseline cost of declaring population absence prematurely, we found it was not cost‐effective to carry out any additional monitoring before introducing the insurance population. Considering these results within the broader context of Tasmanian devil management, managers ultimately decided to implement an additional monitoring session before the introduction. This was a conservative decision that accounted for uncertainty in model estimates and for the broader nonmonetary costs of mistakenly declaring the area disease‐free. |
| |
| Keywords: | catch‐effort model cost‐effectiveness detectability implementation gap monitoring species absence surveys ausencia de especies censos detectabilidad modelo de esfuerzo de captura monitoreo rentabilidad |
|
|
