Thresholds and their relevance to conservation have become a major topic of discussion in the ecological literature. Unfortunately, in many cases the lack of a clear conceptual framework for thinking about thresholds may have led to confusion in attempts to apply the concept of thresholds to conservation decisions. Here, we advocate a framework for thinking about thresholds in terms of a structured decision making process. The purpose of this framework is to promote a logical and transparent process for making informed decisions for conservation. Specification of such a framework leads naturally to consideration of definitions and roles of different kinds of thresholds in the process. We distinguish among three categories of thresholds. Ecological thresholds are values of system state variables at which small changes bring about substantial changes in system dynamics. Utility thresholds are components of management objectives (determined by human values) and are values of state or performance variables at which small changes yield substantial changes in the value of the management outcome. Decision thresholds are values of system state variables at which small changes prompt changes in management actions in order to reach specified management objectives. The approach that we present focuses directly on the objectives of management, with an aim to providing decisions that are optimal with respect to those objectives. This approach clearly distinguishes the components of the decision process that are inherently subjective (management objectives, potential management actions) from those that are more objective (system models, estimates of system state). Optimization based on these components then leads to decision matrices specifying optimal actions to be taken at various values of system state variables. Values of state variables separating different actions in such matrices are viewed as decision thresholds. Utility thresholds are included in the objectives component, and ecological thresholds may be embedded in models projecting consequences of management actions. Decision thresholds are determined by the above-listed components of a structured decision process. These components may themselves vary over time, inducing variation in the decision thresholds inherited from them. These dynamic decision thresholds can then be determined using adaptive management. We provide numerical examples (that are based on patch occupancy models) of structured decision processes that include all three kinds of thresholds.

Statistical models for estimating absolute densities of field populations of animals have been widely used over the last century in both scientific studies and wildlife management programs. To date, two general classes of density estimation models have been developed: models that use data sets from capture–recapture or removal sampling techniques (often derived from trapping grids) from which separate estimates of population size (NÌ‚) and effective sampling area (AÌ‚) are used to calculate density (DÌ‚ = NÌ‚/AÌ‚); and models applicable to sampling regimes using distance‐sampling theory (typically transect lines or trapping webs) to estimate detection functions and densities directly from the distance data. However, few studies have evaluated these respective models for accuracy, precision, and bias on known field populations, and no studies have been conducted that compare the two approaches under controlled field conditions. In this study, we evaluated both classes of density estimators on known densities of enclosed rodent populations. Test data sets (n = 11) were developed using nine rodent species from capture–recapture live‐trapping on both trapping grids and trapping webs in four replicate 4.2‐ha enclosures on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in central New Mexico, USA. Additional “saturation” trapping efforts resulted in an enumeration of the rodent populations in each enclosure, allowing the computation of true densities. Density estimates (DÌ‚) were calculated using program CAPTURE for the grid data sets and program DISTANCE for the web data sets, and these results were compared to the known true densities (D) to evaluate each model's relative mean square error, accuracy, precision, and bias. In addition, we evaluated a variety of approaches to each data set's analysis by having a group of independent expert analysts calculate their best density estimates without a priori knowledge of the true densities; this “blind” test allowed us to evaluate the influence of expertise and experience in calculating density estimates in comparison to simply using default values in programs CAPTURE and DISTANCE. While the rodent sample sizes were considerably smaller than the recommended minimum for good model results, we found that several models performed well empirically, including the web‐based uniform and half‐normal models in program DISTANCE, and the grid‐based models Mb and Mbh in program CAPTURE (with AÌ‚ adjusted by species‐specific full mean maximum distance moved (MMDM) values). These models produced accurate DÌ‚ values (with 95% confidence intervals that included the true D values) and exhibited acceptable bias but poor precision. However, in linear regression analyses comparing each model's DÌ‚ values to the true D values over the range of observed test densities, only the web‐based uniform model exhibited a regression slope near 1.0; all other models showed substantial slope deviations, indicating biased estimates at higher or lower density values. In addition, the grid‐based DÌ‚ analyses using full ...

Raw counts from aerial surveys make no correction for undetected animals and provide no estimate of precision with which to judge the utility of the counts. Sightability modeling and double‐observer (DO) modeling are 2 commonly used approaches to account for detection bias and to estimate precision in aerial surveys. We developed a hybrid DO sightability model (model MH) that uses the strength of each approach to overcome the weakness in the other, for aerial surveys of elk (Cervus elaphus). The hybrid approach uses detection patterns of 2 independent observer pairs in a helicopter and telemetry‐based detections of collared elk groups. Candidate MH models reflected hypotheses about effects of recorded covariates and unmodeled heterogeneity on the separate front‐seat observer pair and back‐seat observer pair detection probabilities. Group size and concealing vegetation cover strongly influenced detection probabilities. The pilot's previous experience participating in aerial surveys influenced detection by the front pair of observers if the elk group was on the pilot's side of the helicopter flight path. In 9 surveys in Mount Rainier National Park, the raw number of elk counted was approximately 80–93% of the abundance estimated by model MH. Uncorrected ratios of bulls per 100 cows generally were low compared to estimates adjusted for detection bias, but ratios of calves per 100 cows were comparable whether based on raw survey counts or adjusted estimates. The hybrid method was an improvement over commonly used alternatives, with improved precision compared to sightability modeling and reduced bias compared to DO modeling. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management.

No abstract