Monitoring, imperfect detection, and risk optimization of a Tasmanian devil insurance population

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.

Modelling parameter uncertainty reveals bushmeat yields versus survival trade-offs in heavily-hunted duiker Cephalophus spp.

“…Although our model could not eliminate uncertainty, by handling it in a systematic and transparent way [80,81], it helped identify the potential impacts of uncertain parameters on decision-making [53,82], laying out boundaries for sustainable harvesting. It is obviously preferable to use data to set prior beliefs wherever possible [83,84]. However, even in the absence of any data, it may still be possible to define reasonable priors on parameters based on expert judgement [80].…”

Spatial optimization of invasive species control informed by management practices

“…Conventional catch-effort analyses require data collected over a short period to satisfy the closed population assumption, with no recruitment or mortality during the sampling period (e.g., Chee & Wintle 2010;Rout et al 2018). Our approach can be applied to more realistic situations in…”

Recent advances of quantitative modeling to support invasive species eradication on islands

“…Bringing together different types of data to simultaneously estimate detection probabilities and population dynamics is strength of integrated population modeling (Besbeas, Freeman, Morgan, & Catchpole, 2002; Riecke et al, 2019; Weegman et al, 2016). In recent years, integrated population models have been used to infer population dynamics, species detection probability, and the population eradication probability from removal data (Rout, Kirkwood, Sutherland, Murphy, & McCarthy, 2014; Rout, Baker, Huxtable, & Wintle, 2018; Davis, Leland, Bodenchuk, VerCauteren, & Pepin, 2019 p. 20).…”