Informing conservation decisions through evidence synthesis and communication

Pullin, Andrew S.; Cheng, Samantha H.; Cooke, Steven J.; Haddaway, Neal R.; McKinnon, Madeleine C.; Taylor, Jessica J.

doi:10.1017/9781108638210.007

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results were su cient to achieve our goal of de ning and describing non-target mitigation but should not be considered a comprehensive accounting of all projects deploying these strategies and tactics. There is a need for greater reporting in conservation (Sutherland et al 2004, Pullin et al 2020, particularly of failures (Catalano et al 2019). While invasive mammal eradications on islands represent one of the more reported endeavours (Baker and Bode 2021), non-target wildlife outcomes require greater reporting in publicly available literatures to ensure lessons learned are transferred.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing non-target wildlife mortality whilst using rodenticides to eradicate invasive rodents on islands

Castaño

Campbell

Baxter

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive rodents are one of the greatest threats to island biodiversity. Eradicating these species from islands has become increasingly practicable in recent decades, primarily using anticoagulant rodenticides. However, this approach also poses risks to native wildlife, and there has been corresponding development in the management of risks to non-target wildlife species. Here we review strategies and tactics used in operational management of non-target risk, using examples from rodent eradication projects conducted on 178 islands where non-target risk assessment and mitigation was a component of the rodent eradication campaign. We identified 17 different tactics within a framework of three strategic approaches: avoidance of risk, minimization of risk, and remediation of the impact of non-target wildlife mortality. We summarize these tactics in terms of their applicability, strengths, and weaknesses for rodent eradication projects in general, plus the potential interactions with achieving rodent eradication. There remains great potential for further innovation in reducing non-target wildlife risks from rodenticide used for invasive rodent eradications on islands, supporting advancement of the social acceptability of the toolset and biodiversity conservation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing non-target wildlife mortality whilst using rodenticides to eradicate invasive rodents on islands

Castaño

Campbell

Baxter

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar issues are encountered for conservation management actions (Pullin et al, 2020;Sutherland & Wordley, 2018), where locally relevant evidence is generally lacking (Christie et al, 2020). Building this evidence base through the application of robustly designed experiments is recommended (Christie et al, 2020;Reddy et al, 2017;Travers et al, 2021).…”

Section: Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 96%

Behavioural insights for improved uptake of agricultural sustainability assessment tools

MacLeod

Brandt

Collins³

et al. 2022

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparisons of several interventions in the same setting are very useful to select the most effective interventions for further applications ( Smith et al, 2014 ; Schmidt et al, 2019 ). Active development of open-access web resources (e.g., Conservation Evidence— and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence— ), professional meetings, analytical tools and outreach awareness-raising is aimed at the wider use of evidence in conservation actions ( Sutherland & Wordley, 2017 ; Westgate et al, 2018 ; Sutherland et al, 2019 ; Pullin et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of common metrics used to quantify the effectiveness of conservation interventions

Khorozyan¹

2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence-based conservation is urgently needed to identify, apply and promote effective interventions for mitigation of threats and recovery of the natural environment. Estimation of intervention effectiveness is subject to robust study design and statistical analysis, and much progress is documented in these fields. In contrast, little is understood about the accuracy and biases (underestimation and overestimation) of different effectiveness metrics and how they are affected by sample size. Methods In this study, a dataset (n = 500 cases) consisting of random, positive, integer numbers was simulated to produce frequency input data for the 2 × 2 contingency table. For each case, three metrics of the relative risk, odds ratio and the magnitude of change were calculated, their disparity was estimated and the characteristics of treatment (with intervention) and control (without intervention) samples significantly affecting this disparity were studied by means of linear regression. Further, four case studies from different conservation interventions are provided to support the results. Results The study has shown that the relative risk and the magnitude of change produce identical estimates of intervention effectiveness only when treatment and control samples are equal, or when the number of target outcomes (e.g., number of livestock killed by predators) in treatment sample reaches zero. In other situations, the magnitude of change gives overestimates or underestimates, depending on relationships between treatment and control sample sizes. The table summarizing the conditions of equalities and biases between these two metrics is provided. These conditions are valid for both reduction-aimed interventions reducing negative target outcomes (e.g., livestock protection to reduce livestock losses to predators) and for addition-aimed interventions increasing positive target outcomes (e.g., establishment of protected areas to increase species presence). No significant effects on the odds ratio were found. Conclusion Researchers should set equal treatment and control sample sizes so that to produce identical estimates of intervention effectiveness by the relative risk and the magnitude of change. Otherwise, these estimates are biased if produced by the magnitude of change and the relative risk should be used instead. As setting equal treatment and control samples can be impractical, I encourage researchers and practitioners to use the relative risk in estimation of intervention effectiveness. This will not take additional efforts as both metrics are calculated from the same contingency table. Treatment and control sample sizes, along with their sub-samples affected and not by an intervention, should be explicitly reported by researchers to allow independent evaluation of intervention effectiveness. This approach can help obtain more accurate information on intervention effectiveness for making better decisions in conservation actions.

show abstract

Informing conservation decisions through evidence synthesis and communication

Cited by 28 publications

References 40 publications

Managing non-target wildlife mortality whilst using rodenticides to eradicate invasive rodents on islands

Managing non-target wildlife mortality whilst using rodenticides to eradicate invasive rodents on islands

Behavioural insights for improved uptake of agricultural sustainability assessment tools

A comparison of common metrics used to quantify the effectiveness of conservation interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About