Search

Many species are threatened by human activity through processes such as habitat modification, water management, hunting, and introduction of invasive species.These anthropogenic threats must be mitigated as efficiently as possible because both time and money available for mitigation are limited. For example, it is essential to address the type and degree of uncertainties present to derive effective management strategies for managed populations. Decision science provides the tools required to produce effective management strategies that can maximize or minimize the desired objective(s) based on imperfect knowledge, taking into account stochasticity. Of particular importance are questions such as how much of available budgets should be invested in reducing uncertainty and which uncertainties should be reduced. In such instances, decision science can help select efficient environmental management actions that may be subject to stochasticity and imperfect knowledge.Here, we review the use of decision science in environmental management to demonstrate the utility of the decision science framework. Our points are illustrated using examples from the literature. We conclude that collaboration between theoreticians and practitioners is crucial to maximize the benefits of decision science’s rational approach to dealing with uncertainty.

Invasive plants disrupt ecosystems from local to landscape scales. Reduction or reversal of spread is an important goal of many invasive plant management strategies, but few general guidelines exist on how to achieve this aim. We identified the main drivers of spread, and thus potential targets for management, using a spatially explicit simulation model tested on different life history categories in different spread and landscape scenarios. We used boosted regression trees to determine the parameters that most affected spread. Additionally, we analysed how spread reacted to changes in those parameters over a broad realistic range. From our results we deduce four simple management guidelines: (1) Manage dispersal if possible, as mean dispersal distance was an important driver of spread for all life history categories; (2) short bursts of rapid spread or more usual year on year spread can have different drivers, therefore managers need to decide what type of spread they want to slow; (3) efforts to manage spread will have variable outcomes due to interactions between, and non-linear responses to, key drivers of spread; and (4) the most useful demographic rates to target depend on dispersal ability, life history and how spread is measured. Fecundity was found to be important for driving spread only when reduced to low levels and particularly when the species was short lived. For longer lived species management should target survival, or age of maturity, especially when dispersal ability is limited.

Complex simulation models are important tools in applied ecological and conservation research. However sensitivity analysis of this important class of models can be difficult to conduct. High level interactions and non-linear responses are common in complex simulations, and this necessitates a global sensitivity analysis, where each parameter is tested at a range of values, and in combination with changes in many other parameters. We reviewed the literature, searching for population viability analyses that used simulation models. We found only 9 out of the 122simulation population viability analysis used global sensitivity analysis. This result is typical of other simulation models in applied ecology, where global sensitivity analysis is rare. We then demonstrate how to conduct a meta-modeling sensitivity analysis, where a simpler statistically fit function (the meta-model, also known as the surrogate model or emulator) is used to approximate the behavior of the complicated simulation. This simpler meta-model is interrogated to inform on the behavior of simulation model. We fit two example meta-models, a generalized linear model and a boosted regression tree, to exemplify the approach. Our hope is that by going through these techniques thoroughly they will become more widely adopted.

Management of damaging invasive plants is often undertaken by multiple decision makers, each managing only a small part of the invader's population. As weeds can move between properties and re‐infest eradicated sites from unmanaged sources, the dynamics of multiple decision makers plays a significant role in weed prevalence and invasion risk at the landscape scale. We used a spatially explicit agent‐based simulation to determine how individual agent behavior, in concert with weed population ecology, determined weed prevalence. We compared two invasive grass species that differ in ecology, control methods, and costs: Nassella trichotoma (serrated tussock) and Eragrostis curvula (African love grass). The way decision makers reacted to the benefit of management had a large effect on the extent of a weed. If benefits of weed control outweighed the costs, and either net benefit was very large or all agents were very sensitive to net benefits, then agents tended to act synchronously, reducing the pool of infested agents available to spread the weed. As N. trichotoma was more damaging than E. curvula and had more effective control methods, agents chose to manage it more often, which resulted in lower prevalence of N. trichotoma. A relatively low number of agents who were intrinsically less motivated to control weeds led to increased prevalence of both species. This was particularly apparent when long‐distance dispersal meant each infested agent increased the invasion risk for a large portion of the landscape. In this case, a small proportion of land mangers reluctant to control, regardless of costs and benefits, could lead to the whole landscape being infested, even when local control stopped new infestations. Social pressure was important, but only if it was independent of weed prevalence, suggesting that early access to information, and incentives to act on that information, may be crucial in stopping a weed from infesting large areas. The response of our model to both b

This article has no abstract