Search

Mathematical and statistical models underlie many of the world's most important fisheries management decisions. Since the 19th century, difficulty calibrating and fitting such models has been used to justify the selection of simple, stationary, single-species models to aid tactical fisheries management decisions. Whereas these justifications are reasonable, it is imperative that we quantify the value of different levels of model complexity for supporting fisheries management, especially given a changing climate, where old methodologies may no longer perform as well as in the past. Here we argue that cost-benefit analysis is an ideal lens to assess the value of model complexity in fisheries management. While some studies have reported the benefits of model complexity in fisheries, modeling costs are rarely considered. In the absence of cost data in the literature, we report, as a starting point, relative costs of single-species stock assessment and marine ecosystem models from two Australian organizations. We found that costs varied by two orders of magnitude, and that ecosystem model costs increased with model complexity. Using these costs, we walk through a hypothetical example of cost-benefit analysis. The demonstration is intended to catalyze the reporting of modeling costs and benefits.

Can a regulated, legal market for wildlife products protect species threatened by poaching? It is one of the most controversial ideas in biodiversity conservation. Perhaps the most convincing reason for legalizing wildlife trade is that trade revenue could fund the protection and conservation of poached species. In this paper, we examine the possible poacher-population dynamic consequences of legal trade funding conservation. The model consists of a manager scavenging carcasses for wildlife products, who then sells the products, and directs a portion of the revenue towards funding anti-poaching law enforcement. Through a global analysis of the model, we derive the critical proportion of product the manager must scavenge, and the critical proportion of trade revenue the manager must allocate towards increased enforcement, in order for legal trade to lead to abundant long-term wildlife populations. We illustrate how the model could inform management with parameter values derived from the African elephant literature, under a hypothetical scenario where a manager scavenges elephant carcasses to sell ivory. We find that there is a large region of parameter space where populations go extinct under legal trade, unless a significant portion of trade revenue is directed towards protecting populations from poaching. The model is general and therefore can be used as a starting point for exploring the consequences of funding many conservation programs using wildlife trade revenue., Comment: Added reference to the peer-reviewed, final version of this paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology

Scientific knowledge and advances are a cornerstone of modern society. They improve our understanding of the world we live in and help us navigate global challenges including emerging infectious diseases, climate change and the biodiversity crisis. For any scientist, whether they work primarily in fundamental knowledge generation or in the applied sciences, it is important to understand how science fits into a decision-making framework. Decision science is a field that aims to pinpoint evidence-based management strategies. It provides a framework for scientists to directly impact decisions or to understand how their work will fit into a decision process. Decision science is more than undertaking targeted and relevant scientific research or providing tools to assist policy makers; it is an approach to problem formulation, bringing together mathematical modelling, stakeholder values and logistical constraints to support decision making. In this paper we describe decision science, its use in different contexts, and highlight current gaps in methodology and application. The COVID-19 pandemic has thrust mathematical models into the public spotlight, but it is one of innumerable examples in which modelling informs decision making. Other examples include models of storm systems (eg. cyclones, hurricanes) and climate change. Although the decision timescale in these examples differs enormously (from hours to decades), the underlying decision science approach is common across all problems. Bridging communication gaps between different groups is one of the greatest challenges for scientists. However, by better understanding and engaging with the decision-making processes, scientists will have greater impact and make stronger contributions to important societal problems.

Consumer demand for plant and animal products threatens many populations with extinction. The anthropogenic Allee effect (AAE) proposes that such extinctions can be caused by prices for wildlife products increasing with species rarity. This price-rarity relationship creates financial incentives to extract the last remaining individuals of a population, despite higher search and harvest costs. The AAE has become a standard approach for conceptualizing the threat of economic markets on endangered species. Despite its potential importance for conservation, AAE theory is based on a simple graphical model with limited analysis of possible population trajectories. By specifying a general class of functions for price-rarity relationships, we show that the classic theory can understate the risk of species extinction. AAE theory proposes that only populations below a critical Allee threshold will go extinct due to increasing price-rarity relationships. Our analysis shows that this threshold can be much higher than the original theory suggests, depending on initial harvest effort. More alarmingly, even species with population sizes above this Allee threshold, for which AAE predicts persistence, can be destined to extinction. Introducing even a minimum price for harvested individuals, close to zero, can cause large populations to cross the classic anthropogenic Allee threshold on a trajectory towards extinction. These results suggest that traditional AAE theory may give a false sense of security when managing large harvested populations.