Ranking buffel: Comparative risk and mitigation costs of key environmental and socio-cultural threats in central Australia.

Changed fire regimes and the introduction of rabbits, cats, foxes, and large exotic herbivores have driven widespread ecological catastrophe in Australian arid and semi-arid zones, which encompass over two-thirds of the continent. These threats have caused the highest global mammal extinction rates in the last 200 years, as well as significantly undermining social, economic, and cultural practices of Aboriginal peoples of this region. However, a new and potentially more serious threat is emerging. Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) is a globally significant invader now widespread across central Australia, but the threat this ecological transformer species poses to biodiversity, ecosystem function, and culture has received relatively little attention. Our analyses suggest threats from buffel grass in arid and semi-arid areas of Australia are at least equivalent in magnitude to those posed by invasive animals and possibly higher, because unlike these more recognized threats, buffel has yet to occupy its potential distribution. Buffel infestation also increases the intensity and frequency of wildfires that affect biodiversity, cultural pursuits, and productivity. We compare the logistical and financial challenges of creating and maintaining areas free of buffel for the protection of biodiversity and cultural values, with the creation and maintenance of refuges from introduced mammals or from large-scale fire in natural habitats. The scale and expense of projected buffel management costs highlight the urgent policy, research, and financing initiatives essential to safeguard threatened species, ecosystems, and cultural values of Aboriginal people in central Australia.

Building a stakeholder-led common vision increases the expected cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation.

Uniting diverse stakeholders through communication, education or building a collaborative 'common vision' for biodiversity management is a recommended approach for enabling effective conservation in regions with multiple uses. However, socially focused strategies such as building a collaborative vision can require sharing scarce resources (time and financial resources) with the on-ground management actions needed to achieve conservation outcomes. Here we adapt current prioritisation tools to predict the likely return on the financial investment of building a stakeholder-led vision along with a portfolio of on-ground management strategies. Our approach brings together and analyses expert knowledge to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a common vision strategy and on-ground management strategies, before any investments in these strategies are made. We test our approach in an intensively-used Australian biodiversity hotspot with 179 threatened or at-risk species. Experts predicted that an effective stakeholder vision for the region would have a relatively low cost and would significantly increase the feasibility of on-ground management strategies. As a result, our analysis indicates that a common vision is likely to be a cost-effective investment, increasing the expected persistence of threatened species in the region by 9 to 52%, depending upon the strategies implemented. Our approach can provide the maximum budget that is worth investing in building a common vision or another socially focused strategy for building support for on-ground conservation actions. The approach can assist with decisions about whether and how to allocate scarce resources amongst social and ecological actions for biodiversity conservation in other regions worldwide.

Priority threat management of invasive animals to protect biodiversity under climate change.

Climate change is a major threat to global biodiversity, and its impacts can act synergistically to heighten the severity of other threats. Most research on projecting species range shifts under climate change has not been translated to informing priority management strategies on the ground. We develop a prioritization framework to assess strategies for managing threats to biodiversity under climate change and apply it to the management of invasive animal species across one-sixth of the Australian continent, the Lake Eyre Basin. We collected information from key stakeholders and experts on the impacts of invasive animals on 148 of the region's most threatened species and 11 potential strategies. Assisted by models of current distributions of threatened species and their projected distributions, experts estimated the cost, feasibility, and potential benefits of each strategy for improving the persistence of threatened species with and without climate change. We discover that the relative cost-effectiveness of invasive animal control strategies is robust to climate change, with the management of feral pigs being the highest priority for conserving threatened species overall. Complementary sets of strategies to protect as many threatened species as possible under limited budgets change when climate change is considered, with additional strategies required to avoid impending extinctions from the region. Overall, we find that the ranking of strategies by cost-effectiveness was relatively unaffected by including climate change into decision-making, even though the benefits of the strategies were lower. Future climate conditions and impacts on range shifts become most important to consider when designing comprehensive management plans for the control of invasive animals under limited budgets to maximize the number of threatened species that can be protected.

Benefits of integrating complementarity into priority threat management.

Conservation decision tools based on cost-effectiveness analysis are used to assess threat management strategies for improving species persistence. These approaches rank alternative strategies by their benefit to cost ratio but may fail to identify the optimal sets of strategies to implement under limited budgets because they do not account for redundancies. We devised a multiobjective optimization approach in which the complementarity principle is applied to identify the sets of threat management strategies that protect the most species for any budget. We used our approach to prioritize threat management strategies for 53 species of conservation concern in the Pilbara, Australia. We followed a structured elicitation approach to collect information on the benefits and costs of implementing 17 different conservation strategies during a 3-day workshop with 49 stakeholders and experts in the biodiversity, conservation, and management of the Pilbara. We compared the performance of our complementarity priority threat management approach with a current cost-effectiveness ranking approach. A complementary set of 3 strategies: domestic herbivore management, fire management and research, and sanctuaries provided all species with >50% chance of persistence for $4.7 million/year over 20 years. Achieving the same result cost almost twice as much ($9.71 million/year) when strategies were selected by their cost-effectiveness ranks alone. Our results show that complementarity of management benefits has the potential to double the impact of priority threat management approaches.