Loss of terrestrial biodiversity in Australia: Magnitude, causation, and response.

Australia's biota is species rich, with high rates of endemism. This natural legacy has rapidly diminished since European colonization. The impacts of invasive species, habitat loss, altered fire regimes, and changed water flows are now compounded by climate change, particularly through extreme drought, heat, wildfire, and flooding. Extinction rates, already far exceeding the global average for mammals, are predicted to escalate across all taxa, and ecosystems are collapsing. These losses are symptomatic of shortcomings in resourcing, law, policy, and management. Informed by examples of advances in conservation practice from invasive species control, Indigenous land management, and citizen science, we describe interventions needed to enhance future resilience. Many characteristics of Australian biodiversity loss are globally relevant, with recovery requiring society to reframe its relationship with the environment.

Predicting and reasoning about replicability using structured groups.

This paper explores judgements about the replicability of social and behavioural sciences research and what drives those judgements. Using a mixed methods approach, it draws on qualitative and quantitative data elicited from groups using a structured approach called the IDEA protocol ('investigate', 'discuss', 'estimate' and 'aggregate'). Five groups of five people with relevant domain expertise evaluated 25 research claims that were subject to at least one replication study. Participants assessed the probability that each of the 25 research claims would replicate (i.e. that a replication study would find a statistically significant result in the same direction as the original study) and described the reasoning behind those judgements. We quantitatively analysed possible correlates of predictive accuracy, including self-rated expertise and updating of judgements after feedback and discussion. We qualitatively analysed the reasoning data to explore the cues, heuristics and patterns of reasoning used by participants. Participants achieved 84% classification accuracy in predicting replicability. Those who engaged in a greater breadth of reasoning provided more accurate replicability judgements. Some reasons were more commonly invoked by more accurate participants, such as 'effect size' and 'reputation' (e.g. of the field of research). There was also some evidence of a relationship between statistical literacy and accuracy.

Applying and Assessing Participatory Approaches in an Environmental Flows Case Study.

Environmental flows (e-flows) management takes place within a complex social-ecological system, necessitating the involvement of diverse stakeholders and an appreciation of a range of perspectives and knowledge types. It is widely accepted that incorporating participatory methods into environmental flows decision-making will allow stakeholders to become meaningfully involved, improving potential solutions, and fostering social legitimacy. However, due to substantial structural barriers, implementing participatory approaches can be difficult for water managers. This paper assesses the effectiveness of an e-flows methodology that combines elements of structured decision-making and participatory modeling, whilst constrained by project resources. Three process-based objectives were identified by the group at the start of the process: improving transparency, knowledge exchange, and community ownership. We evaluated the success of the approach according to those objectives using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. In evaluating how well the participatory approach achieved the process objectives, we found that at least 80% of respondents expressed positive sentiment in every category (n = 15). We demonstrate that the values-based process objectives defined by the participant group are an effective tool for evaluating participatory success. This paper highlights that participatory approaches can be effective even in resource-constrained environments when the process is adapted to fit the decision-making context.

Predicting reliability through structured expert elicitation with the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process.

As replications of individual studies are resource intensive, techniques for predicting the replicability are required. We introduce the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process, a new method for eliciting expert predictions about the replicability of research. This process is a structured expert elicitation approach based on a modified Delphi technique applied to the evaluation of research claims in social and behavioural sciences. The utility of processes to predict replicability is their capacity to test scientific claims without the costs of full replication. Experimental data supports the validity of this process, with a validation study producing a classification accuracy of 84% and an Area Under the Curve of 0.94, meeting or exceeding the accuracy of other techniques used to predict replicability. The repliCATS process provides other benefits. It is highly scalable, able to be deployed for both rapid assessment of small numbers of claims, and assessment of high volumes of claims over an extended period through an online elicitation platform, having been used to assess 3000 research claims over an 18 month period. It is available to be implemented in a range of ways and we describe one such implementation. An important advantage of the repliCATS process is that it collects qualitative data that has the potential to provide insight in understanding the limits of generalizability of scientific claims. The primary limitation of the repliCATS process is its reliance on human-derived predictions with consequent costs in terms of participant fatigue although careful design can minimise these costs. The repliCATS process has potential applications in alternative peer review and in the allocation of effort for replication studies.

What state of the world are we in? Targeted monitoring to detect transitions in vegetation restoration projects.

Monitoring vegetation restoration is challenging because monitoring is costly, requires long-term funding, and involves monitoring multiple vegetation variables that are often not linked back to learning about progress toward objectives. There is a clear need for the development of targeted monitoring programs that focus on a reduced set of variables that are tied to specific restoration objectives. In this paper, we present a method to progress the development of a targeted monitoring program, using a pre-existing state-and-transition model. We (1) use field data to validate an expert-derived classification of woodland vegetation states; (2) use these data to identify which variable(s) help differentiate woodland states; and (3) identify the target threshold (for the variable) that signifies if the desired transition has been achieved. The measured vegetation variables from each site in this study were good predictors of the different states. We show that by measuring only a few of these variables, it is possible to assign the vegetation state for a collection of sites, and monitor if and when a transition to another state has occurred. For this ecosystem and state-and-transition models, out of nine vegetation variables considered, the density of immature trees and percentage of exotic understory vegetation cover were the variables most frequently specified as effective to define a threshold or transition. We synthesize findings by presenting a decision tree that provides practical guidance for the development of targeted monitoring strategies for woodland vegetation.

An introduction to decision science for conservation.

Biodiversity conservation decisions are difficult, especially when they involve differing values, complex multidimensional objectives, scarce resources, urgency, and considerable uncertainty. Decision science embodies a theory about how to make difficult decisions and an extensive array of frameworks and tools that make that theory practical. We sought to improve conceptual clarity and practical application of decision science to help decision makers apply decision science to conservation problems. We addressed barriers to the uptake of decision science, including a lack of training and awareness of decision science; confusion over common terminology and which tools and frameworks to apply; and the mistaken impression that applying decision science must be time consuming, expensive, and complex. To aid in navigating the extensive and disparate decision science literature, we clarify meaning of common terms: decision science, decision theory, decision analysis, structured decision-making, and decision-support tools. Applying decision science does not have to be complex or time consuming; rather, it begins with knowing how to think through the components of a decision utilizing decision analysis (i.e., define the problem, elicit objectives, develop alternatives, estimate consequences, and perform trade-offs). This is best achieved by applying a rapid-prototyping approach. At each step, decision-support tools can provide additional insight and clarity, whereas decision-support frameworks (e.g., priority threat management and systematic conservation planning) can aid navigation of multiple steps of a decision analysis for particular contexts. We summarize key decision-support frameworks and tools and describe to which step of a decision analysis, and to which contexts, each is most useful to apply. Our introduction to decision science will aid in contextualizing current approaches and new developments, and help decision makers begin to apply decision science to conservation problems.

Las decisiones sobre la conservación de la biodiversidad son difíciles de tomar, especialmente cuando involucran diferentes valores, objetivos multidimensionales complejos, recursos limitados, urgencia y una incertidumbre considerable. Las ciencias de la decisión incorporan una teoría sobre cómo tomar decisiones difíciles y una variedad extensa de marcos de trabajo y herramientas que transforman esa teoría en práctica. Buscamos mejorar la claridad conceptual y la aplicación práctica de las ciencias de la decisión para ayudar al órgano decisorio a aplicar estas ciencias a los problemas de conservación. Nos enfocamos en las barreras para la aceptación de las ciencias de la decisión, incluyendo la falta de capacitación y de conciencia por estas ciencias; la confusión por la terminología común y cuáles herramientas y marcos de trabajo aplicar; y la impresión errónea de que la aplicación de estas ciencias consume tiempo y debe ser costosa y compleja. Para asistir en la navegación de la literatura extensa y dispar de las ciencias de la decisión, aclaramos el significado de varios términos comunes: ciencias de la decisión, teoría de la decisión, análisis de decisiones, toma estructurada de decisiones y herramientas de apoyo para las decisiones. La aplicación de las ciencias de la decisión no tiene que ser compleja ni debe llevar mucho tiempo; de hecho, todo comienza con saber cómo pensar detenidamente en los componentes de una decisión mediante el análisis de decisiones (es decir, definir el problema, producir objetivos, desarrollar alternativas, estimar consecuencias y realizar compensaciones). Lo anterior se logra de mejor manera mediante la aplicación de una estrategia prototipos rápidos. En cada paso, las herramientas de apoyo para las decisiones pueden proporcionar visión y claridad adicionales, mientras que los marcos de apoyo para las decisiones (p.ej.: gestión de amenazas prioritarias y planeación sistemática de la conservación) pueden asistir en la navegación de los diferentes pasos de un análisis de decisiones para contextos particulares. Resumimos los marcos de trabajo y las herramientas más importantes de apoyo para las decisiones y describimos el paso, y el contexto, del análisis de decisiones para el que es más útil aplicarlos. Nuestra introducción a las ciencias de la decisión apoyará en la contextualización de las estrategias actuales y los nuevos desarrollos, y ayudarán al órgano decisorio a comenzar a aplicar estas ciencias en los problemas de conservación.

A framework for allocating conservation resources among multiple threats and actions.

Land managers decide how to allocate resources among multiple threats that can be addressed through multiple possible actions. Additionally, these actions vary in feasibility, effectiveness, and cost. We sought to provide a way to optimize resource allocation to address multiple threats when multiple management options are available, including mutually exclusive options. Formulating the decision as a combinatorial optimization problem, our framework takes as inputs the expected impact and cost of each threat for each action (including do nothing) and for each overall budget identifies the optimal action to take for each threat. We compared the optimal solution to an easy to calculate greedy algorithm approximation and a variety of plausible ranking schemes. We applied the framework to management of multiple introduced plant species in Australian alpine areas. We developed a model of invasion to predict the expected impact in 50 years for each species-action combination that accounted for each species' current invasion state (absent, localized, widespread); arrival probability; spread rate; impact, if present, of each species; and management effectiveness of each species-action combination. We found that the recommended action for a threat changed with budget; there was no single optimal management action for each species; and considering more than one candidate action can substantially increase the management plan's overall efficiency. The approximate solution (solution ranked by marginal cost-effectiveness) performed well when the budget matched the cost of the prioritized actions, indicating that this approach would be effective if the budget was set as part of the prioritization process. The ranking schemes varied in performance, and achieving a close to optimal solution was not guaranteed. Global sensitivity analysis revealed a threat's expected impact and, to a lesser extent, management effectiveness were the most influential parameters, emphasizing the need to focus research and monitoring efforts on their quantification.

Un Marco de Referencia para Asignar Recursos para la Conservación entre Múltiples Amenazas y Acciones Resumen Los administradores de tierras deciden cómo asignar recursos entre múltiples amenazas que pueden abordarse por medio de múltiples acciones. Adicionalmente, estas acciones varían en viabilidad, efectividad y costo. Buscamos proporcionar una manera para optimizar la asignación de recursos para abordar varias amenazas cuando están disponibles muchas opciones de manejo, incluyendo opciones mutuamente excluyentes. Con una formulación de la decisión como un problema combinatorio de optimización, nuestro marco de referencia toma como entradas el impacto esperado y el costo de cada amenaza para cada acción (incluyendo hacer nada) y para cada presupuesto generalizado identifica la acción óptima a realizar ante cada amenaza. Comparamos la solución óptima con una aproximación de un algoritmo avaricioso fácil de calcular y una variedad de esquemas plausibles de clasificación. Aplicamos el marco de trabajo al manejo de múltiples especies de plantas introducidas en las áreas alpinas de Australia. Desarrollamos un modelo de invasión para predecir el impacto esperado en 50 años para cada combinación de especie-acción que consideró el estado actual de invasión para cada especie (ausente, localizada, ampliamente distribuida), la probabilidad de invasión, la tasa de esparcimiento, el impacto, cuando abundante, de cada especie y la efectividad de manejo de cada combinación especie-acción. Descubrimos que la acción recomendada para una amenaza cambia con el presupuesto, que no existe una acción única de manejo óptimo para cada especie y que considerar más de una acción candidata puede incrementar sustancialmente la eficiencia general del plan de manejo. La solución aproximada (solución clasificada por rentabilidad) tuvo un buen desempeño cuando el presupuesto fue igual al costo de las acciones prioritarias, lo que indica que esta estrategia sería efectiva si el presupuesto está fijado como parte del proceso de priorización. Los esquemas de clasificación variaron en cuanto a desempeño, y lograr una solución cercana a lo óptimo no estuvo garantizado. El análisis de sensibilidad global reveló que el impacto esperado de una amenaza y, a menor grado, la efectividad del manejo no fueron los parámetros con mayor influencia, lo que enfatiza la necesidad de enfocar la investigación y los esfuerzos de monitoreo en la cuantificación del impacto esperado y la efectividad del manejo.

Fire and biodiversity in the Anthropocene.

Fire has been a source of global biodiversity for millions of years. However, interactions with anthropogenic drivers such as climate change, land use, and invasive species are changing the nature of fire activity and its impacts. We review how such changes are threatening species with extinction and transforming terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation of Earth's biological diversity will be achieved only by recognizing and responding to the critical role of fire. In the Anthropocene, this requires that conservation planning explicitly includes the combined effects of human activities and fire regimes. Improved forecasts for biodiversity must also integrate the connections among people, fire, and ecosystems. Such integration provides an opportunity for new actions that could revolutionize how society sustains biodiversity in a time of changing fire activity.

Integrated models to support multiobjective ecological restoration decisions.

Many objectives motivate ecological restoration, including improving vegetation condition, increasing the range and abundance of threatened species, and improving species richness and diversity. Although models have been used to examine the outcomes of ecological restoration, few researchers have attempted to develop models to account for multiple, potentially competing objectives. We developed a combined state-and-transition, species-distribution model to predict the effects of restoration actions on vegetation condition and extent, bird diversity, and the distribution of several bird species in southeastern Australian woodlands. The actions reflected several management objectives. We then validated the models against an independent data set and investigated how the best management decision might change when objectives were valued differently. We also used model results to identify effective restoration options for vegetation and bird species under a constrained budget. In the examples we evaluated, no one action (improving vegetation condition and extent, increasing bird diversity, or increasing the probability of occurrence for threatened species) provided the best outcome across all objectives. In agricultural lands, the optimal management actions for promoting the occurrence of the Brown Treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus), an iconic threatened species, resulted in little improvement in the extent of the vegetation and a high probability of decreased vegetation condition. This result highlights that the best management action in any situation depends on how much the different objectives are valued. In our example scenario, no management or weed control were most likely to be the best management options to satisfy multiple restoration objectives. Our approach to exploring trade-offs in management outcomes through integrated modeling and structured decision-support approaches has wide application for situations in which trade-offs exist between competing conservation objectives.

Expert status and performance.

Expert judgements are essential when time and resources are stretched or we face novel dilemmas requiring fast solutions. Good advice can save lives and large sums of money. Typically, experts are defined by their qualifications, track record and experience. The social expectation hypothesis argues that more highly regarded and more experienced experts will give better advice. We asked experts to predict how they will perform, and how their peers will perform, on sets of questions. The results indicate that the way experts regard each other is consistent, but unfortunately, ranks are a poor guide to actual performance. Expert advice will be more accurate if technical decisions routinely use broadly-defined expert groups, structured question protocols and feedback.