How practitioners integrate decision triggers with existing metrics in conservation monitoring.

Decision triggers are defined thresholds in the status of monitored variables that indicate when to undertake management, and avoid undesirable ecosystem change. Decision triggers are frequently recommended to conservation practitioners as a tool to facilitate evidence-based management practices, but there has been limited attention paid to how practitioners are integrating decision triggers into existing monitoring programs. We sought to understand whether conservation practitioners' use of decision triggers was influenced by the type of variables in their monitoring programs. We investigated this question using a practitioner-focused workshop involving a structured discussion and review of eight monitoring programs. Among our case studies, direct measures of biodiversity (e.g. native species) were more commonly monitored, but less likely to be linked to decision triggers (10% with triggers) than measures being used as surrogates (54% with triggers) for program objectives. This was because decision triggers were associated with management of threatening processes, which were often monitored as a surrogate for a biodiversity asset of interest. By contrast, direct measures of biodiversity were more commonly associated with informal decision processes that led to activities such as management reviews or external consultation. Workshop participants were in favor of including more formalized decision triggers in their programs, but were limited by incomplete ecological knowledge, lack of appropriately skilled staff, funding constraints, and/or uncertainty regarding intervention effectiveness. We recommend that practitioners consider including decision triggers for discussion activities (such as external consultation) in their programs as more than just early warning points for future interventions, particularly for direct measures. Decision triggers for discussions should be recognized as a critical feature of monitoring programs where information and operational limitations inhibit the use of decision triggers for interventions.

Living near the edge: Being close to mature forest increases the rate of succession in beetle communities.

In increasingly fragmented landscapes, it is important to understand how mature forest affects adjacent secondary forest (forest influence). Forest influence on ecological succession of beetle communities is largely unknown. We investigated succession and forest influence using 235 m long transects across boundaries between mature and secondary forest at 15 sites, sampling a chronosequence of three forest age classes (5-10, 23- 29, and 42-46 years since clear-cutting) in tall eucalypt forest in Tasmania, Australia. Our results showed that ground-dwelling beetle communities showed strong successional changes, and in the oldest secondary forests, species considered indicators of mature forest had recolonized to abundance levels similar to those observed within adjacent mature forest stands. However, species composition also showed forest influence gradients in all age classes. Forest influence was estimated to extend 13 m and 20 m in the youngest and intermediate-aged secondary forests, respectively. However, the estimated effect extended to at least 176 m in the oldest secondary forest. Our environmental modeling suggests that leaf litter, microclimate, and soil variables were all important in explaining the spatial variation in beetle assemblages, and the relative importance of factors varied between secondary forest age classes. Mature-forest beetle communities can recolonize successfully from the edge, and our results provide a basis for land managers to build mature habitat connectivity into forest mosaics typical of production forests. Our results also indicate the importance of forest influence in determining potential conservation value of older secondary forest for beetles.