Optimal spatial prioritization of control resources for elimination of invasive species under demographic uncertainty.

Populations of invasive species often spread heterogeneously across a landscape, consisting of local populations that cluster in space but are connected by dispersal. A fundamental dilemma for invasive species control is how to optimally allocate limited fiscal resources across local populations. Theoretical work based on perfect knowledge of demographic connectivity suggests that targeting local populations from which migrants originate (sources) can be optimal. However, demographic processes such as abundance and dispersal can be highly uncertain, and the relationship between local population density and damage costs (damage function) is rarely known. We used a metapopulation model to understand how budget and uncertainty in abundance, connectivity, and the damage function, together impact return on investment (ROI) for optimal control strategies. Budget, observational uncertainty, and the damage function had strong effects on the optimal resource allocation strategy. Uncertainty in dispersal probability was the least important determinant of ROI. The damage function determined which resource prioritization strategy was optimal when connectivity was symmetric but not when it was asymmetric. When connectivity was asymmetric, prioritizing source populations had a higher ROI than allocating effort equally across local populations, regardless of the damage function, but uncertainty in connectivity structure and abundance reduced ROI of the optimal prioritization strategy by 57% on average depending on the control budget. With low budgets (monthly removal rate of 6.7% of population), there was little advantage to prioritizing resources, especially when connectivity was high or symmetric, and observational uncertainty had only minor effects on ROI. Allotting funding for improved monitoring appeared to be most important when budgets were moderate (monthly removal of 13-20% of the population). Our result showed that multiple sources of observational uncertainty should be considered concurrently for optimizing ROI. Accurate estimates of connectivity direction and abundance were more important than accurate estimates of dispersal rates. Developing cost-effective surveillance methods to reduce observational uncertainties, and quantitative frameworks for determining how resources should be spatially apportioned to multiple monitoring and control activities are important and challenging future directions for optimizing ROI for invasive species control programs.

[1]  I. L. Brisbin,et al.  WILD PIGS: BIOLOGY, DAMAGE, CONTROL TECHINQUES AND MANAGEMENT , 2009 .

[2]  William L. Kendall,et al.  Design and Analysis of Long-term Ecological Monitoring Studies: Maximizing the utility of monitoring to the adaptive management of natural resources , 2012 .

[3]  A. Davis,et al.  Quantifying site-level usage and certainty of absence for an invasive species through occupancy analysis of camera-trap data , 2018, Biological Invasions.

[4]  F. Allendorf,et al.  What can genetics tell us about population connectivity? , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[5]  D. Legrand,et al.  Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks , 2013, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[6]  A. Rogers,et al.  The challenges of detecting subtle population structure and its importance for the conservation of emperor penguins , 2017, Molecular ecology.

[7]  Cindy E. Hauser,et al.  Optimizing invasive species control across space: willow invasion management in the Australian Alps , 2011 .

[8]  M. Bonsall,et al.  Density-dependent population dynamics and dispersal in heterogeneous metapopulations. , 2011, The Journal of animal ecology.

[9]  Robert G. Haight,et al.  Optimal control of an invasive species with imperfect information about the level of infestation , 2010 .

[10]  Martin Nilsson Jacobi,et al.  Optimal networks of nature reserves can be found through eigenvalue perturbation theory of the connectivity matrix. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[11]  Michael C Runge,et al.  Combining Structured Decision Making and Value‐of‐Information Analyses to Identify Robust Management Strategies , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[12]  Charles ReVelle,et al.  Using mathematical optimization models to design nature reserves , 2004 .

[13]  Dongwook W. Ko,et al.  Distribution, demography and dispersal model of spatial spread of invasive plant populations with limited data , 2015 .

[14]  A. Hastings Persistence and management of spatially distributed populations , 2013, Population Ecology.

[15]  M. Hooten,et al.  Inferring invasive species abundance using removal data from management actions. , 2016, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[16]  Tracy M. Rout,et al.  Prevent, search or destroy? A partially observable model for invasive species management , 2014 .

[17]  Michael Bode,et al.  Placing invasive species management in a spatiotemporal context. , 2016, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[18]  F. H. Rodd,et al.  The problem of estimating recent genetic connectivity in a changing world , 2017, Conservation Biology.

[19]  Thomas R. Etherington,et al.  Using network connectivity to prioritise sites for the control of invasive species , 2017 .

[20]  A. Hastings,et al.  Persistence of spatial populations depends on returning home. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  A. Hastings,et al.  Controlling established invaders: integrating economics and spread dynamics to determine optimal management. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[22]  André E. Punt,et al.  Management strategy evaluation: best practices , 2016 .

[23]  K. Vercauteren,et al.  Potential effects of incorporating fertility control into typical culling regimes in wild pig populations , 2017, PloS one.

[24]  A. Glen,et al.  Connectivity and invasive species management: towards an integrated landscape approach , 2013, Biological Invasions.

[25]  A. Piaggio,et al.  Invasion ecology of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in Florida, USA: the role of humans in the expansion and colonization of an invasive wild ungulate , 2018, Biological Invasions.

[26]  David W. Wolfson,et al.  Accounting for heterogeneous invasion rates reveals management impacts on the spatial expansion of an invasive species , 2019, Ecosphere.

[27]  Andrew M. Liebhold,et al.  To sample or eradicate? A cost minimization model for monitoring and managing an invasive species , 2008 .

[28]  Christopher M. Baker Target the Source: Optimal Spatiotemporal Resource Allocation for Invasive Species Control , 2017 .

[29]  Shaun R. Coutts,et al.  Modeling population dynamics, landscape structure, and management decisions for controlling the spread of invasive plants , 2012, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[30]  J. Hone,et al.  USING ASPECTS OF PREDATOR-PREY THEORY TO EVALUATE HELICOPTER SHOOTING FOR FERAL PIG CONTROL , 1999 .

[31]  M. A. Tabak,et al.  Anthropogenic factors predict movement of an invasive species , 2017 .

[32]  B. Maxwell,et al.  Cross-scale management strategies for optimal control of trees invading from source plantations , 2014, Biological Invasions.

[33]  C. S. Holling The components of prédation as revealed by a study of small-mammal prédation of the European pine sawfly. , 1959 .

[34]  I. Chades,et al.  Optimally managing under imperfect detection: A method for plant invasions , 2011 .

[35]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape , 2000, Nature.

[36]  I. Chades,et al.  General rules for managing and surveying networks of pests, diseases, and endangered species , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  D. Reznick,et al.  Spatio-temporal dynamics of density-dependent dispersal during a population colonisation. , 2019, Ecology letters.

[38]  Dean P. Anderson,et al.  A modelling framework for predicting the optimal balance between control and surveillance effort in the local eradication of tuberculosis in New Zealand wildlife. , 2016, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[39]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Managing the impact of invasive species: the value of knowing the density-impact curve. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[40]  I. Côté,et al.  From individual movement behaviour to landscape-scale invasion dynamics and management: a case study of lionfish metapopulations , 2019, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

[41]  Andrew M. Liebhold,et al.  Optimal surveillance and eradication of invasive species in heterogeneous landscapes. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[42]  Julien Martin,et al.  Optimal control of an invasive species using a reaction-diffusion model and linear programming , 2017 .

[43]  Julien Martin,et al.  Optimal spatial allocation of control effort to manage invasives in the face of imperfect detection and misclassification , 2019, Ecological Modelling.

[44]  L. Greenberg,et al.  Environmentally induced migration: the importance of food. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[45]  Justin M. J. Travis,et al.  Spatial structure and the control of invasive alien species , 2004 .

[46]  K. Vercauteren,et al.  Costs and effectiveness of damage management of an overabundant species (Sus scrofa) using aerial gunning , 2018, Wildlife Research.

[47]  James N. Sanchirico,et al.  Optimal monitoring and control under state uncertainty: Application to lionfish management☆ , 2017 .

[48]  P. Meirmans Nonconvergence in Bayesian estimation of migration rates , 2014, Molecular ecology resources.

[49]  Pierre Faubet,et al.  Evaluating the performance of a multilocus Bayesian method for the estimation of migration rates , 2007, Molecular ecology.

[50]  L. Matthews,et al.  Low-coverage vaccination strategies for the conservation of endangered species , 2006, Nature.