Weighing the unknowns: Value of Information for biological and operational uncertainty in invasion management

Abstract The management of biological invasions is a worldwide conservation priority. Unfortunately, decision‐making on optimal invasion management can be impeded by lack of information about the biological processes that determine invader success (i.e. biological uncertainty) or by uncertainty about the effectiveness of candidate interventions (i.e. operational uncertainty). Concurrent assessment of both sources of uncertainty within the same framework can help to optimize control decisions. Here, we present a Value of Information (VoI) framework to simultaneously analyse the effects of biological and operational uncertainties on management outcomes. We demonstrate this approach with a case study: minimizing the long‐term population growth of musk thistle Carduus nutans, a widespread invasive plant, using several insects as biological control agents, including Trichosirocalus horridus, Rhinocyllus conicus and Urophora solstitialis. The ranking of biocontrol agents was sensitive to differences in the target weed's demography and also to differences in the effectiveness of the different biocontrol agents. This finding suggests that accounting for both biological and operational uncertainties is valuable when making management recommendations for invasion control. Furthermore, our VoI analyses show that reduction of all uncertainties across all combinations of demographic model and biocontrol effectiveness explored in the current study would lead, on average, to a 15.6% reduction in musk thistle population growth rate. The specific growth reduction that would be observed in any instance would depend on how the uncertainties actually resolve. Resolving biological uncertainty (across demographic model combinations) or operational uncertainty (across biocontrol effectiveness combinations) alone would reduce expected population growth rate by 8.5% and 10.5% respectively. Synthesis and applications. Our study demonstrates that intervention rank is determined both by biological processes in the targeted invasive populations and by intervention effectiveness. Ignoring either biological uncertainty or operational uncertainty may result in a suboptimal recommendation. Therefore, it is important to simultaneously acknowledge both sources of uncertainty during the decision‐making process in invasion management. The framework presented here can accommodate diverse data sources and modelling approaches, and has wide applicability to guide invasive species management and conservation efforts.

[1]  C. Horvitz,et al.  Projection matrix analysis of the demography of an invasive, nonnative shrub (Ardisia elliptica) , 2005 .

[2]  Y. Buckley,et al.  Managing the side effects of invasion control , 2014, Science.

[3]  Mitchell J. Small,et al.  Updating Uncertainty in an Integrated Risk Assessment: Conceptual Framework and Methods , 1995 .

[4]  Matthew J Ferrari,et al.  Decision-making for foot-and-mouth disease control: Objectives matter. , 2016, Epidemics.

[5]  R. Shaw,et al.  The effectiveness of classical biological control of invasive plants , 2012 .

[6]  M. Werger,et al.  Understanding the effects of a new grazing policy: the impact of seasonal grazing on shrub demography in the Inner Mongolian steppe , 2013 .

[7]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  A TAXONOMY AND TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY FOR ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY , 2002 .

[8]  T. L. Woodburn,et al.  Seasonal life‐history models for the integrated management of the invasive weed nodding thistle Carduus nutans in Australia , 2006 .

[9]  H. Kroon,et al.  ELASTICITIES: A REVIEW OF METHODS AND MODEL LIMITATIONS , 2000 .

[10]  Matthew J Ferrari,et al.  Essential information: Uncertainty and optimal control of Ebola outbreaks , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Katriona Shea,et al.  ESTIMATING BIOCONTROL AGENT IMPACT WITH MATRIX MODELS: CARDUUS NUTANS IN NEW ZEALAND , 1998 .

[12]  Sarah J. Converse,et al.  Special Issue Article: Adaptive management for biodiversity conservation in an uncertain world Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program , 2011 .

[13]  F. Johnson,et al.  MANAGING NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY , 1995 .

[14]  John R. U. Wilson,et al.  Contain or eradicate? Optimizing the management goal for Australian acacia invasions in the face of uncertainty , 2011 .

[15]  T. L. Woodburn,et al.  CONTEXT‐DEPENDENT BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF AN INVASIVE THISTLE , 2005 .

[16]  Yvonne M Buckley,et al.  Predicting invasion winners and losers under climate change , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  Information Value Theory , 1966, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[18]  S. Warwick,et al.  THE BIOLOGY OF CANADIAN WEEDS.: 89. Carduus nutans L. and Carduus acanthoides L. , 1988 .

[19]  S. Novak The role of evolution in the invasion process , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  T. Woodburn Establishment in Australia of Trichosirocalus horridus a Biological Control Agent for Carduus nutans , and Preliminary Assessment of its Impact on Plant Growth and Reproductive Potential , 1997 .

[21]  T. L. Woodburn,et al.  Dispersal and demography contributions to population spread of Carduus nutans in its native and invaded ranges , 2008 .

[22]  M. McCarthy,et al.  Plant extirpation at the site scale: implications for eradication programmes , 2015 .

[23]  S. Ramula,et al.  Demographic strategies of plant invaders in temporally varying environments , 2015, Population Ecology.

[24]  Michael J. Tildesley,et al.  Adaptive Management and the Value of Information: Learning Via Intervention in Epidemiology , 2014, PLoS biology.

[25]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Accounting for Management Costs in Sensitivity Analyses of Matrix Population Models , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[26]  Yvonne M. Buckley,et al.  General guidelines for invasive plant management based on comparative demography of invasive and native plant populations , 2008 .

[27]  H. Caswell,et al.  The sensitivity analysis of population projections , 2015 .

[28]  Byron K. Williams,et al.  Technical challenges in the application of adaptive management , 2016 .

[29]  W. Lamp,et al.  Effect of a Weevil, Rhinocyllus conicus, on Musk Thistle (Carduus thoermeri) Seed Production , 1982, Weed Science.

[30]  Michael J. Tildesley,et al.  Concurrent assessment of epidemiological and operational uncertainties for optimal outbreak control: Ebola as a case study , 2019, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[31]  Gordon B. Hazen,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis and the Expected Value of Perfect Information , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  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.

[33]  E J Milner-Gulland,et al.  Embracing uncertainty in applied ecology. , 2017, The Journal of applied ecology.