Importance of Well‐Designed Monitoring Programs for the Conservation of Endangered Species: Case Study of the Snail Kite

Monitoring natural populations is often a necessary step to establish the conservation status of species and to help improve management decisions. Nevertheless, many monitoring programs do not effectively address primary sources of variability in monitoring data, which ultimately may limit the utility of monitoring in identifying declines and improving management. To illustrate the importance of taking into account detectability and spatial variation, we used a recently proposed estimator of abundance (superpopulation estimator) to estimate population size of and number of young produced by the Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) in Florida. During the last decade, primary recovery targets set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Snail Kite that were based on deficient monitoring programs (i.e., uncorrected counts) were close to being met (by simply increasing search effort during count surveys). During that same period, the Snail Kite population declined dramatically (by 55% from 1997 to 2005) and the number of young decreased by 70% between 1992-1998 and 1999-2005. Our results provide a strong practical case in favor of the argument that investing a sufficient amount of time and resources into designing and implementing monitoring programs that carefully address detectability and spatial variation is critical for the conservation of endangered species.

[1]  J. E. Pagel,et al.  Why Listing May Be Forever: Perspectives on Delisting under the U.S. Endangered Species Act , 2001 .

[2]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture , 1989 .

[3]  D. Doak,et al.  Book Review: Quantitative Conservation biology: Theory and Practice of Population Viability analysis , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[4]  Kenneth H. Pollock,et al.  Design and Analysis Methods for Fish Survival Experiments Based on Release-Recapture. , 1988 .

[5]  Indexes as surrogates to abundance for low-abundance species , 2004 .

[6]  John Sabo,et al.  Morris, W. F., and D. F. Doak. 2003. Quantitative Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice of Population Viability Analysis. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA , 2003 .

[7]  W. Irvin Endangered species act. , 1993, Science.

[8]  S. Beissinger,et al.  Applying the Declining Population Paradigm: Diagnosing Causes of Poor Reproduction in the Marbled Murrelet , 2004 .

[9]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[10]  David R. Anderson,et al.  LANDBIRD COUNTING TECHNIQUES: CURRENT PRACTICES AND AN ALTERNATIVE , 2002 .

[11]  FACTORS INFLUENCING COUNTS IN AN ANNUAL SURVEY OF SNAIL KITES IN FLORIDA , 1999 .

[12]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time , 2001 .

[13]  D. DeAngelis,et al.  The use of resighting data to estimate the rate of population growth of the snail kite in Florida , 2002 .

[14]  Carl J. Schwarz,et al.  A General Methodology for the Analysis of Capture-Recapture Experiments in Open Populations , 1996 .

[15]  L. Gerber,et al.  A Quantitative Approach to Endangered Species Act Classification of Long‐Lived Vertebrates: Application to the North Pacif ic Humpback Whale , 1999 .

[16]  M. Conroy,et al.  Analysis and Management of Animal Populations , 2002 .

[17]  C. Schwarz,et al.  ESTIMATING TEMPORARY MIGRATION USING THE ROBUST DESIGN , 1997 .

[18]  Julien Martin,et al.  Multiscale patterns of movement in fragmented landscapes and consequences on demography of the snail kite in Florida. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.