Implications of different population model structures for management of threatened plants

Population viability analysis (PVA) is a reliable tool for ranking management options for a range of species despite parameter uncertainty. No one has yet investigated whether this holds true for model uncertainty for species with complex life histories and for responses to multiple threats. We tested whether a range of model structures yielded similar rankings of management and threat scenarios for 2 plant species with complex postfire responses. We examined 2 contrasting species from different plant functional types: an obligate seeding shrub and a facultative resprouting shrub. We exposed each to altered fire regimes and an additional, species‐specific threat. Long‐term demographic data sets were used to construct an individual‐based model (IBM), a complex stage‐based model, and a simple matrix model that subsumes all life stages into 2 or 3 stages. Agreement across models was good under some scenarios and poor under others. Results from the simple and complex matrix models were more similar to each other than to the IBM. Results were robust across models when dominant threats are considered but were less so for smaller effects. Robustness also broke down as the scenarios deviated from baseline conditions, likely the result of a number of factors related to the complexity of the species’ life history and how it was represented in a model. Although PVA can be an invaluable tool for integrating data and understanding species’ responses to threats and management strategies, this is best achieved in the context of decision support for adaptive management alongside multiple lines of evidence and expert critique of model construction and output.

[1]  Daniel F. Doak,et al.  Population viability management: ecological standards to guide adaptive management for rare species , 2009 .

[2]  Todd S Bridges,et al.  Using Scalar Models for Precautionary Assessments of Threatened Species , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[3]  Elizabeth E Crone,et al.  How do plant ecologists use matrix population models? , 2011, Ecology letters.

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

[5]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Reliability of Relative Predictions in Population Viability Analysis , 2003 .

[6]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Variability in Population Abundance and the Classification of Extinction Risk , 2011, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[7]  Martha M. Ellis,et al.  Ability of Matrix Models to Explain the Past and Predict the Future of Plant Populations , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[8]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Plant extinction risk under climate change: are forecast range shifts alone a good indicator of species vulnerability to global warming? , 2012 .

[9]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  A Review of the Generic Computer Programs ALEX, RAMAS/space and VORTEX for Modelling the Viability of Wildlife Metapopulations , 1995 .

[10]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  The effects of fire and predators on the long-term persistence of an endangered shrub, Grevillea caleyi , 2003 .

[11]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  Fire management to combat disease: turning interactions between threats into conservation management , 2011, Oecologia.

[12]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  Treatments of Uncertainty and Variability in Ecological Risk Assessment of Single-Species Populations , 2003 .

[13]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  Comparing predictions of extinction risk using models and subjective judgement , 2004 .

[14]  Lucy Bastin,et al.  Raising the bar for systematic conservation planning. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[15]  B. Taylor,et al.  The Reliability of Using Population Viability Analysis for Risk Classification of Species , 1995 .

[16]  T Coulson,et al.  The use and abuse of population viability analysis. , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[17]  Kurt E Anderson,et al.  Fire Management, Managed Relocation, and Land Conservation Options for Long‐Lived Obligate Seeding Plants under Global Changes in Climate, Urbanization, and Fire Regime , 2014, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[18]  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 .

[19]  Amy W. Ando,et al.  On the Use of Demographic Models of Population Viability in Endangered Species Management , 1998 .

[20]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  A Protocol for Better Design, Application, and Communication of Population Viability Analyses , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[21]  Peter Arcese,et al.  Sensitivity Analyses of Spatial Population Viability Analysis Models for Species at Risk and Habitat Conservation Planning , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[22]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  Combined Influences of Model Choice, Data Quality, and Data Quantity When Estimating Population Trends , 2015, PloS one.

[23]  S. Ellner,et al.  Stochastic matrix models for conservation and management: A comparative review of methods , 2001 .

[24]  E. Menges,et al.  Population viability analyses in plants: challenges and opportunities. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[25]  H. Resit Akçakaya,et al.  Predictive accuracy of population viability analysis in conservation biology , 2000, Nature.