A Protocol for Better Design, Application, and Communication of Population Viability Analyses

Population viability analyses (PVAs) contribute to conservation theory, policy, and management. Most PVAs focus on single species within a given landscape and address a specific problem. This specificity often is reflected in the organization of published PVA descriptions. Many lack structure, making them difficult to understand, assess, repeat, or use for drawing generalizations across PVA studies. In an assessment comparing published PVAs and existing guidelines, we found that model selection was rarely justified; important parameters remained neglected or their implementation was described vaguely; limited details were given on parameter ranges, sensitivity analysis, and scenarios; and results were often reported too inconsistently to enable repeatability and comparability. Although many guidelines exist on how to design and implement reliable PVAs and standards exist for documenting and communicating ecological models in general, there is a lack of organized guidelines for designing, applying, and communicating PVAs that account for their diversity of structures and contents. To fill this gap, we integrated published guidelines and recommendations for PVA design and application, protocols for documenting ecological models in general and individual-based models in particular, and our collective experience in developing, applying, and reviewing PVAs. We devised a comprehensive protocol for the design, application, and communication of PVAs (DAC-PVA), which has 3 primary elements. The first defines what a useful PVA is; the second element provides a workflow for the design and application of a useful PVA and highlights important aspects that need to be considered during these processes; and the third element focuses on communication of PVAs to ensure clarity, comprehensiveness, repeatability, and comparability. Thereby, DAC-PVA should strengthen the credibility and relevance of PVAs for policy and management, and improve the capacity to generalize PVA findings across studies.

[1]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Modelling human impacts on the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi) , 2009 .

[2]  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 .

[3]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure , 1993 .

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

[5]  Volker Grimm,et al.  Ecological models supporting environmental decision making: a strategy for the future. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  John M. Drake,et al.  Population Viability Analysis , 2019, Encyclopedia of Theoretical Ecology.

[7]  S. Humphrey,et al.  Use of population viability analysis to evaluate management options for the endangered lower keys marsh rabbit , 1999 .

[8]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  How accurate are population models? Lessons from landscape-scale tests in a fragmented system , 2002 .

[9]  K. Johst,et al.  Compensatory versus over-compensatory density regulation: Implications for metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes , 2006 .

[10]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Genetics, Demography and Viability of Fragmented Populations: Population viability analysis for conservation: the good, the bad and the undescribed , 2000 .

[11]  L. Fahrig,et al.  On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity , 2000 .

[12]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Securing the conservation of biodiversity across administrative levels and spatial, temporal, and ecological scales - Research needs and approaches of the SCALES project , 2010 .

[13]  J. Bart Acceptance Criteria for Using Individual‐Based Models to Make Management Decisions , 1995 .

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

[15]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Ecological-economic optimization of biodiversity conservation under climate change , 2011 .

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

[17]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  SPOMSIM: software for stochastic patch occupancy models of metapopulation dynamics , 2004 .

[18]  M. Boyce Population Viability Analysis , 1992 .

[19]  Michael J. Wisdom,et al.  Factors Leading to Different Viability Predictions for a Grizzly Bear Data Set , 1996 .

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

[21]  Colin J. Thompson,et al.  Expected minimum population size as a measure of threat , 2001 .

[22]  A. Pullin,et al.  Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[23]  Richard Frankham,et al.  Comparison of the population viability analysis packages GAPPS, INMAT, RAMAS and VORTEX for the whooping crane (Grus americana) , 1999 .

[24]  J. Pielke The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics , 2007 .

[25]  A. Pullin,et al.  Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. , 2009 .

[26]  Gregory D. Hayward,et al.  Viability analysis in biological evaluations: Concepts of population viability analysis, biological population, and ecological scale , 1994 .

[27]  H. Akçakaya,et al.  Assessing human impact despite uncertainty:viability of the northern spotted owl metapopulation in the northwestern USA , 1998, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[28]  Robert C. Lacy,et al.  VORTEX: a computer simulation model for population viability analysis , 1993 .

[29]  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 .

[30]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Minimum viable populations : Processes of species extinction , 1986 .

[31]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Risk assessment in conservation biology , 1993 .

[32]  Birgit Müller,et al.  A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models , 2006 .

[33]  R. Foppen,et al.  Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland birds , 2001 .

[34]  Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria , 2005 .

[35]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Ranking Conservation and Timber Management Options for Leadbeater's Possum in Southeastern Australia Using Population Viability Analysis , 1996 .

[36]  A. Vincent,et al.  Use of Population Viability Analysis to Evaluate CITES Trade‐Management Options for Threatened Marine Fishes , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[37]  Paola Annoni,et al.  Sixth International Conference on Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis , 2010 .

[38]  George D. Gopen,et al.  The Science of Scientific Writing , 1990 .

[39]  H. Caswell Matrix population models : construction, analysis, and interpretation , 2001 .

[40]  K. Wiegand,et al.  The Role of Density Regulation in Extinction Processes and Population Viability Analysis , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

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

[42]  J. Gareth Polhill,et al.  The ODD protocol: A review and first update , 2010, Ecological Modelling.

[43]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Linking cost efficiency evaluation with population viability analysis to prioritize wetland bird conservation actions , 2011 .

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

[45]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  ALEX: A model for the viability analysis of spatially structured populations , 1995 .

[46]  Christian Wissel,et al.  The intrinsic mean time to extinction: a unifying approach to analysing persistence and viability of populations , 2004 .

[47]  Steven R. Beissinger,et al.  Emerging Issues in Population Viability Analysis , 2002, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[48]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  A framework for the improved management of threatened species based on Population Viability Analysis (PVA) , 1994 .

[49]  Martin Drechsler,et al.  Biodiversity conservation in dynamic landscapes: trade-offs between number, connectivity and turnover of habitat patches , 2011 .

[50]  Tomasz Wyszomirski,et al.  Modelling the role of social behavior in the persistence of the alpine marmot Marmota marmota , 2003 .

[51]  Paul C. Cross,et al.  Using Logistic Regression to Analyze the Sensitivity of PVA Models: a Comparison of Methods Based on African Wild Dog Models , 2001 .

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

[53]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Sensitivity analysis practices: Strategies for model-based inference , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[54]  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.

[55]  Kevin S. McKelvey,et al.  Management of the spotted owl : A case history in conservation biology , 1996 .