Search

Fences that exclude alien invasive species are used to reduce predation pressure on reintroduced threatened wildlife. Planning these continuously managed systems of reserves raises an important extension of the Single Large or Several Small (SLOSS) reserve planning framework: the added complexity of ongoing management. We investigate the long-term costefficiency of a single large or two small predator exclusion fences in the arid Australian context of reintroducing bilbies Macrotis lagotis, and we highlight the broader significance of our results with sensitivity analysis. A single fence more frequently results in a much larger net cost than two smaller fences. We find that the cost-efficiency of two fences is robust to strong demographic and environmental uncertainty, which can help managers to mitigate the risk of incurring high costs over the entire life of the project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Areas of high conservation value are often baited with poison to reduce the density of invasive predators, and consequentially reduce the impact on native animals. Poison baits are typically distributed uniformly across a landscape, but there has been no work to determine if this is a cost-effective way to protect endangered species. We consider a small, high-value conservation asset within a broader landscape that is baited to control invasive predators. The predator density in the baited region is modelled with a reaction-diffusion equation, and we use optimal control theory to solve for the long term baiting strategy which minimises the predator density at the conservation asset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conservation of many threatened species can be advanced by the eradication of alien invasive animals from islands. However, island eradications are an expensive, difficult and uncertain undertaking. An increasingly common eradication strategy is the construction of 'interior fences' to partition islands into smaller, independent eradication regions that can be treated sequentially or concurrently. Proponents argue that, while interior fences incur substantial up front construction costs, they reduce overall eradication costs. However, this hypothesis lacks an explicit theoretical or empirical justification., We formulate a general theory that relates the number of interior fences to the magnitude and variation of the economic cost of island eradication. We use this theory to explore the conditions under which interior fences represent a defensible management strategy, under cost and risk minimisation objectives. We then specifically consider the forthcoming eradication of cats Felis catus from Dirk Hartog Island, Western Australia, by parameterising our general theory using published data on the cost and success of previous projects., Our results predict that under a wide range of reasonable conditions, interior fences can reduce the expected cost of a successful invasive alien animal eradication from large islands. On Dirk Hartog Island, interior fences will marginally reduce eradication costs, with two fences reducing expected costs by 3%. Interior fences have a much more substantial effect on the variability of eradication costs: two fences reduce the width of the 95% confidence bounds by more than one-third and halve the size of the average project cost overrun/underrun., Our results reveal that the construction of interior fences is a defensible management strategy for eradicating alien invasive species from islands. However, the primary benefit of interior fences will be risk management, rather than a reduction in expected project costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Conservation spending in California, USA exceeds conservation expenditures in many countries. To date, there has been no objective method to assess the efficiency of such spending for achieving species conservation outcomes. We conducted the first such retrospective analysis of conservation spending, examining the distribution of $2.8 billion spent on land protection by the state of California and partners from 1990 to 2006. Using a return on investment algorithm with species protection as the sole objective, we describe a “cost-efficient” funding scenario that would have protected four times more distinct species and three times more threatened and endangered species compared to the observed allocation. Differences between the species-diversity spending and the observed spending patterns reflect the myriad funding objectives, beyond protecting species, of the state. Identifying cost-effective conservation strategies are essential given the need to maintain species diversity in the face of global change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Priorities for conservation investment at a global scale that are based on a single taxon have been criticized because geographic richness patterns vary taxonomically. However, these concerns focused only on biodiversity patterns and did not consider the importance of socioeconomic factors, which must also be included if conservation funding is to be allocated efficiently. In this article, we create efficient global funding schedules that use information about conservation costs, predicted habitat loss rates, and the endemicity of seven different taxonomic groups. We discover that these funding allocation schedules are less sensitive to variation in taxon assessed than to variation in cost and threat. Two-thirds of funding is allocated to the same regions regardless of the taxon. compared with only one-fifth if threat and cost are not included in allocation decisions. Hence, if socioeconomic factors are considered, we can be more confident about global-scale decisions guided by single taxonomic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]