A systematic review of adaptive wildlife management for the control of invasive, non‐native mammals, and other human–wildlife conflicts

David Jam,Darryl Davis,Suzanne Richardson,Aileen C Mill,Alastair I Ward

doi:10.1111/mam.12182

Abstract

Abstract We are entering an era where species declines are occurring at their fastest ever rate, and the increased spread of non‐native species is among the top causes. High uncertainty in biological processes makes the accurate prediction of the outcomes of management interventions very challenging. Adaptive management (AM) offers solutions to reduce uncertainty and improve predictability so that the outcomes of interventions can continuously improve. We quantitatively assess the extent to which AM is used for managing vertebrates, with a focus on invasive non‐native species (INNS). Using the Web of Science, we evaluated 3992 articles returned by the search terms ‘adaptive management’ or ‘adaptive harvest management’ against seven recommended elements of AM (engagement with stakeholders, defining objectives, forecasting and estimating uncertainty, implementing management, monitoring populations, adjusting management in response to monitoring, and improving forecasting and reducing uncertainty in response to monitoring populations). The use of AM for vertebrates was reported in 56 (1%) of the evaluated studies; including four for managing INNS. Of these, ten studies excluding INNS and no studies of INNS management implemented all seven recommended elements of AM. Those elements infrequently implemented were as follows: the use of analysis or models to forecast and represent uncertainty (44%) and the feedback of monitoring data to improve forecasting and reduce uncertainty (25%). Complete active AM has rarely been implemented and reported for managing INNS, despite the significant advantages it offers. Among studies purporting to have implemented AM, most did not use analyses or models to forecast and represent uncertainty, while most defined objectives, implemented management, and monitored populations. Improvements to ongoing control programmes and much broader adoption of the AM approach are required to increase the efficiency and success of INNS management campaigns and reduce their negative impacts on native species.

Highlights

Anthropogenic impacts on biological systems are widely accepted to be the cause of recent mass global species declines (Sarukhan et al 2005), often leading to extinctions (Barnosky et al 2011)
Adaptive management (AM) was most often used for harvesting populations (32% of studies), followed by conservation (23%), reintroductions (11%) and invasive non-native species (INNS) management (7%; Fig. 4)
Our reduced elements of AM were more likely to be implemented when used for harvesting populations (39%); no studies implemented all seven recommended elements of AM for conservation or INNS management

Summary

Introduction

Anthropogenic impacts on biological systems are widely accepted to be the cause of recent mass global species declines (Sarukhan et al 2005), often leading to extinctions (Barnosky et al 2011). Among the top drivers of species declines are: habitat loss and fragmentation (Collinge & Forman 2009), invasive non-native species (INNS, Vitousek et al 1997, Simberloff 2010, Blackburn et al 2019) and climate change (Thomas et al 2004). Effective management of INNS is challenging, as species can become numerous and widespread before they are detected, and their impacts (often on native species and ecosystems) may require novel and long-term management methods. Examples of invasive mammal species subject to long-term management in the UK include American mink Neovison vison, grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis, fallow deer Dama dama and muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi. Recent eradications include muskrat Ondatra zibethicus and coypu Myocastor coypus

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion