Abstract
Conservation triage focuses on prioritizing species, populations or habitats based on urgency, biodiversity benefits, recovery potential as well as cost. Population Viability Analysis (PVA) is frequently used in population focused conservation prioritizations. The critical nature of many of these management decisions requires that PVA models are repeatable and reproducible to reliably rank species and/or populations quantitatively. This paper assessed the repeatability and reproducibility of a subset of previously published PVA models. We attempted to rerun baseline models from 90 publicly available PVA studies published between 2000-2012 using the two most common PVA modelling software programs, VORTEX and RAMAS-GIS. Forty percent (n = 36) failed, 50% (45) were both repeatable and reproducible, and 10% (9) had missing baseline models. Repeatability was not linked to taxa, IUCN category, PVA program version used, year published or the quality of publication outlet, suggesting that the problem is systemic within the discipline. Complete and systematic presentation of PVA parameters and results are needed to ensure that the scientific input into conservation planning is both robust and reliable, thereby increasing the chances of making decisions that are both beneficial and defensible. The implications for conservation triage may be far reaching if population viability models cannot be reproduced with confidence, thus undermining their intended value.
Highlights
Despite concerted efforts by conservation practitioners worldwide, species extinction rates continue to increase (Butchart et al, 2010; Pimm et al, 2014)
Conservation triage focuses on prioritizing species, populations or habitats based on urgency, biodiversity benefits, recovery potential, and costs to achieve a desired goal (Bottrill et al, 2008)
Our analysis has revealed that a substantial number of current Population Viability Analysis (PVA) for “popular” species are not repeatable due largely to the fact that the model parameters required to repeat these analyses were poorly communicated in papers or reports
Summary
Despite concerted efforts by conservation practitioners worldwide, species extinction rates continue to increase (Butchart et al, 2010; Pimm et al, 2014). The persistent and often escalating threats to biodiversity, coupled with inadequate funding, make it inevitable that conservation managers apply triage in decision making (Bottrill et al, 2008, 2009; Arponen, 2012). Conservation triage focuses on prioritizing species, populations or habitats based on urgency, biodiversity benefits, recovery potential (i.e., chance of success), and costs to achieve a desired goal (Bottrill et al, 2008). Some argue that it is futile to spend time and scarce resources on hopeless cases or on species/populations that are likely to persist without
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
