10.5061/DRYAD.R87D6
Kerr, Natalie Z.
Tufts University
University of Queensland
Baxter, Peter W. J.
Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions
Salguero-Gomez, Roberto
Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research
University of Queensland
Wardle, Glenda M.
University of Sydney
Buckley, Yvonne M.
University of Queensland
Trinity College
Baxter, Peter W.J.
University of Queensland
Data from: Prioritizing management actions for invasive populations using
cost, efficacy, demography, and expert opinion for 14 plant species
worldwide
Dryad
dataset
2016
Pinus nigra
Elasticity
Centaurea stoebe
Dipsacus sylvestris
Prunus serotina
Ardisia elliptica
Parkinsonia aculeata
economic sensitivity analysis
efficacy
Cirsium vulgare
Persicaria perfoliata
Carduus nutans
Matrix population models
population growth rate
Cytisus scoparius
Lespedeza cuneata
Weeds
Agropyron cristatum
marginal cost
Rubus armeniacus
invasive plant species
Alliaria petiolata
2016-11-30T00:00:00Z
2016-11-30T00:00:00Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12592
108542 bytes
1
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Management of invasive populations is typically investigated case-by-case.
Comparative approaches have been applied to single aspects of management,
such as demography, with cost or efficacy rarely incorporated. We present
an analysis of the ranks of management actions for 14 species in five
countries that extends beyond the use of demography alone to include
multiple metrics for ranking management actions, which integrate cost,
efficacy and demography (cost-effectiveness) and managers’ expert opinion
of ranks. We use content analysis of manager surveys to assess the
multiple criteria managers use to rank management strategies. Analysis of
the matrix models for managed populations showed that all management
actions led to reductions in population growth rate (λ), with a median 48%
reduction in λ across all management units; however, only 66% of the
actions led to declining populations (λ < 1). Each management
action ranked by cost-effectiveness and cost had a unique rank; however,
elasticity ranks were often tied, providing less discrimination among
management actions. Ranking management actions by cost alone aligned well
with cost-effectiveness ranks and demographic elasticity ranks were also
well aligned with cost-effectiveness. In contrast, efficacy ranks were
aligned with managers’ ranks and managers identified efficacy and
demography as important. 80% of managers identified off-target effects of
management as important, which was not captured using any of the other
metrics. Synthesis and applications. A multidimensional view of the
benefits and costs of management options provides a range of single and
integrated metrics. These rankings, and the relationships between them,
can be used to assess management actions for invasive plants. The
integrated cost-effectiveness approach goes well ‘beyond demography’ and
provides additional information for managers; however, cost-effectiveness
needs to be augmented with information on off-target effects and social
impacts of management in order to provide greater benefits for
on-the-ground management.
demographic & management datacost_effectiveness_ranks_Aug 14 2015.csv