128 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities
invertebrates have not been covered in these assessment, but similar reviews for
these groups would be equally valuable.
Chapters 3–7 (and Chapter 8, to some extent) use nine monitoring evaluation
metrics (described in Chapter 2, and brief ly here). Each metric is scored (for each
taxon) using a scale of 0 (no monitoring) to 5 (best). National monitoring programs
are high quality when: they are fit-for-purpose; take place across sites that
represent the threatened entity’s distributional and environmental range; occur
with appropriate periodicity; run for time periods that are long enough to detect
trends; are designed with sufficient statistical power for detecting change; are
coordinated across jurisdictions/organisations/stakeholders; produce monitoring
data that is publicly available and regularly reported. In addition, monitoring
should be clearly linked to management, and monitoring may be better interpreted
when information on demography/life history is collected as well as abundance/
distribution data.
The national assessments in Chapters 3–8 show unambiguously that
monitoring of threatened species and ecological communities in Australia is
markedly inadequate. Scores across groups can only be compared cautiously,
because assessors may have applied the scoring system slightly differently.
However, simple collations show that:
● (^) Depending on the taxonomic group, 21–46% of threatened vertebrates, and
70% of threatened ecological communities, are not monitored at all (Table 9.1).
● (^) Where monitoring occurs, its quality (in terms of national extent and
adequacy) is poor:
➤ (^) For vertebrate groups, the average score for each of nine metrics (on a scale
of 0–5) was 3 or greater in only four cases out of 45 assessments (9 metrics
× 5 vertebrate groups) (Fig. 9.1).
➤ (^) Of the 80 listed ecological communities, only 24 have any monitoring
activity. Of these 24, the monitoring in eight ecological communities is
confined to measuring land cover changes with remote sensing (i.e. no
on-ground assessments). Most of the remaining 16 ecological communities
are ineffectually monitored (poor coverage across the ecological
community range, poor design, no links to management, little data
coordination, availability or reporting) (Table 9.1).
Monitoring quality varies among vertebrate groups. For vertebrates, the mean
quality score for all nine metrics was highest for frogs and birds, followed by
mammals, then fish, with reptiles a distant last (Table 9.1).
Comparing the individual metric scores within and across vertebrate groups
(Fig. 9.1), several patterns emerge:
● (^) Reptile monitoring is exceptionally poor: reptiles score lowest on every metric.