18 – Designing a monitoring framework for Australian Wildlife Conservancy^245AWC ecologists have developed one or more conceptual models for each
property to help identify attributes to monitor for Ecohealth (Fig. 18.3). These
models are developed from an understanding of ecological principles, patterns and
processes, and from evidence derived from numerous research projects both in
Australia and overseas.
Selecting indicators
Priorities for monitoring
A challenging question for any monitoring program is: ‘which species, vegetation
communities and threats should be reported on?’ Biodiversity encompasses
everything from genes through species to ecosystems, as well as their interactions.
A truly comprehensive biodiversity monitoring program would require a vast
investment of resources, even for one property: for example, AWC’s Brooklyn
wildlife sanctuary in north-east Australia supports over 500 vertebrate and 1500
plant species, potentially tens of thousands of invertebrate species (most not
described), as well as diverse assemblages of fungi and microorganisms, all with
genetic variation within each species.
Consequently, biodiversity monitoring programs need to prioritise effort.
Krebs (2012), who has run a monitoring program for over 40 years in the Canadian
Yukon, says simply ‘you cannot do everything so decide what is important’. Similar
advice is given by Lindenmayer et al. (2015), who suggest ‘rather than monitoring
many things poorly, we should strive to monitor a few things well’.
AWC’s monitoring program focuses on key conservation assets, as well as
threats to those assets. Key assets include native species that:
● (^) are threatened or at risk of decline
● (^) play an important ecological role (e.g. top predators or other strong drivers of
ecosystem function)
● (^) are the focus of management intervention (e.g. reintroduced species).
For example, monitoring programs developed for AWC’s wildlife sanctuaries
in northern Australia focus on key assets and threats identified in Fig. 18.3. These
include species and guilds vulnerable to decline (e.g. northern quoll Dasyurus
hallucatus, monitored at Brooklyn, Mornington–Marion Downs and Charnley
River–Artesian Range; riparian birds such as purple-crowned fairy-wren,
monitored at Mornington-Marion Downs), top predators (e.g. dingoes Canis dingo,
monitored on all AWC properties) and several regionally endemic vertebrates such
as Cape York rock-wallaby Petrogale coensis, monitored at Piccaninny Plains. Key
threats monitored across AWC’s wildlife sanctuaries in northern Australia include
feral cats, feral herbivores, weeds and changed fire regimes (Fig. 18.4).
The selection of attributes for intensive monitoring depends on consideration
of survey costs and feasibility, as well as the need to obtain sufficient data to have