394 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities
Discussion
The malleefowl monitoring system has continued, evolved and grown over a period
of 27 years and is now maintained by citizen scientists who collectively undertake
all aspects of the program, from organising and collecting field data to vetting and
validating these data in preparation for analysis. Citizen scientists readily accept
formal data collection protocols and processes provided that they understand why
data are collected in a particular way, that their concerns are heard, and that they
understand their very central role in the program. A key ingredient for the
successful participation of citizen scientists has been the NMRT and a group of
champions who have supported the project, guided others, and lobbied for
widespread participation.
The central tenet of the monitoring program is that monitoring and AM
should be efficient and self-perpetuating. The commitment of volunteers means
that the f low of information is inexpensive and sustainable, rather than relying
on substantial and continuous funding, which is often undependable in
threatened species management, making long-term monitoring so difficult, and
existing long-term datasets so valuable. Funding has, of course, been required to
purchase equipment and progress the monitoring program, especially the
development of the NMMD, data analysis and the AM program. However, in
contrast to the collection of data by citizen scientists, these developments can
often withstand delays and await opportunities, whereas it would be difficult to
resurrect the monitoring program if it lapsed for a few years, causing a loss of
skills and knowledge.
Monitoring the number of active mounds at monitoring sites, rather than egg,
chick or adult survival, does not require specialist skills and/or experience, which
facilitates volunteer participation at both long-term monitoring and AM sites:
observing whether a mound is in use is relatively cheap, repeatable and easily
achieved by volunteers. However, there is a trade-off in monitoring mound activity
as a proxy for population size. Monitoring mound activity may result in time lags
between when a change in a population occurs and when these changes are
actually observed. For example, if the survival of chicks and pre-breeders is
increased (i.e. due to increased rainfall or a reduction in predator densities), this
effect might not translate to increased mound activity until this cohort are old
enough to breed (usually 3–4 years of age).
The malleefowl monitoring program underpins the AM project, which aims to
improve the effectiveness of management. Using a power analysis to assess the
likely performance of the AM program at detecting changes in mound activity
ahead of time was a crucial component of the experimental design. A relatively
large number of AM sites are needed because of the vast distribution of malleefowl
and the high natural variability in mound activity across space and time. As a
result, the AM experiment spans multiple land tenures across four states of
Australia and involves the voluntary participation of numerous land managers,