14 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities
direct and prioritise management response. It may assess the efficacy, and
contribute to the ongoing refinement, of management that aims to manage those
threats. It may indicate the need for emergency response and provide the evidence
that can justify resourcing of such response. It may provide an opportunity for
public engagement in conservation effort, and a mechanism to report publicly on
the extent of conservation problems and on the relative success, and need for
change, in policy and management.
But notwithstanding such a crucial role, there is no or limited monitoring for
many threatened species, and – where they exist – monitoring programs for
threatened species are often idiosyncratic and of variable quality and utility. This
chapter seeks to provide a framework for assessing the adequacy of monitoring
activity or programs for threatened species. This framework is based on a set of
metrics or characteristics of monitoring activity, recognising that monitoring may
relate to, and deliver on, multiple objectives. This framework is adapted from, but
extends, an assessment of the extent of monitoring for Australia’s threatened
terrestrial mammal species (Woinarski et al. 2014).
The nine evaluation metrics considered – fit-for-purpose, coverage, sampling
periodicity, longevity, design quality, coordination, data availability and reporting,
management linkage, and demographic parameters – and the grades assigned to
them (from 0 least good to 5 most adequate), are described below. Note that it may
not necessarily always be the case that all of these metrics need to be well met for
monitoring to contribute successfully to threatened species recovery. In some
cases, resources may be insufficient to allow for an optimal monitoring program.
However, in such cases, it is still worthwhile for managers to consider these
dimensions and evaluate where compromises in monitoring adequacy may come at
least conservation cost.
Metric 1: Fit-for-purpose
The monitoring protocol and design should have a sampling methodology and
timing targeted optimally to detect the species. The detectability of many plant and
animal species varies significantly according to survey techniques, and monitoring
protocols should use those techniques most apt for the target species.
Furthermore, many species show marked temporal patterns in dispersion (e.g.
maternity colonies for some bat and bird species, seasonal migrations of great
whales and shorebirds), and monitoring may be most effective at sites where
populations are so gathered. Monitoring at breeding sites also provides
information on a species’ distinct management units, whereas monitoring at
mixed-stock breeding aggregations may not provide such information, although
may in some cases be more tractable or useful for other purposes.
Many species may also show marked temporal variation in abundance (e.g. for
many smaller dasyurids, almost all males die following mating; many plant species