Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities

2 – A framework for evaluating the adequacy of monitoring programs for threatened species^17

and sample size to readily and reliably detect trends that are of conservation
significance (Woinarski et al. 2004). In many cases, information on statistical
power is not specified in monitoring programs. However, ensuring that a
monitoring program has sufficient statistical power to be able to detect small, but
ecologically important, declines or responses to management intervention may be
particularly important for threatened species, because managers may need early
warning of decline, and may need robust evidence in order to justify the
imposition of remedial management actions.

Score Score basis

5 high statistical power to detect small (e.g. 5%) change in population size over a

timeframe relevant to conservation context

4 sufficient statistical power to reliably detect moderate (e.g. 30% change) in population

size

3 reasonable design but low statistical power (e.g. unlikely to reliably detect 50% change in

population size)

2 rudimentary design but resulting in sufficient records to suggest broad changes in

abundance

1 typically ad hoc with few records

0 no monitoring

Metric 6: Coordination

Monitoring should be coordinated across relevant jurisdictions and stakeholder
groups. The design, analysis and reporting of monitoring programs should be
effectively integrated across a species’ range, for example, by using consistent
methodologies across different areas in different jurisdictions, and databases that
can store and integrate results from separate monitoring components. Where they
exist, recovery teams may be best placed for such coordination of disparate
monitoring activities.
Such coordination is almost default for some highly localised threatened
species occurring in only one jurisdiction with only one responsible management
agenc y.

Score Score basis

5 monitoring activities tightly integrated across sites with unambiguous overall

responsibility and consistent sampling methodologies

4 broad consistency in sampling protocols across sites; some linking of results across

sites

3 some links established between monitoring projects at different sites

2 range of monitoring projects compiled, but no linking of results, and inconsistent

sampling protocols across sites

1 no apparent coordination in monitoring activities, design or reporting

0 no monitoring