434 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities
Monitoring objectives and questions may evolve with time as overarching
management priorities change, questions are answered or new problems emerge
(Lindenmayer and Likens 2009). Insecure funding arrangements or unforeseen
disruptions (e.g. wildfire, change in management) may further require some
f lexibility to be built into monitoring programs to ensure that data quality is not
compromised if monitoring is not conducted systematically. If monitoring
programs change focus, care needs to be taken to ensure the integrity of past and
future studies. This ‘adaptive monitoring’ approach (Lindenmayer and Likens
2009) requires investigating the feasibility of adjusting the existing monitoring
program in terms of meeting statistical, ecological and management requirements.
Importantly, it may involve calibrating new methods to ensure long-term data
integrity, and the addition of experimental treatments to investigate new questions
(e.g. adaptive monitoring and bitou bush at Booderee National Park, Lindenmayer
et al. 2015). Care must be taken to ensure that the monitoring program is planned,
designed and conducted in ways that ensure key questions can be answered with
sufficient statistical rigour.
Principle 4. Ensure good data management and coordination
Data management is a key, but often neglected, stage of developing and maintaining
monitoring programs (Caughlan and Oakley 2001). Its value often becomes
apparent only when data systems fail. For example, inadequate consideration of data
analysis requirements during program design can inhibit inference from the data
(Houston and Hiederer 2009). Similarly, a lack of accounting for the cost of data
management can result in budget blow-outs (Caughlan and Oakley 2001) and
insufficient data security can lead to data loss or damage (Whitlock 2011). A data
management plan includes information on how the data will be stored, accessibility
and availability of the data, analysis methodology and identification of people
responsible for maintaining, accessing and using the data (Vos et al. 2000; Michener
and Brunt 2009). Data management will involve ongoing curation and having
procedures in place to mitigate methodological creep (e.g. technological advances
leading to finer resolution data not being comparable with earlier data). Data
integrity should be regularly scrutinised by conducting quality assurance checks,
and any data weaknesses reported and responded to promptly. Regular analysis and
reporting on trends in the data will provide useful feedback to the participants in
the monitoring program and species management, demonstrating the value of
maintaining good data systems.
Principle 5. Communicate the value
The final principle is a direct plea to all practitioners, scientists and managers
involved in the monitoring of threatened biodiversity to demonstrate and promote
the value of monitoring to ensure support from all stakeholders, and justify existing
or greater levels of resource allocation. Communicating the value of monitoring is