Using digital data collection tools to improve overall cost-efficiency and provide timely analysis for decision making during invasive species eradication campaigns
David J. Will A C , Karl J. Campbell A B and Nick D. Holmes AA Island Conservation, 2161 Delaware Ave Suite A, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA.
B School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: david.will@islandconservation.org
Wildlife Research 41(6) 499-509 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR13178
Submitted: 19 October 2014 Accepted: 15 November 2014 Published: 4 March 2015
Abstract
Context: Worldwide, invasive vertebrate eradication campaigns are increasing in scale and complexity, requiring improved decision making tools to achieve and validate success. For managers of these campaigns, gaining access to timely summaries of field data can increase cost-efficiency and the likelihood of success, particularly for successive control-event style eradications. Conventional data collection techniques can be time intensive and burdensome to process. Recent advances in digital tools can reduce the time required to collect and process field information. Through timely analysis, efficiently collected data can inform decision making for managers both tactically, such as where to prioritise search effort, and strategically, such as when to transition from the eradication phase to confirmation monitoring.
Aims: We highlighted the advantages of using digital data collection tools, particularly the potential for reduced project costs through a decrease in effort and the ability to increase eradication efficiency by enabling explicit data-informed decision making.
Methods: We designed and utilised digital data collection tools, relational databases and a suite of analyses during two different eradication campaigns to inform management decisions: a feral cat eradication utilising trapping, and a rodent eradication using bait stations.
Key results: By using digital data collection during a 2-year long cat eradication, we experienced an 89% reduction in data collection effort and an estimated USD42 845 reduction in total costs compared with conventional paper methods. During a 2-month rodent bait station eradication, we experienced an 84% reduction in data collection effort and an estimated USD4525 increase in total costs.
Conclusions: Despite high initial capital costs, digital data collection systems provide increasing economics as the duration and scale of the campaign increases. Initial investments can be recouped by reusing equipment and software on subsequent projects, making digital data collection more cost-effective for programs contemplating multiple eradications.
Implications: With proper pre-planning, digital data collection systems can be integrated with quantitative models that generate timely forecasts of the effort required to remove all target animals and estimate the probability that eradication has been achieved to a desired level of confidence, thus improving decision making power and further reducing total project costs.
References
Ball, S., Ramsey, D. S. L., Nugent, G., Warburton, B., and Efford, M. (2005). Design the collection process in order to reduce respondent burden and collection cost, and to maximise timeliness and data accuracy. Wildlife Research 32, 217–227.| Design the collection process in order to reduce respondent burden and collection cost, and to maximise timeliness and data accuracy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bellingham, P. J., Towns, D. R., Cameron, E. K., Davis, J. J., Wardle, D. A., Wilmshurst, J. M., and Mulder, C. P. H. (2010). New Zealand island restoration: seabirds, predators, and the importance of history. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34, 115–136.
Campbell, K. J., Harper, G., Algar, D., Hanson, C. C., Keitt, B. S., and Robinson, S. (2011). Review of feral cat eradications on islands. In ‘Island Invasives: Eradication and Management’. (Eds C. R. Veitch, M. N. Clout and D. R. Towns.) pp. 37–46. (IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.)
Clavero, M., and Garcia-Berthou, E. (2005). Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20, 110.
| Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Donlan, C. J., Tershy, B. R., Campbell, K. J., and Cruz, F. (2003). Research for requiems: the need for more collaborative action in eradication of invasive species. Conservation Biology 17, 1850–1851.
| Research for requiems: the need for more collaborative action in eradication of invasive species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Garcia-Molina, H., Ullman, J. D., and Widom, J. (Eds) (2008) ‘Database Systems: The Complete Book.’ (Prentice Hall Press: Upper Saddle River, NJ.)
Gill, C. (2012). Night birds returning: restoration of ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus) habitat on Bischof and Arichika Islands. Prepared for Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site. (Coastal Conservation: Skidegate, BC.)
Hanson, C. C., Campbell, K. J., Bonham, J. E., Keitt, B. S., Little, A. E., and Smith, G. (2010). The removal of feral cats from San Nicolas Island: methodology. In ‘Proceedings of the 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M. Timm and K. A. Fagerstone.) pp. 72–78. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Howald, G., Donlan, C. J., Galván, J. P., Parkes, J., Samaniego, A., Wang, Y., Veitch, D., Genovesi, P., Pascal, M., Saunders, A., and Tershy, B. (2007). Invasive rodent eradication on islands. Conservation Biology 21, 1258–1268.
| Invasive rodent eradication on islands.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17883491PubMed |
Inman-Narahari, F., Giardina, C., Ostertag, R., Cordell, S., and Sack, L. (2010). Digital data collection in forest dynamics plots. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1, 274–279.
Jolley, W. J., Campbell, K. J., Holmes, N. D., Garcelon, D. K., Hanson, C. C., Will, D., Keitt, B. S., Smith, G., and Little, A. E. (2012). Reducing the impacts of leg hold trapping on critically endangered foxes by modified traps and conditioned trap aversion on San Nicolas Island, California USA. Conservation Evidence 9, 43–49.
Keitt, B., Campbell, K., Saunders, A., Clout, M., Wang, Y., Heinz, R., Newton, K., and Tershy, B. (2011). The Global Islands Invasive Vertebrate Eradication Database: a tool to improve and facilitate restoration of island ecosystems. In ‘Island Invasives: Eradication and Management’. (Eds C. R. Veitch, M. N. Clout and D. R. Towns.) pp. 74–77. (IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.)
Lavoie, C., Donlan, C. J., Campbell, K. J., Cruz, F., and Carrion, G. V. (2007). Geographic tools for eradication programs of insular non-native mammals. Biological Invasions 9, 139–148.
| Geographic tools for eradication programs of insular non-native mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morrison, S. A., Macdonald, N., Walker, K., Lozier, L., and Shaw, M. R. (2007). Facing the dilemma at eradication’s end: uncertainty of absence and the Lazarus effect. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5, 271–276.
| Facing the dilemma at eradication’s end: uncertainty of absence and the Lazarus effect.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Parkes, J. P. (2011). Start and stop rules in pest eradication. Kararehe Kino Vertebrate Pest Research 17, 17.
Parkes, J. P., Fisher, P., Robinson, S., and Aguirre-Muñoz, A. (2014). Eradication of feral cats from large islands: an assessment of the effort required for success. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 38, .
DIISE Partners (2014). The Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications. Developed by Island Conservation, Coastal Conservation Action Laboratory UCSC, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland and Landcare Research New Zealand. Available at http://diise.islandconservation.org
Ramsey, D. S. L., and Will, D. (2012). Framework for undertaking eradication programs on insular populations of vertebrate pests. Unpublished Client Report for Island Conservation. (Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Envionment: Melbourne.)
Ramsey, D. S. L., Parkes, J. P., and Morrison, S. A. (2009). Quantifying eradication success: the removal of feral pigs from Santa Cruz Island, California. Conservation Biology 23, 449–459.
| Quantifying eradication success: the removal of feral pigs from Santa Cruz Island, California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ramsey, D. S. L., Parkes, J. P., Will, D. J., Hanson, C. C., and Campbell, K. J. (2011). Quantifying the success of feral cat eradication, San Nicolas Island, California. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35, 163–173.
Ricketts, T. H., Dinerstein, E., Boucher, T., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., Morrison, J., Parr, M., Pilgrim, J. D., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Sechrest, W., Wallace, G. E., Berlin, K., Bielby, J., Burgess, N. D., Church, D. R., Cox, N., Knox, D., Loucks, C., Luck, G. W., Master, L. L., Moore, R., Naidoo, R., Ridgely, R., Schatz, G. E., Shire, G., Strand, H., Wettengel, W., and Wikramanayake, E. (2005). Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, 18497–18501.
| Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28Xpt1Kr&md5=73ccbdf91fbb7c90a5259544a2ed8a4cCAS | 16344485PubMed |
Samaniego-Herrera, A., Anderson, D. P., Parkes, J. P., Aguirre-Muñoz, A., and Lukacs, P. (2013). Rapid assessment of rat eradication after aerial baiting. Journal of Applied Ecology 50, 1415–1421.
| Rapid assessment of rat eradication after aerial baiting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stoleson, S. H., Kirschbaum, K. J., Frank, J., and Atwood, C. J. (2004). Integrating GPS, GIS, and avian call-response surveys using Pocket PCs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, 1309–1312.
| Integrating GPS, GIS, and avian call-response surveys using Pocket PCs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thomas, B. W., and Taylor, R. H. (2002). A history of ground-based rodent eradication techniques developed in New Zealand, 1959–1993. In ‘Turning the Tide: the Eeradication of Invasive Species’ (2002). (Eds C. R Veitch and M. N Clout.) pp. 301–310. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commision No. 27.
Travaini, A., Bustamante, J., Rodríguez, A., Zapata, S., Procopio, D., Pedrana, J., and Martínez Peck, R. (2007). An integrated framework to map animal distributions in large and remote regions. Diversity & Distributions 13, 289–298.
| An integrated framework to map animal distributions in large and remote regions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
USFWS (2009). Final environmental assessment for the restoration of San Nicolas Island’s seabirds and protection of other native fauna by removing feral cats. Report on behalf of the Montrose Natural Resources Trustee Council and U.S. Navy. (US Fish and Wildlife Service: Sacramento, CA.)
Van Tamelen, P. (2004). A comparison of obtaining field data using electronic and written methods. Fisheries Research 69, 123–130.
| A comparison of obtaining field data using electronic and written methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Waddle, H. J., Rice, K. G., and Percival, F. H. (2003). Using personal digital assistants to collect wildlife field data. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 306–308.
Wagtendonk, A. J., and De Jeu, R. A. M. (2007). Sensible field computing: Evaluating the use of mobile GIS methods in scientific fieldwork. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 73, 651–662.
| Sensible field computing: Evaluating the use of mobile GIS methods in scientific fieldwork.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Will, D. J., Hanson, C. C., Campbell, K. J., Garcelon, D. K., and Keitt, B. S. (2010). A trap monitoring system to enhance efficiency of feral cat eradication and minimise adverse effects on non-target endemic species on San Nicolas Island. In ‘Proceedings of the 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M Timm and K. A Fagerstone.) pp. 79–85. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
