Monitoring species: Are we looking long enough?

December 5, 2018, American Institute of Biological Sciences

The conservation of animals relies heavily on estimates of their numbers. Without knowing how many individuals there are, it is impossible to know whether a population is thriving or dying out—and whether conservation efforts are getting the job done. But making those estimates is no mean feat, reports Easton R. White of the Center for Population Biology at the University of California, Davis, writing in BioScience. Unfortunately, he says, many monitoring periods of threatened species are short, a result of "short funding cycles and typical experimental time frames."

Perhaps more problematic, monitoring periods used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and other organizations charged with evaluating are crudely determined: "For many populations, the IUCN criteria suggest that more years than necessary are required to assess a as vulnerable. Conversely, for other populations, the IUCN criteria suggest sampling times that are less than the minimum time required for statistical power."

Statistical power, explains White, is the probability of detecting a trend if it actually exists, and using appropriately powered protocols will offer a truer representation of population health. With poorly powered monitoring, conservationists might not know, for instance, whether an effort to restore a was succeeding or leaving it in peril.

But what sampling period, precisely, is required for monitoring populations over time? White argues that according to his data, "72% of time series required at least 10 years of continuous in order to achieve a high level of statistical power."

Efforts to quantify necessary sampling periods are not unheard of, but this one, says White, constitutes the "first attempt to document the minimum sampling requirements for such a wide diversity and number of species." Indeed, White's analysis comprises 822 in total and stands to upend traditional measurement protocols, which typically rely on "rules of thumb" rather than statistical power. "These results are evidence against overly simplified measures of minimum sampling time based on generation length or other life-history traits, such as those of the IUCN criteria." White argues that considering statistical power in sampling is essential to understanding population trends—but are conservation organizations ready to follow suit? Only time will tell.

Explore further: Contrary to government report, orangutans continue to decline

More information: Easton R White, Minimum Time Required to Detect Population Trends: The Need for Long-Term Monitoring Programs, BioScience (2018). DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy144

Related Stories

Contrary to government report, orangutans continue to decline

November 5, 2018

A recent report by the Government of Indonesia claiming an increase in orangutan populations of more than 10 percent from 2015 to 2017 is at odds with many recently published and peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject, ...

Researchers develop new approach to conserving tree species

September 11, 2018

Globally, forest trees are increasingly at risk from habitat destruction, pests and disease, and a changing climate. But the guidelines for effective preservation of a tree species' genetic diversity and adaptive potential ...

Recommended for you

An exoplanet with an 11-hour orbit

February 22, 2019

The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) was launched on April 18 of last year with the primary objective of discovering transiting planets smaller than Neptune around stars bright enough for spectroscopic investigations ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.