Monitoring does not always count

McDonald‐Madden, Eve; Baxter, Peter; Fuller, Richard A.; Martin, Tara G.; Game, Edward T.; Montambault, Jensen; Possingham, Hugh P.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.07.002

Cited by 269 publications

(228 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

223

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Adaptive management is a methodological approach that views practices as if they were experiments to be studied, so that the results from one monitoring inform subsequent decisions (McDonald-Madden et al, 2010). To accomplish this, the adaptive management literature advocates that a cyclical approach to management can be adapted as circumstances change and people learn.…”

Section: Promoting Changes In Forest Management Policy and Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Managing forests in a changing world: the need for a systemic approach. A review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim of study: The paper is a scientific commented discussion with the aim of defining a framework which allows both a comprehensive vision of forest dynamics, as well as an adaptive management approach and policy procedures more suited to a changing and inherently unpredictable world.Main results: We identify the main challenges facing forestry in relation to recent developments in forestry thinking, i.e. the paradox of aiming at sustainability in a changing environment, a shifting perception of the relationship between ecological and social systems, the recognition of forest ecosystems as complex adaptive systems, the need for integrating the social and ecological dimensions of forestry into a single framework, and the growing awareness of the importance of the ethical approach to the forest. We propose the concept of "systemic forestry" as a paradigm for better understanding forest dynamics and for guiding management and public actions at various levels. We compare the systemic approach with different silvicultural and forest management approaches which have been proposed in the last decades.Research highlights: Our analysis shows that a systemic approach to forestry has five main consequences: 1. forestry is viewed as a part of landscape dynamics through a multi-sectoral coordination, 2. the logic of action changes from norm to process, 3. conservation is a dynamic search for resilience, 4. multi-functionality is achieved through a multi-entries approach integrating ecological, social and economic components of sustainability, 5. forestry institutions are reframed to address the issue of changing interactions among actors, 6. a change in the ethical approach to the forest is needed.

show abstract

Section: Promoting Changes In Forest Management Policy and Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Managing forests in a changing world: the need for a systemic approach. A review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In principle, technologies such as global positioning system (GPS) collars and satellite imagery might allow long-term data to be collected for other species in the future (9). However, the tradeoffs arising from any large-scale investment in long-term monitoring should always be considered (10). In particular, managers should seek to determine whether the benefits gained from understanding long-term evolutionary effects outweigh those that could be achieved if resources were invested to reduce uncertainties in other components of the harvesting system (e.g., the behavior of resource users, see below).…”

Section: Long-term Individual-based Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing wildlife for ecological, socioeconomic, and evolutionary sustainability

Keane

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective harvesting of animals is widespread throughout the marine, freshwater, and terrestrial environments and affects a diverse list of species, including fish, mammals, birds, and reptiles (1). Such harvesting can cause changes in the distribution of phenotypic traits within target populations, often with undesirable biological and economic consequences. For example, selective harvesting has been linked to declines in the size of trophy horns in two antelope species in Zimbabwe (2) and of antlers in red deer (Cervus elaphus) in Europe (3, 4), as well as to earlier maturation in some fish species (5). However, the extent to which these changes are the result of ecological or evolutionary mechanisms has been much debated (1). In PNAS, Traill et al. (6) approach this question from a novel angle by developing stochastic two-sex integral projection models (IPMs) capable of differentiating between the ecological and evolutionary effects of selective harvest. Their finding that evolutionary mechanisms contribute relatively little to observed changes in the body mass of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) is an intriguing contribution to the debate over the evolutionary consequences of selective offtake, contradicting earlier studies (7). In addition, Traill et al. (6) suggest that their method could be adopted more widely to allow wildlife managers and conservation practitioners to incorporate the potential evolutionary effects of selective harvesting into their management planning. Here, we explore this suggestion by discussing key challenges that would need to be addressed to translate the approach by Traill et al. (6) from a purely biological model to an effective management model, focusing particularly on issues of data availability and the incorporation of different forms of uncertainty

show abstract

“…Arctic researchers measuring biological variables face the difficulty of continuously sampling remote environments while confronting and overcoming financial constraints and technical difficulties compared to measuring chemical and physical environmental indices (e.g., Mallory et al 2006). As a result of funding cycles, currently the majority of time series data are peppered with spatial and temporal gaps (McDonald-Madden et al 2010). For example, migratory tundra caribou herds generally cycle every 40-50 years.…”

Section: Scientific Value Of Long-term Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conservation monitoring provides information needed to improve the adaptive management process and inform policy (McDonald-Madden et al 2010). For example, conventional approaches to marine fisheries management have not performed as needed (Worm et al 2009) resulting in a call for innovative approaches including a more holistic ecosystem approach to management (Pikitch et al 2004).…”

Section: How Do the Data Help In Developing Policy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Time series data for Canadian arctic vertebrates: IPY contributions to science, management, and policy

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Monitoring does not always count

Cited by 269 publications

References 7 publications

Managing forests in a changing world: the need for a systemic approach. A review

Managing forests in a changing world: the need for a systemic approach. A review

Managing wildlife for ecological, socioeconomic, and evolutionary sustainability

Time series data for Canadian arctic vertebrates: IPY contributions to science, management, and policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About