FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1550686545> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1550686545 endingPage "2249" @default.
• W1550686545 startingPage "2244" @default.
• W1550686545 abstract "Threatened species often exist in a small number of isolated subpopulations. Given limitations on conservation spending, we must ask the question: should we put all our eggs in one basket and manage the best quality subpopulation or the subpopulation most likely to benefit from management, or should we hedge our bets and manage both subpopulations? A further complexity arises when we consider that most threatened species are cryptic and their presence in an area can be uncertain as a result of the imperfect nature of most detection methods. Managers of cryptic species thus face several dilemmas: if they are unsure whether a species is present in an area or has been extirpated, should they continue to manage the species in that area or instead invest some of their limited resources in surveying to determine if the species is still present (and viable)? How much negative evidence do they need in order to give up and make the decision to cease management? The ecology and conservation literature present little guidance on how to approach such problems, though some analogous problems have been tackled within a decision theory framework (Gerber et al. 2005; Regan et al. 2006; Wilson et al. 2006). Here we build on lessons from these studies and others investigating optimal conservation decision making (Possingham et al. 2001; Dorazio & Johnson 2003) to develop a coherent decision framework for allocating resources between two subpopulations of a threatened species where we are uncertain about the persistence of the species in our management areas. In this problem we must make a decision about how to allocate finite resources to three separate actions in each subpopulation; management, surveying and doing nothing. Management reduces a subpopulation's risk of extinction. Surveying, while not reducing extinction risk, improves our knowledge about whether the species is present, therefore avoiding costly unnecessary expenditure. Both management and surveying cost money and thus the decision to perform either of these actions in a subpopulation will alter the resources available and therefore the success of the action implemented in the other subpopulation. At any point in time managers will have a belief about whether a subpopulation is still extant. In this paper we assess how our optimal decisions change as a function of those beliefs and the time remaining in the management period. The goal of efficient conservation planning and management is to find a resource allocation strategy, or set of actions, that maximises the net expected long-term benefit. Here the optimal strategy involves a trade-off between the persistence of our subpopulations at the end of the management period, and the impact of our decisions on the probability of subpopulation extinction. We pose this problem as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) and solve a multi time-step scenario using the incremental pruning algorithm (Cassandra et al. 1997). The POMDP algorithm finds an optimal resource allocation each year given the current belief about the state of the species (extant or extinct) in each subpopulation. This paper has two major aims; (i) to extend the framework proposed by Chades et al. (in review) to incorporate two subpopulations of a threatened species, addressing the issue of triage in conservation management, and (ii) to introduce more ecological complexity and realism to the problem by considering subpopulationws of differing habitat quality." @default.
• W1550686545 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1550686545 creator A5023423899 @default.
• W1550686545 creator A5024721432 @default.
• W1550686545 creator A5025024507 @default.
• W1550686545 creator A5047183172 @default.
• W1550686545 creator A5076821763 @default.
• W1550686545 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W1550686545 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1550686545 title "Should I Spread My Risk or Concentrate My Efforts: Is Triage of a Subpopulation Ever the Best Decision?" @default.
• W1550686545 cites W1491973539 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W1500291103 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W1936774573 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W1972214396 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W2001691516 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W2014101946 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W2015776062 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W2053424262 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W2104980790 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W2118536610 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W2138587186 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W2143926952 @default.
• W1550686545 cites W2155187887 @default.
• W1550686545 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1550686545 type Work @default.
• W1550686545 sameAs 1550686545 @default.
• W1550686545 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1550686545 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W1550686545 hasAuthorship W1550686545A5023423899 @default.
• W1550686545 hasAuthorship W1550686545A5024721432 @default.
• W1550686545 hasAuthorship W1550686545A5025024507 @default.
• W1550686545 hasAuthorship W1550686545A5047183172 @default.
• W1550686545 hasAuthorship W1550686545A5076821763 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C125390029 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C185933670 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C193252679 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C24518262 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C70771513 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C104317684 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C107826830 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C112930515 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C125390029 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C144133560 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C162324750 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C185933670 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C18903297 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C193252679 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C24518262 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C41008148 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C55493867 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C70771513 @default.
• W1550686545 hasConceptScore W1550686545C86803240 @default.
• W1550686545 hasLocation W15506865451 @default.
• W1550686545 hasOpenAccess W1550686545 @default.
• W1550686545 hasPrimaryLocation W15506865451 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W1558036051 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W1599486985 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W1747399854 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W1998512218 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W2066990992 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W2090341524 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W2154002209 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W2256137949 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W228889190 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W2734485818 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W2886439790 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W2955293410 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W2982415728 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W3007719057 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W3197101096 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W47701370 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W63041546 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W81111502 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W86065503 @default.
• W1550686545 hasRelatedWork W2133498259 @default.
• W1550686545 hasVolume "17" @default.
• W1550686545 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1550686545 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1550686545 magId "1550686545" @default.
• W1550686545 workType "article" @default.