Get access

Improving decisions for invasive species management: reformulation and extensions of the Panetta–Lawes eradication graph

Authors

  • Mark A. Burgman,

    Corresponding author
    • Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michael A. McCarthy,

    1. Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Andrew Robinson,

    1. Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
    2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Susan M. Hester,

    1. UNE Business School, Economics and Public Policy, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Marissa F. McBride,

    1. Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jane Elith,

    1. Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • F. Dane Panetta

    1. Biosecurity Queensland, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Ecosciences Precinct, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

Correspondence: Mark Burgman, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010 Australia.

E-mail: markab@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

Aim

Effective decisions for managing invasive species depend on feedback about the progress of eradication efforts. Panetta & Lawes (2007) developed the eradograph, an intuitive graphical tool that summarizes the temporal trajectories of delimitation and extirpation to support decision-making. We correct and extend the tool, which was affected by incompatibilities in the units used to measure these features that made the axes impossible to interpret biologically.

Location

Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, Australia.

Methods

Panetta and Lawes’ approach represented delimitation with estimates of the changes in the area known to be infested and extirpation with changes in the mean time since the last detection. We retain the original structure but propose different metrics that improve biological interpretability. We illustrate the methods with a hypothetical example and real examples of invasion and treatment of branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa L.) and the guava rust complex (Puccinia psidii (Winter 1884)) in Australia.

Results

These examples illustrate the potential of the tool to guide decisions about the effectiveness of search and control activities.

Main conclusions

The eradograph is a graphical data summary tool that provides insight into the progress of eradication. Our correction and extension of the tool make it easier to interpret and provide managers with better decision support.

Ancillary