Using Decision Analysis to Determine the Feasibility of a Conservation Translocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation translocations, intentional movements of species to protect against extinction, have become widespread in recent decades and are projected to increase further as biodiversity loss continues worldwide. The literature abounds with analyses to inform translocations and assess whether they are successful, but the fundamental question of whether they should be initiated at all is rarely addressed formally. We used decision analysis to assess northern leopard frog reintroduction in northern Idaho, with success defined as a population that persists for at least 50 years. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game was the decision maker (i.e., the agency that will use this assessment to inform their decisions). Stakeholders from government, indigenous groups, academia, land management agencies, and conservation organizations also participated. We built an age-structured population model to predict how management alternatives would affect probability of success. In the model, we explicitly represented epistemic uncertainty around a success criterion (probability of persistence) characterized by aleatory uncertainty. For the leading alternative, the mean probability of persistence was 40%. The distribution of the modelling results was bimodal, with most parameter combinations resulting in either very low (<5%) or relatively high (>95%) probabilities of success. Along with other considerations, including cost, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game will use this assessment to inform a decision regarding reintroduction of northern leopard frogs. Conservation translocations may benefit greatly from more widespread use of decision analysis to counter the complexity and uncertainty inherent in these decisions. History: This paper has been accepted for the Decision Analysis Special Issue on Decision Analysis to Advance Environmental Sustainability. Funding: This work was supported by the Wilder Institute/Calgary Zoo, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [Grant F18AS00095], the NSF Idaho EPSCoR Program and the National Science Foundation [Grant OIA-1757324], and the Hunt Family Foundation. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.0472 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".