Katherine M. O'Donnell

USGS2023

Priority research needs to inform amphibian conservation in the Anthropocene

The problem of global amphibian declines has prompted extensive research over the last three decades. Initially, the focus was on identifying and characterizing the extent of the problem, but more recently efforts have shifted to evidence-based research designed to identify best solutions and to improve conservation outcomes. Despite extensive accumulation of knowledge on amphibian declines, there remain knowledge gaps and disconnects between science and action that hamper our ability to advance conservation efforts. Using input from participants at the ninth World Congress of Herpetology, a U.S. Geological Survey Powell Center symposium, amphibian on-line forums for discussion, the International Union for Conservation of Nature Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Gamete Biobanking group, and respondents to a survey, we developed a list of 25 priority research questions for amphibian conservation at this stage of the Anthropocene. We identified amphibian conservation research priorities while accounting for expected tradeoffs in geographic scope, costs, and the taxonomic breadth of research needs. We aimed to solicit views from individuals rather than organizations while acknowledging inequities in participation. Emerging research priorities (i.e., those under-represented in recently published amphibian conservation literature) were identified, and included the effects of climate change, community-level (rather than single species-level) drivers of declines, methodological improvements for research and monitoring, genomics, and effects of land-use change. Improved inclusion of under-represented members of the amphibian conservation community was also identified as a priority. These research needs represent critical knowledge gaps for amphibian conservation although filling these gaps may not be necessary for many conservation actions.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

USGS2022

Using structured decision making to evaluate potential management responses to detection of dreissenid mussel (Dreissena spp.) environmental DNA

Environmental (e)DNA tools are sensitive and cost-effective for early detection of invasive species. However, the uncertainty associated with the interpretation of positive eDNA detections makes it challenging to determine appropriate natural resource management responses. Multiple sources of error can give rise to positive detections of eDNA in a sample when individuals of that species are not present at the site or a widespread infestation is not imminent. Acting on an erroneous eDNA inference could result in needless costs or reductions in desirable resources. Alternatively, failure to rapidly act on eDNA results that truly indicate invader presence could compound negative impacts and lead to high, long-term costs to manage infestations. We used a structured decision making (SDM) process, which incorporates tradeoffs and uncertainties, to evaluate appropriate response actions following hypothetical eDNA detections of invasive dreissenid mussel ( Dreissena spp.) eDNA in Jordanelle Reservoir, Utah (USA). We worked with decision-makers and stakeholders to identify objectives and discrete management action alternatives to assess consequences and tradeoffs. Alternatives ranged from no action to intensive and expensive control efforts. The best performing alternative was delayed containment described by immediate attempts to confirm the eDNA detections using non-molecular sampling techniques followed by mandatory watercraft exit inspections to prevent dreissenid mussel spread to regional water bodies. Non-molecular sampling increased public support for management by demonstrating a commitment to monitor the invasion state before action, whereas containment decreased likelihood of regional spread to other waters. Delayed containment had the lowest downside risk, and the highest upside gains relative to other alternative actions. Sensitivity analyses showed our results to be robust to parameter and outcome uncertainty.

Management of Biological Invasions↗