Biological Invasions

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 741–756 | Cite as

Optimal schedule for monitoring a plant incursion when detection and treatment success vary over time

  • Mathieu Bonneau
  • Cindy E. Hauser
  • Nicholas S. G. Williams
  • Roger D. Cousens
Original Paper


Management of an invasive plant species can be viewed as two separate and successive processes. The first, survey, aims to find infested areas and remove individuals. The second, monitoring, consists of repeated visits to these areas in order to prevent possible re-emergence. As detection probability may vary over time, the timing and number of monitoring visits can dramatically impact monitoring efficacy. We explore the optimal timing and number of monitoring visits, by focusing on one infested site. Our decision-analysis framework defines an optimal monitoring schedule which accounts for a time-dependent probability of detection, based on the presence/absence of a flower. We use this framework to investigate the optimal monitoring schedule for Hieracium aurantiacum, an invasive species in the Australian Alps and many other countries. We also perform a sensitivity analysis to draw more general conclusions. For H. aurantiacum eight monitoring visits (compared to 12 visits in the current program) are sufficient to obtain a 99% monitoring efficacy. When four or fewer visits to a site are allowed, it is optimal to visit during the high season, when the weed is likely to initiate flowering. Any extra visits should be scheduled in the early season, before the plants flower. The sensitivity analysis shows that increasing the detection probability early in the season has a greater impact than increasing it late in the season. An effective treatment method increases the value of site visits late in the season, when the detection probability is higher. Our decision-analysis framework can assist invasive species managers to reduce or reallocate management resources by determining the minimum number of monitoring visits required to satisfy an acceptable risk of re-emergence.


Invasive species Hieracium Weed management Monitoring Scheduling Imperfect detection 



We would like to thank the Parks Victoria rangers devoted to the Hawkweed eradication project and particularly Keith Primrose for his constant effort to be a link between manager practice and science. This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Linkage Project (LP100100441). Cindy Hauser was additionally funded by the National Environmental Research Program Environmental Decisions Hub.


  1. Bear JL, Giljohann KM, Cousens RD, Williams SG (2012) The seed ecology of two invasive Hierarcium (Asteraceae) species. Aust J Bot 60:615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burrows GE (2004) The importance of seasonality in the timing of flora surveys in the south and central western slopes of New South Wales. Cunninghamia 8:514–520Google Scholar
  3. Cacho OJ, Spring D, Pheloung P, Hester S (2006) Evaluating the feasibility of eradicating an invasion. Biol Invasions 8:903–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Emry DJ, Alexander HM, Tourtellot MK (2011) Modelling the local spread of invasive plants: importance of including spatial distribution and detectability in management plans. J Appl Ecol 48:1391–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gardener MR, Atkinson R, Rentería JL (2010) Eradications and people: lessons from the plant eradication program in galapagos. Restor Ecol 18(1):20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garrard G, Bekessy SA, McCarthy M, Wintle B (2008) When have we looked hard enough? A novel method for setting minimum survey effort protocols for flora surveys. Austral Ecol 33:986–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garrard G, McCarthy M, Williams N, Bekessy S, Wintle B (2013) A general model of detectability using species traits. Methods Ecol Evol 4:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hauser C, McCarthy A (2009) Streamlining ’search and destroy’: cost-effective surveillance for invasive species management. Ecol Lett 12:683–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hauser CE, Moore JL (2016) Estimating detectability using search experiments. In Detecting and responding to alien plant incursions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 71–75Google Scholar
  10. Hauser CE, Moore JL, Giljohann KM, Garrard GE, McCarthy MA (2012) Designing a detection experiment: tricks and trade-offs. In: Eldershaw V (ed) Proceedings of the 18th Australasian weeds conference. Weed Society of Victoria, Oct 2012, pp 267–272Google Scholar
  11. Hauser CE, Giljohann KM, Moore JL, McCarthy MA, Garrard GE, Kendal D, Williams NSG, Cousens RD (2013) Quantitative measures of colour predict plant detection rates (unpublished data) Google Scholar
  12. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409(19):3578–3594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kéry M, Gregg KB (2003) Effects of life-state on detectability in a demographic study of terrestrial orchid Cleistes bifaria. J Ecol 91:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kroll AJ, Risenhoover K, McBride T, Beach E, Kernohan BJ, Light J, Bach J (2008) Factors influencing stream occupancy and detection probability parameters of stream-associated amphibians in commercial forests of Oregon and Washington, USA. For Ecol Manag 255:3726–3735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mehta SV, Haight RG, Homans FR, Polasky S, Venette RC (2007) Optimal detection and control strategies for invasive species management. Ecol Econ 61:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moore AL, McCarthy MA, Parris KM, Moore JL (2014) The optimal number of surveys when detectability varies. PLoS ONE 9:e115345CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Talancy NW, Bailey LL, Sauer JR, Cook R, Gilbert AT, O’Connell AF Jr (2006) Estimating site occupancy and detection probability parameters for meso- and large mammals in coastal ecosystem. BioOne 70:1625–1633Google Scholar
  18. O’Donnell KM, Semlitsch RD (2015) Advancing terrestrial salamander population ecology: the central role of imperfect detection. J Herpetol 49:533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Donnell KM, Thompson FR, Semlitsch RD (2015) Partitioning detectability components in population subject to within-season temporary emigration using binomial mixture models. PLoS ONE 10:e0117216CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Panetta FD (2007) Evaluation of weed eradication programs: containment and extirpation. Divers Distrib 13:33–41Google Scholar
  21. Panetta FD, Cacho O, Hester S, Sims-Chilton N, Brooks S (2011) Estimating and influencing the duration of weed eradication programmes. J Appl Ecol 48:980–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Regan TJ, Chades I, Possingham HP (2011) Optimally managing under imperfect detection: a method for plant invasions. J Appl Ecol 48:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rout T, Kirkwood R, Sutherland D, Murphy S, McCarthy M (2013) When to declare successful eradication of an invasive predator? Anim Conserv. doi: 10.1111/acv.12065 Google Scholar
  24. Williams NSG, Holland KD (2007) The ecology and invasion history of hawkweeds (hieracium species) in australia. Plant Prot Q 22:76–80Google Scholar
  25. Wintle BA, Kavanagh RP, McCarthy MA, Burgman MA (2005) Estimating and dealing with detectability in occupancy surveys for forest owls and arboreal marsupials. J Wildl Manag 69:905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wintle BA, Walshe T, Parris K, McCarthy M (2012) Designing occupancy surveys and interpreting non-detection when observations are imperfect. Biodivers Res 18:417–424Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathieu Bonneau
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cindy E. Hauser
    • 3
  • Nicholas S. G. Williams
    • 4
  • Roger D. Cousens
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Resource Management and GeographyThe University of MelbourneCarltonAustralia
  2. 2.URZ UR143, INRAPetit-BourgFrance
  3. 3.School of BioSciencesThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.School of Ecosystem and Forest SciencesThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations