Standard Presentation 2024 Australian Marine Sciences Association Annual Meeting combined with NZMSS

Adaptive, empirical ecologically-informed management: from crown-of-thorns starfish to urchins (#208)

Cameron S Fletcher 1 , Mary Bonin 2 , Samuel Matthews 3 , David Williamson 3 , Carla Ewels 4 , Ethan K Waters 4 , Mojtaba Rezvani 5 , Iadine Chades 6 , David A Westcott 7
  1. CSIRO, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
  2. Great Barrier Reef Foundation, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  3. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
  4. James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
  5. CSIRO, Canberra, ACT, Australia
  6. CSIRO, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  7. CSIRO, Atherton, QLD, Australia

Ecosystem management at scale challenges our ability to fully understand ecosystems and collect sufficient data to make ecologically informed management decisions. The challenge is amplified for overabundant species, where decisions must be made urgently to minimise negative impacts. One approach is to structure new management programs with the best ecological knowledge available when they are established, while setting up data collection and analysis to enable adaptive management.

In 2018, Australia’s Crown-Of-Thorns Starfish (COTS) Control Program on the Great Barrier Reef was redesigned using ecologically-informed and adaptive management principles. Since then, the Program has removed more than 1.2m COTS and managed 100,000 hectares of coral. Here, we outline how we have leveraged advanced digital tools to collect data, guide decision making, and adaptively refine key Control Program parameters, such as optimal monitoring frequency for effective decision making, as part of the COTS Control Innovation Program.

In 2021, experience and learnings from the COTS Control Program were translated to design a Centrostephanus Control Program for Tasmania. While the general principals of ecologically-informed management carried over, important ecological and structural differences led to a markedly different Control Program design. We outline the similarities and differences between the two program structures.