IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v222y2011i10p1781-1789.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resource allocation in two species systems: Is it worth acknowledging species interactions?

Author

Listed:
  • Probert, William J.M.
  • Drechsler, Martin
  • Baxter, Peter W.J.
  • Possingham, Hugh P.

Abstract

It is becoming increasingly popular to consider species interactions when managing ecological foodwebs. Such an approach is useful in determining how management can affect multiple species, with either beneficial or detrimental consequences. Identifying such actions is particularly valuable in the context of conservation decision making as funding is severely limited. This paper outlines a new approach that simplifies the resource allocation problem in a two species system for a range of species interactions: independent, mutualism, predator–prey, and competitive exclusion. We assume that both species are endangered and we do not account for decisions over time. We find that optimal funding allocation is to the conservation of the species with the highest marginal gain in expected probability of survival and that, across all except mutualist interaction types, optimal conservation funding allocation differs between species. Loss in efficiency from ignoring species interactions was most severe in predator–prey systems. The funding problem we address, where an ecosystem includes multiple threatened species, will only become more commonplace as increasing numbers of species worldwide become threatened.

Suggested Citation

  • Probert, William J.M. & Drechsler, Martin & Baxter, Peter W.J. & Possingham, Hugh P., 2011. "Resource allocation in two species systems: Is it worth acknowledging species interactions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(10), pages 1781-1789.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:222:y:2011:i:10:p:1781-1789
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380011001074
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wacker, Holger, 1999. "Optimal harvesting of mutualistic ecological systems," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 89-102, January.
    2. Kerrie A. Wilson & Marissa F. McBride & Michael Bode & Hugh P. Possingham, 2006. "Prioritizing global conservation efforts," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7082), pages 337-340, March.
    3. Tu, Pierre N. V. & Wilman, Elizabeth A., 1992. "A generalized predator- prey model: Uncertainty and management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 123-138, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Surun, Clément & Drechsler, Martin, 2018. "Effectiveness of Tradable Permits for the Conservation of Metacommunities With Two Competing Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 189-196.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tibor Neugebauer, 2005. "Bioeconomics Of Sustainable Harvest Of Competing Species: A Comment," Others 0503012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Guillermo J. Martínez Pastur & Dante Loto & Julián Rodríguez-Souilla & Eduarda M. O. Silveira & Juan M. Cellini & Pablo L. Peri, 2024. "Different Approaches of Forest Type Classifications for Argentina Based on Functional Forests and Canopy Cover Composition by Tree Species," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Violaine Tarizzo & Eric Tromeur & Olivier Thébaud & Richard Little & Sarah Jennings & Luc Doyen, 2018. "Risk averse policies foster bio-economic sustainability in mixed fisheries," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2018-07, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    4. Bella, Giovanni, 2007. "A Bug's Life: Competition Among Species Towards the Environment," Natural Resources Management Working Papers 10269, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    6. Lennox, Gareth D. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2011. "Suitability of short or long conservation contracts under ecological and socio-economic uncertainty," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2856-2866.
    7. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Seung Gyu & Roberts, Roland K. & Jung, Suhyun, 2009. "Amenity values of spatial configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the Southern Appalachian Highlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2646-2657, August.
    8. Newman, D.H., 2002. "Forestry's golden rule and the development of the optimal forest rotation literature," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 5-27.
    9. Tara G Martin & Iadine Chadès & Peter Arcese & Peter P Marra & Hugh P Possingham & D Ryan Norris, 2007. "Optimal Conservation of Migratory Species," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-5, August.
    10. Mathieu Bonneau & Régis Sabbadin & Fred A Johnson & Bradley Stith, 2018. "Dynamic minimum set problem for reserve design: Heuristic solutions for large problems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-23, March.
    11. Tromeur, Eric & Doyen, Luc & Tarizzo, Violaine & Little, L. Richard & Jennings, Sarah & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Risk averse policies foster bio-economic sustainability in mixed fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    12. Melstrom, Richard T. & Horan, Richard D., 2012. "Managing Excessive Predation in a Predator-Prey Setting: The Case of Piping Plovers," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123350, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Claron, Charles & Mikou, Mehdi & Levrel, Harold & Tardieu, Léa, 2022. "Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: The case of the Greater Paris metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    14. Quérou, N. & Tomini, A., 2013. "Managing interacting species in unassessed fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 192-201.
    15. N. Quérou & A. Tomini, 2018. "Marine Ecosystem Considerations and Second-Best Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 381-401, June.
    16. Mallory, Mindy L. & Ando, Amy W., 2014. "Implementing efficient conservation portfolio design," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-18.
    17. Johannus Janmaat, 2012. "Fishing in a Shallow Lake: Exploring a Classic Fishery Model in a Habitat with Shallow Lake Dynamics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(2), pages 215-239, February.
    18. Takuya Iwamura & Kerrie A Wilson & Oscar Venter & Hugh P Possingham, 2010. "A Climatic Stability Approach to Prioritizing Global Conservation Investments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-9, November.
    19. Nadine Marshall & Neil Adger & Simon Attwood & Katrina Brown & Charles Crissman & Christopher Cvitanovic & Cassandra De Young & Margaret Gooch & Craig James & Sabine Jessen & Dave Johnson & Paul Marsh, 2017. "Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-9, March.
    20. Daniele Silvestro & Stefano Goria & Thomas Sterner & Alexandre Antonelli, 2022. "Improving biodiversity protection through artificial intelligence," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(5), pages 415-424, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:222:y:2011:i:10:p:1781-1789. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.