Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Feb 12;15(2):e0228742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228742

Implications of the prevalence and magnitude of sustained declines for determining a minimum threshold for favourable population size

Rhys E Green 1,2, Gillian Gilbert 3,*, Jeremy D Wilson 4, Kate Jennings 5
Editor: Floyd W Weckerly6
PMCID: PMC7015407  PMID: 32050003

Abstract

We propose a new approach to quantifying a minimum threshold value for the size of an animal population, below which that population might be categorised as having unfavourable status. Under European Union law, the concept of Favourable Conservation Status requires assessment of populations as having favourable or unfavourable status, but quantitative methods for such assessments have not yet been developed. One population threshold that is well established in conservation biology is the minimum viable population (MVP) defined as the size of a small but stable population with an acceptably low risk of extinction within a specified period. Our approach combines this small-population paradigm MVP concept with a multiplier, which is a factor by which the MVP is multiplied to allow for the risk of a sustained future decline. We demonstrate this approach using data on UK breeding bird population sizes. We used 43-year time-series data for 189 species and a qualitative assessment of population trends over almost 200 years for 229 species to examine the prevalence, duration and magnitude of sustained population declines. Our study addressed the problem of underestimation of the duration and magnitude of declines caused by short runs of monitoring data by allowing for the truncation of time series. The multiplier was derived from probability distributions of decline magnitudes within a given period, adjusted for truncation. Over a surveillance period of 100 years, we estimated that there was a 10% risk across species that a sustained population decline of at least sixteen-fold would begin. We therefore suggest that, in this case, a factor of 16 could be used as the multiplier of small-population MVPs to obtain minimum threshold population sizes for favourable status. We propose this ‘MVP Multiplier’ method as a new and robust approach to obtaining minimum threshold population sizes which integrates the concepts of small-population and declining-population paradigms. The minimum threshold value we propose is intended for use alongside a range of other measures to enable overall assessments of favourable conservation status.

Introduction

Biodiversity is under unprecedented global pressure from anthropogenic change. Declines, extirpations and extinctions of populations of wild species are occurring widely [1,2]. Given that conservation resources are limited, efficient quantitative methods are needed to decide whether a species’ population and habitats are in a healthy state, and what the desired outcome of conservation efforts should be [3,4]. National and international environmental laws may require assessments of status of populations of wild species as being, for example, ‘favourable’ [5, 6] or ‘recovered’ [7, 8, 9]. For example, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the United States [7], the Habitats [10], and Birds [11] Directives in the European Union and the Bonn Convention [12] globally, require such assessments. Such assessments can also provide a rationale for the prioritisation of conservation action [7,8,10,11]. However, these terms tend not to have consistent quantitative definitions. In our view, there is not yet any adequate, quantitative method to calculate a threshold for favourable population size to contribute to wider assessments of species’ conservation status. It has been suggested that a favourable population might be attained when the population of a species in a region is at or close to its carrying capacity under land cover conditions which are ideal for it [5, 13, 14]. However, this is not a workable approach because it ignores trade-offs among species with contrasting requirements in any fixed land area. Under this potential carrying capacity approach, actions required to deliver a favourable population outcome for one set of species are likely to make conditions unfavourable for others with contrasting habitat requirements. We do not see a rational way to reconcile these conflicts among the contrasting ideal requirements of species. Additional difficulties in using the carrying capacity approach for decisions on favourable status have been considered by Trouwborst et al. [15].

Another approach is to define acceptable population targets by reference to past populations. For example, in the U.S. and Canada, numerical population targets are set for all bird species of continental and regional importance within the Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plans [16]. The targets are set to reinstate what the national population would have been 30 years ago, with the baseline population estimates and trends being derived from distribution and abundance data [16]. This approach is pragmatic, but susceptible to the shifting baseline syndrome, in which what is deemed acceptable is defined by reference to a purely arbitrary status in the recent past, when species’ populations may already have been depleted [17]. Because it uses measurements of declines over a relatively short timescale, this approach does not account for declines occurring over longer periods.

Threshold measures of favourable population size, which do not involve ideal carrying capacity or arbitrary baselines in the recent past, may use estimates of minimum viable population size (MVP). This approach involves maintaining population size at a level which keeps the risk of population extinction below an acceptable threshold. If data on density dependence and the effects of environmental and demographic stochasticity on demographic rates, population growth rate and carrying capacity are available over a sufficiently long interval, a population viability analysis can be performed to estimate the long-term probability of extinction. However, such detailed and long-term datasets are extremely rare. More often, there are sufficient data to model the probability of extinction based upon short runs of data for periods when population size shows little or no consistent trend. This situation is described by the small-population paradigm of Caughley [18], in which a minimum threshold population size can be defined, above which there would be an acceptably low risk of extinction within a defined period. Under this paradigm, a population above the MVP, with mean demographic rates sufficient to allow it to be stable, would probably persist in the long-term, whereas one below the MVP with the same mean demographic rates would be unacceptably liable to decline to extinction because of environmental and demographic stochasticity. However, models fitted to such short runs of data are likely to underestimate the effects of sustained population declines caused by long-term deterioration in environmental conditions. We therefore suggest that the threshold for favourable population size should certainly be greater than this small-population paradigm MVP, because future adverse changes in external factors affecting a small stable population could cause it to undergo a sustained and unforeseen decline. How much greater than the small-population paradigm MVP should that threshold be? Clearly, the answer depends upon the frequency and magnitude of unforeseen sustained population declines in the real world. In this paper, we focus on developing a standardised method for establishing a factor by which a species-specific MVP should be multiplied to protect against unforeseen future declines. To do this, we use data on observed sustained population declines of wild birds in the UK to estimate the value of this factor or multiplier. Although this illustrative example involves birds, we suggest that our approach could also be applied to other taxa for which long-term population data exist, such as the large number of vertebrate species covered by population time series in the Living Planet Index [19]

Methods

Implications of truncation in time-series data

Periods over which animal population sizes are measured repeatedly using comparable methods usually span a few decades at best, which is short relative to the duration of some declines. Our main analytical challenge was to develop methods to allow for such data truncation and thus avoid underestimation of the prevalence and magnitude of declines of long duration. We achieved this by calibrating results from detailed, quantitative, but shorter-term trend data (43 years) [20] against data from a qualitative survey of population trends over almost 200 years [21].

Quantitative data on breeding bird populations in the UK

We used breeding bird population data from the UK, where there is a relatively long history of quantitative bird population monitoring. The dataset we used was originally compiled to assess the conservation status of all UK breeding bird species [20] and covers the period 1970 to 2013. Annual population estimates or population indices believed to be directly proportional to population size were available for many species, but species with occasional national surveys at longer intervals were also included. The results we used were smoothed trends fitted to annual data from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Common Birds Census (CBC) and the BTO/JNCC/Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) [22], annual data from the Rare Breeding Birds Panel [23], and national population estimates from surveys of single species, which were typically undertaken at intervals of at least several years [20]. The decline data used are in supporting information S1 Table.

We analysed data for 189 species native to the UK. The beginning and end of each time series was taken to be the first tinitial and last tlast years with a population index or estimate, so that (tlast—tinitial) defines the surveillance period. Surveillance periods were 20 years or more for 167 species and covered the whole 43-year period 1970–2013 for 129 species. We then used these data (i) to identify sustained population declines (SPDs) and (ii) to quantify their attributes (duration and magnitude) and the extent to which these estimates were affected by data truncation, and (iii) to then account for the effect of truncation on SPD attributes.

Identification of sustained population declines

The surveillance periods were searched for SPDs, which we defined using the following rules. We identified the longest period in the series, subject to a minimum of 10 years, in which the population or index nstart at the beginning of the period tstart was larger than the population nstop at the end of the period tstop, and with all the intervening population values within the period being smaller than nstart. We omitted data for two species for which the duration of the time series was fewer than ten years, leaving 187 species for further analysis. If such a period was identified it was considered a candidate SPD and was evaluated against the following additional criteria. Beginning at tstart, the candidate period was searched until a population size value occurred that was smaller than the next value in the series. This value was termed nlow and the year in which it occurred was termed tlow. If values of n in all the years of the candidate decline period after tlow remained above nlow the decline was deemed to have ended at year tlow. The population at the end of the sustained decline nstop was then set at nlow and the year of cessation of the decline tstop was taken to be tlow. Otherwise, the decline was deemed to have continued beyond tlow. In that case, the process was repeated until conditions were satisfied for the end of the decline or the end of the candidate SPD was reached. Once the end of an SPD was identified, the procedure described above was repeated on all the later years of the time series to identify any further candidate SPDs. All candidate SPDs reaching the arbitrary minimum duration of 10 years were then confirmed as SPDs, with more than one SPD possible for each species.

Some SPDs identified by this method might have begun before tstart or ended after tstop, but this may not have been detected because the period of surveillance was short. To take this into account, we identified those SPDs for which the start time tstart occurred fewer than five years after tinitial, or ended fewer than five years before tlast, as having uncertain duration and magnitude, with their calculated magnitudes and durations therefore being minima because of left-censoring of the data, right-censoring or both. Our analyses of SPD duration, taking censoring into account, are analogous to survival analyses with censoring (see Kalbfleisch [24]). In this case, the persistence of an ongoing SPD from one year to the next can be regarded as equivalent to the survival of an individual.

Attributes of sustained population declines

We detected a total of 82 SPDs, involving 80 species. For most species there was one SPD, but two SPDs were detected for two species. It was possible to define the start of 43 of the 82 SPDs, with the remaining 39 declines already being in progress at the start of the time series or beginning within five years. For 46 of the 82 SPDs, including 25 of the 43 with defined start dates, the end of the decline was not well-defined because the apparent stop date (tstop) was within five years of the end of the time series (tend), which we took to indicate that there was insufficient evidence that the decline had stopped. Hence, there were only 18 SPDs (22%) for which both start and stop dates were well-defined, and were thus complete. The remainder were classified as truncated, and hence their apparent durations and magnitudes were minima.

Finally, whether complete or truncated, we defined the magnitude m of an SPD as the factor by which population size was estimated to have declined, nstart/nstop, using the last year with a population greater than zero as the denominator in cases where the population declined to extinction. The duration of the SPD was taken to be tstop—tstart.

Analysis of frequency distribution of SPD durations to account for truncated declines

Having begun, an SPD might be assumed to have a constant annual probability of ending in any given year. If that was so, it would allow a simple statistical description of the distribution of SPD durations in which the probability density function f(d) of SPD duration d is modelled as the exponential decay function,

f(d)=(1θ)exp(θd),

where θ is the annual probability that an ongoing SPD comes to an end because the population becomes stable or starts to increase. If the assumption of exponential decay is an acceptable approximation, it would then be possible to use data on all SPDs to estimate θ, regardless of whether the start date of the SPD was known. We tested this assumption by plotting a Kaplan-Meier graph of the proportion of the 43 declines with known starts for which the decline was still in progress in each successive year. We also estimated the annual probability of a decline stopping under our hypothesis of a fixed annual probability by the maximum-likelihood method of Kalbfleisch [24] for right-censored lifetimes. Both the Kaplan-Meier plot and maximum-likelihood analysis allow for right-censoring caused by truncation at the end of the time series. We used a χ2 test to compare observed and expected numbers of declines in each of three categories of duration (10–13, 14–19 and 20–34 years), defined to avoid expected frequencies per class of fewer than five. The purpose of this was to test the assumption that the cessation rate of SPDs could reasonably be modelled using the exponential decay function. Having found that the exponential model fitted complete SPDs reasonably well (see Results), we used the maximum-likelihood method of Kalbfleisch [24] to estimate θ from all 82 SPDs, including those with uncertain start dates. We estimated the arithmetic mean duration of SPDs as −1/loge(1−θ)

Analysis of frequency distribution of SPD magnitudes to account for truncated declines

We plotted the relationship between SPD magnitude and duration for all 82 SPDs. We considered this acceptable because the mean annual rate of population decline v, estimated for a given SPD as

v=1m(1/(tstoptstart))

did not differ significantly between complete (N = 18) and truncated (N = 64) SPDs (Mann-Whitney U test, U = 453, P = 0.168). Neither was the mean annual rate of population decline significantly correlated with decline duration (Spearman rank correlation rS = -0.020, P = 0.857). Not surprisingly, long SPDs had larger magnitudes (m) than short SPDs (rS = 0.491, P < 0.0001). This lack of dependence of v on duration allows us to model decline rates and SPD cessation rates separately and combine the results later to model decline magnitudes.

The values of v appeared to be log-normally distributed and this was tested and supported by estimating the least squares mean and standard deviation of logev and comparing the observed and modelled cumulative distributions using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample test of goodness-of-fit (see Results). We therefore used a model of decline magnitude in which we assumed that logev varied among species according to a normal distribution with mean μ and standard deviation σ, but that the rate of decline was unrelated to decline duration. Under this model, the expected geometric mean decline magnitude m for SPDs of duration d is given by

(1μ)d,

and the probability density function of decline magnitude g(m,d) at a duration d for a set of SPDs which are still in progress is given by the normal distribution of

loge(1exp(loge(m))1/d),

with mean μ and standard deviation σ. We obtained the expected probability density of SPDs of all durations by integrating numerically with respect to d the product of f(d) and g(m,d) for each value of m, using our estimates of the mean and standard deviation of logev as μ and σ. This procedure gives the unbiased probability density distribution of SPD magnitudes that would be expected if surveillance periods were indefinitely long.

The effect of duration of the surveillance period on the prevalence of SPDs

We have now used the 1970–2013 time-series data to estimate the frequency distribution of SPD durations and magnitudes, accounting for the effect of data truncation. However, we did not consider that the 1970–2013 time-series data set was sufficient to estimate SPD prevalence (defined as the probability that a species’ population will be affected by an SPD during a surveillance period of defined length during which population size was monitored reliably) because of the limited maximum duration of the time series and the fact that surveillance periods varied among species. We therefore also estimated the prevalence of SPDs using results from a review of long-term changes in breeding populations of birds in the UK [21] by Gibbons, Avery & Brown (henceforth termed GAB). GAB assessed trends in breeding populations of all bird species in the UK qualitatively over almost 200 years, between 1800 and 1995. They assigned scores on an eleven-point integer scale to indicate the magnitude and direction of population trends in each of five time periods of varying duration (25–49 years: 1800–1849, 1850–1899, 1900–1939, 1940–1969 and 1970–1995). The scores were defined in terms of rates of population increase or decrease, ranging from “huge decrease” (-5) to “huge increase” (+5), with species whose population showed little or no trend during a period, or fluctuating numbers, being assigned the central value of zero. The GAB scores were based upon previous reviews of historical data by other authors and their own assessment of recent trends. Given the duration of the periods assessed by GAB, the declines they identified are likely to have minimum durations broadly comparable with the ten-year minimum we used in our definition of SPDs based upon 1970–2013 quantitative data.

We used data for 229 native species (from Table 2 within GAB [21]) and calculated the proportion of species p for which a decline (score -1 to -5) was recorded for each of the six GAB time periods. We then combined GAB results for pairs of consecutive periods and calculated the proportion of species in which a decline was recorded in either or both of the component shorter periods within the composite period. We repeated this for all possible sets of composite periods comprising three, four, five and six consecutive GAB periods. This gave us a set of 15 surveillance periods with durations, s, varying from 25 years to 195 years (1800–1995) and estimated proportions, p, of species with a decline in one or more of the component periods. Having inspected a plot of p against s to assess a plausible shape for the relationship, we fitted the least squares regression of loge(1-p) on s and estimated p for a given s as

p=1exp(b0+b1s),

where b0 and b1 are the fitted intercept and slope of the regression. We assessed whether the GAB analyses gave an approximation of SPD prevalence that was comparable with our more recent short-term quantitative results, by comparing our single estimate of SPD prevalence for 1970–2013 with that for the overlapping GAB period (1970–1995) and the value predicted by the regression model.

Combining SPD magnitude and prevalence data to estimate the exceedance distribution of SPD magnitudes beginning in a surveillance period of defined length

We were now able to integrate our analyses of SPD prevalence, duration and magnitude to estimate the proportion of all species that would be subject to an SPD of a given magnitude beginning in a surveillance period of a specified duration (100 years). This procedure covered the whole range of magnitudes, from zero upwards. To do this, we converted the calculated probability density distribution of SPDs to an exceedance (negative cumulative) probability distribution and then multiplied the exceedance probabilities for each decline magnitude by the proportion of species expected to undergo a population decline within a surveillance period of defined length. We used the regression results described above to estimate the proportion of species with a decline in a surveillance period of 100 years.

We calculated 95% confidence limits of all results using a non-parametric bootstrap method with species as the unit for bootstrap resampling. We resampled the data for N species by drawing a sample of N at random with replacement. We then performed the analyses described above on the bootstrap sample and recorded the estimated parameter values and quantities derived from them. We performed the bootstrap resampling 10,000 times and took the bounds of the central 9,500 bootstrap parameter estimates or derived values to define the 95% confidence limits.

Results

Prevalence of SPDs in relation to the duration of the surveillance period

We detected one or more SPDs in 80 of 187 species (43%). Surveillance periods averaged 38.3 years across the 187 species. This is close to the maximum value of 43 years if surveillance of all species had covered the entire period.

Analysis of GAB population trend scores for six 25–49-year periods in the 195-year period 1800–1995 indicated that the proportion p of species in which a decline was recorded in at least one period increased with increasing duration of the composite surveillance periods (Fig 1). The least-squares estimates of the intercept and slope parameters b0 and b1 were -0.3153 and -0.0031 respectively when any negative GAB score was taken to indicate an SPD (Fig 1). A significance test of this relationship would not be appropriate because the observations in the composite periods are not mutually independent. There was close agreement between both the SPD prevalence calculated from the recent quantitative population data for 1970–2013 and the GAB results for the most recent overlapping GAB period (1970–1995), and the prevalence predicted from the GAB regression (Fig 1). We therefore considered that the agreement between the GAB regression and the SPD prevalence for 1970–2013 was sufficiently good for us to use the GAB regression to predict the prevalence of SPDs in any surveillance period up to 200 years. In our case, having selected a surveillance period of 100 years, the predicted prevalence of SPDs from the GAB regression was 0.464 (95% confidence limits 0.413–0.515).

Fig 1. Proportion of UK breeding bird species with at least one assessment period in which there was a population decline in relation to the duration of the composite surveillance period over which population status was assessed.

Fig 1

Filled symbols represent results based upon the population trend scores from Gibbons, Avery & Brown [21] (GAB). The filled square is for the most recent of the GAB periods (1970–1995), which overlaps with the period of our analysis of recent population trends (1970–2013). The proportion of species with an SPD, according to our definition, in 1970–2013 is shown by the open square and is plotted at the mean duration of surveillance of the 187 monitored populations for this period. All negative GAB trend scores were classified as declines.

Duration of SPDs

Kaplan-Meier and maximum-likelihood analysis of SPD durations of UK birds in the period 1970–2013 indicated that an exponential model of the annual probability of cessation of a decline gave a satisfactory fit to the data. The exponential model fitted to the data for the 43 declines with a known start date showed a good agreement between the observed and modelled SPD stop times (Fig 2A). The distribution of stop times of the 18 complete SPDs showed no indication of departure from the distribution expected from the fitted exponential model (goodness-of-fit χ2(2) = 0.253, P = 0.881). The maximum-likelihood estimate of the annual stopping rate parameter θ from the subset of the data with known SPD starts was 0.0375 (95% confidence limits 0.0224–0.0575), which is similar to the equivalent estimate derived from all the SPD data, regardless of series truncation, θ = 0.0308 (95% confidence limits 0.0220–0.0415) (Fig 2B). Because of this similarity, and the greater precision of the estimate based upon all the data, we decided to use the latter in further analyses. Based upon this value of θ, the arithmetic mean duration of SPDs expected if surveillance had been of indefinite duration, was 31.9 years (95% confidence limits 23.6–44.9) and 10% of SPDs would be expected to have durations exceeding 73.5 years (95% confidence limits 54.3–103.4).

Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier diagrams showing the proportion of SPDs of UK birds in the period 1970–2013 that were still in progress, in relation to the number of years elapsed since they began or were first detected.

Fig 2

The upper panel (a) shows the proportion of declines still in progress for the 43 declines with a well-defined start date. The solid curve shows the fitted exponential maximum-likelihood model. The dotted curves are 95% bootstrap confidence limits. The lower panel (b) shows the proportion of declines still in progress for all 82 declines in relation to time elapsed since the decline started or the beginning of the time series, including data for SPDs for which the start date was not well-defined.

SPD magnitudes and annual rates of population decline

SPD magnitudes tended to increase with their duration (Fig 3). Because mean annual rates of population decline v calculated from these magnitudes and durations showed no tendency for annual rate to vary with duration (see Methods), we considered it reasonable to model magnitudes as resulting from annual decline rates that vary among species, but not with SPD duration. A fitted log-normal distribution of v, obtained from the mean (-3.287) and standard deviation (0.710) of loge-transformed v values, matched the observed cumulative distribution of values well (Fig 4: Kolmogorov-Smirnov D = 0.080, P > 0.20). The mean is equivalent to a geometric mean annual rate of population decline of 0.0374 (95% confidence limits, 0.0316–0.0430).

Fig 3. Magnitudes of SPDs in relation to their duration for 82 SPDs of UK breeding bird populations during the period 1970–2013.

Fig 3

The vertical scale is logarithmic. The solid line represents expected values of geometric mean decline magnitude for a given decline duration, based upon the estimated mean of log-transformed annual rate of population decline averaged over all populations. The dotted lines represent lower and upper 95% bootstrap confidence limits for the modelled geometric mean decline magnitude.

Fig 4. Cumulative distribution (stepped line) of the mean annual rate of population decline observed for 82 SPDs recorded for UK breeding bird populations during the period 1970–2013.

Fig 4

The curve represents the log-normal distribution fitted by calculating least-squares estimates of the mean and standard deviation of loge-transformed annual rates of population decline.

Exceedance distribution of SPD magnitudes beginning in a surveillance period of 100 years

The exceedance distribution of SPD magnitudes expected in a simulated surveillance period of 100 years, derived from our models of the prevalence, duration and magnitude of SPDs is shown in Fig 5. This probability distribution can then be used to calculate the SPD magnitude that would be expected to be exceeded by a specified proportion of species during a 100-year surveillance period. For example, we estimated that 10% of species would begin an SPD of magnitude 15.8 or more in a surveillance period of 100 years (95% confidence limits of the magnitude, 8.1–42.9).

Fig 5. Modelled exceedance (negative cumulative) distribution (solid curve) representing the proportion of all species, including those that did not decline, expected to have SPDs equal to or greater than the decline magnitude shown on the horizontal axis, with a surveillance period of 100 years.

Fig 5

The dotted lines show 95% bootstrap confidence limits. The filled circle represents the estimated decline magnitude exceeded by one-tenth of all species. The horizontal line is the 95% bootstrap confidence interval of this estimate.

Discussion

Prevalence, duration and magnitude of sustained population declines of UK breeding birds

Annual rates of population decline in our study are broadly comparable with those reported for declining populations from other large compilations of data on population growth rates of birds [25]. However, the true magnitude of population declines, from beginning to end, has been assessed less often because the duration of consistent quantitative monitoring is usually too short to allow the beginning and end of declines to be defined for enough populations. This can lead to underestimation of decline duration and magnitude. Our study addressed this problem by taking truncation of quantitative population time series into account in the analyses, and by calibrating quantitative analyses based upon a relatively short (43-year) time series against a qualitative assessment of population trends of UK breeding birds over almost 200 years. Our results indicate that sustained population declines (SPDs) of 10 years or more have occurred frequently in UK bird species during the last two centuries and that a substantial proportion of species is liable to declines of large magnitude. We estimated that 10% of species would be expected to begin a decline of at least sixteen-fold (i.e. a decline to not more than 6% of the initial value) during a period of 100 years. If we take the lower 95% confidence bound of the multiplier, the decline magnitude expected for 10% of species is eight-fold (a decline to not more than 12% of the initial value). If we adopt a precautionary approach and take the upper 95% confidence bound, the decline magnitude expected for 10% of species is 43-fold (a decline to about 2% of the initial value).

Implications of sustained population declines for conservation management and the setting of a threshold for favourable population size

In birds and other taxa, population declines tend to be followed by resumed further declines or lack of recovery [26]. This implies that a high prevalence of large declines may risk moving many populations from being large and insensitive to stochastic fluctuations to being small enough to be at risk of extinction because of demographic and environmental stochasticity, even if they become stable: the small-population paradigm of Caughley [18]. Any minimum threshold measure for population size should therefore safeguard species against plausible risks of sustained population decline that might drive population size to its small-population MVP or below, in addition to guarding against the effects of environmental and demographic stochasticity once the population is at or below the small-population MVP.

Consequently, although MVPs based on the small-population paradigm and short runs of data are often all that is available for assessing extinction risk [27], our findings of a high prevalence of large magnitude population declines suggest that such MVPs under-estimate extinction risk because even a large and apparently stable population runs an appreciable risk of being subject to unforeseen long-term decline. The decline to global extinction of the passenger pigeon Ectopistes migratorius is a salutary example, as noted by Flather et al. [28]. This impact of risk of sustained population decline is likely to explain the finding by Reed et al. [27] that MVP estimates based upon studies of long duration tended to be much larger than those based upon short studies. We therefore propose that, to calculate minimum population thresholds for any currently stable population, the small-population paradigm MVP believed to be most appropriate for the focal population, should be multiplied by a factor intended to account for the risk of a sustained decline which might occur over a longer period, derived as we have illustrated for UK breeding birds. We term this factor, the MVP Multiplier. For example, if a stable- MVP for a population was calculated to be 1,000 adult individuals (at 90% probability of persistence for 100 years), we propose multiplying that MVP by a factor that would achieve the same probability over the same period of ensuring that the population would not be depleted to below its MVP. In the case of UK breeding birds, that factor would be 15.8, and a population of 15,800 adults could be regarded as a minimum threshold. These criteria are quantitative, but it should be recognised that the level of risk selected is arbitrary. For example, if decision-makers were unwilling to accept a risk as high as 10% that the focal population would suffer an SPD that would deplete it to below the MVP, then the multiplier value chosen would need to be greater. All existing classifications of conservation status also have arbitrary criteria based upon a human value judgement about what risks of harm to populations of wild species are acceptable. An additional consideration is the wide confidence interval for our estimate of the multiplier. A precautionary argument could be made that the upper bound of its 95% confidence limit (42.9) should be used. Future improvements in data and estimation methods might then allow the multiplier value in use to be reduced.

Which value of the multiplier should be used for a particular species or group of species requires further research. The future risk of a population undergoing a sustained decline and the decline magnitude may prove to be predictable to some extent, based upon species-specific life-history or ecological variables or projections of anthropogenic pressures such as habitat loss, pollution and climate change. To date, however, a high proportion of large sustained population declines in recent history have not been predicted, based upon either formal analyses or expert judgement. For example, no-one foresaw the recent thousand-fold decline in the global population of the white-rumped vulture Gyps bengalensis caused by the introduction of a veterinary non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug [29] or the near extirpation of many populations of fish-eating birds and birds of prey in the late 20th Century caused by organochlorine pesticides [30]. For the time being, therefore, we suggest that an average value of the multiplier should be used, derived from empirical data on the prevalence and magnitude of documented declines based upon data for large groups of species. We envisage that the most feasible refinement of our method to account for reliable predictors of the future prevalence and magnitude of sustained population declines would be to incorporate predictions based upon models of species’ distribution in relation to bioclimate variables. Such models have been found to provide some predictive power when observed bird population trends in Europe and the USA were compared with retrodicted trends based upon bioclimate models and observed climatic changes since the 1980s [31]. However, models of this kind have not yet been adapted to predict the magnitude of sustained population declines from predicted future climatic changes. Our suggested approach is intended to supplement rather than replace existing methods that assess the risk of global or population extinction. The prior application of established methods for the assessment of global extinction risk using established red-listing methods is essential [32], and applications of this approach at both national and local closed population levels are also practical and valuable [33], and species listed as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered by the red-listing process should be regarded as in unfavourable conservation status without recourse to MVP Multiplier calculations. In addition, we suggest that populations of any species that are still undergoing sustained population decline at the end of a surveillance period should also be regarded as in unfavourable conservation status, regardless of their Red List status. This is because, as our results demonstrate, the eventual magnitude of any individual ongoing decline is difficult to predict and may be large.

Using these approaches sequentially, only stable and increasing populations that do not qualify as threatened under IUCN criteria and are also larger than the threshold indicated by the MVP Multiplier method would be regarded as exceeding a minimum threshold population size and, depending on other metrics, such as species range and habitat, could be classed as at Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) as defined by the European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. This assessment is only based upon extinction risk. Although adopting this definition based upon reduction of extinction risk would be in accord with the European Habitats Directive’s requirement that a species’ population with FCS should be able to “maintain itself” on a “long-term basis”, fulfilling this criterion may not be an adequate condition for assigning FCS on its own. Long-term conservation success for a species is likely to require resilience to future climate change and other environmental changes which may be more frequent and have larger impacts than those which caused the past population declines that we have analysed here. Future conservation is therefore likely to require the long-term maintenance of multiple populations across the range of the species in representative ecological settings, with replicate populations in each setting, all of which should be self-sustaining, healthy, and genetically robust [34]. This logic implies that the maintenance of multiple sub-populations of a species, each of which is at a level larger than the threshold indicated by the MVP Multiplier method, would be needed before the status of the species as a whole could be regarded as favourable. However, more work is needed to specify how many replicate conserved populations are needed and which ecological settings should be represented. Hence, we argue that the MVP Multiplier method is a valuable starting point.

European legal interpretation of the relationship between measured criteria and FCS

FCS, as determined by a process using multiple criteria, is recommended to be a “legally binding minimum standard” [30]. Further targets for population recovery and conservation, which are independent of an FCS decision-making process and determined at national, flyway or international scales should also include multiple criteria and take account of species range and habitat in their calculation. Such a conservation target for population size is likely to be substantially greater than a minimum threshold. Correspondingly, European Commission guidance documents for the European Habitats and Birds Directives stress that FCS as a whole, must be assessed as “distance from some favourable state” rather than distance from extinction [35, 5].

Conclusions

The MVP Multiplier method we propose in this paper offers some advantages as a method to make an extinction risk-based, minimum threshold criterion based on population size, more likely to be protective in the long term, than an MVP assessment based upon the small-population paradigm alone. We view our suggestion as providing a tool to enable a transparent and robust extinction risk based decision amongst other necessary decisions to determine FCS, as a legally binding minimum standard for species conservation. Our proposal is a response to Caughley’s [18] criticism that the declining-population paradigm and small-population paradigm are rarely brought together in effective and useful ways to solve conservation problems. However, implementation of the MVP Multiplier approach requires the calculation of an appropriate value for a stable-population paradigm MVP, which remains challenging [28]. In addition, we agree with Redford et al. [34] that the conservation of multiple sub-populations of a species in each of several representative ecological settings is valuable. This calls for conservation assessments of widely distributed species to be undertaken at larger spatial scales than is customary at present. Finally, we recognise that there are characteristics of the status of populations relevant to Favourable Conservation Status that are only weakly linked to extinction risk and encourage the development of quantitative criteria that reflect them. These might include the degree to which the geographical range of a species covers its potential range, as determined by prevailing climatic conditions and habitat conditions in the absence of anthropogenic changes, such as pollution, overexploitation and habitat conversion.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Data on population changes of UK breeding bird species with more than 10 years of monitoring data available between 1970 and 2013.

Columns show: the total length in years of the monitoring data for each species; the first and last years of total monitoring period and the original dataset sources are given. Source codes are: BoCC - smoothed trends fitted to annual data from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO and Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Common Birds Census (CBC) and the BTO/JNCC/Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) (Harris et al. 2015); RBBP - data from the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (Holling 2014); SCARRABS - national population estimates from surveys of single species, which were typically undertaken at intervals of at least several years (Eaton et al. 2015); Declines of at least 10 years duration were identified, and the first (t1) and last (t2) years of the declines are given. The population size or indexed population sizes n1 at t1 and n2 at t2 are given. References are as supplied in the main text.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Paul Donald and Mark Eaton for useful discussions and Joseph Veech and an anonymous reviewer for constructive criticisms.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files S1 Table.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK.

References

  • 1.Peters H, O'Leary BC, Hawkins JP, Roberts CM. Identifying species at extinction risk using global models of anthropogenic impact. Global change biology. 2015; 21: 618–28. 10.1111/gcb.12749 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Segan DB, Murray KA, Watson JE. A global assessment of current and future biodiversity vulnerability to habitat loss–climate change interactions. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2016; 5: 12–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McGowan CP, Catlin DH, Shaffer TL, Gratto-Trevor CL, Aron C. Establishing endangered species recovery criteria using predictive simulation modelling. Biological Conservation. 2014; 177: 220–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Westwood A, Reuchlin-Hugenholtz E, Keith DM. Re-defining recovery: a generalized framework for assessing species recovery. Biological Conservation. 2014; 172: 155–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Epstein Y, López‐Bao JV, Chapron G. A legal‐ecological understanding of favorable conservation status for species in Europe. Conservation Letters. 2016; 9: 81–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.McConville AJ, Tucker GM. Review of favourable conservation status and Birds Directive Article 2 interpretation within the European Union. An Institute for European Environmental Policy report prepared for Natural England. 2015 (Report Number 176). Available from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/4746406214500352
  • 7.Goble DD. The Endangered Species Act: What we talk about when we talk about recovery. Natural Resources Journal. 2009; 49: 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Funk SM, Conde D, Lamoreux J, Fa JE. Meeting the Aichi targets: Pushing for zero extinction conservation. Ambio. 2017; 46: 443–55. 10.1007/s13280-016-0892-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Neel MC, Leidner AK, Haines A, Goble DD, Scott JM. By the numbers: How is recovery defined by the US Endangered Species Act?. BioScience. 2012; 62: 646–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.European Commission. Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. 2007. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/guidance/index_en.htm
  • 11.European Commission. Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds “The Birds Directive.” 2008. Available as: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/hunting_guide_en.pdf
  • 12.Lyster S. The convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals (The Bonn convention). Nat. Resources J. 1989; 29: 979–1000. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Brambilla M, Gustin M, Celada C. Defining favourable reference values for bird populations in Italy: setting long-term conservation targets for priority species. Bird Conservation International. 2011; 21: 107–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Brambilla M, Celada C, Gustin M. Setting Favourable Habitat Reference Values for breeding birds: general principles and examples for passerine birds. Bird conservation international. 2014; 24: 263–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Trouwborst A, Boitani L, Linnell JD. Interpreting ‘favourable conservation status’ for large carnivores in Europe: how many are needed and how many are wanted?. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2017; 26: 37–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Panjabi AO, Blancher PJ, Easton WE, Stanton JC, Demarest DW, Dettmers R, Rosenberg KV and Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2017. The Partners in Flight handbook on species assessment Version 2017. Partners in Flight; Available at: https://www.partnersinflight.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PIFHandbook2012.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pauly D. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 1995; 10: 430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Caughley G. Directions in conservation biology. Journal of animal ecology. 1994; 63: 215–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.WWF. Living Planet Report 2018: Aiming higher (Eds. Grooten N & Almond REA).2018. WWF, Gland, Switzerland: Available at: https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-10/LPR2018_Full%20Report.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Eaton M, Aebischer N, Brown A, Hearn R, Lock L, Musgrove A, Noble D, Stroud D, Gregory R. Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds. 2015; 108: 708–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gibbons DW, Avery MI, Brown AF. Population trends of breeding birds in the United Kingdom since 1800. British Birds. 1996; 89: 291–305. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Harris SJ, Massimino D, Newson SE, Eaton MA, Balmer DE, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Gillings S, Procter D, Pearce-Higgins JW. The Breeding bird survey 2014. BTO research report number 673. 2014; BTO, Thetford, UK, 24pp. Available at: https://www.bto.org/our-science/publications/breeding-bird-survey/breeding-bird-survey-2014
  • 23.Holling M. Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2012. British Birds. 2014; 107: 504–560. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kalbfleisch JG. Probability and Statistical Inference II. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Keith D, Akçakaya HR, Butchart SH, Collen B, Dulvy NK, Holmes EE, Hutchings JA, Keinath D, Schwartz MK, Shelton AO, Waples RS. Temporal correlations in population trends: Conservation implications from time-series analysis of diverse animal taxa. Biological Conservation. 2015; 192: 247–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hutchings JA. Thresholds for impaired species recovery. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2015; 282: 20150654 10.1098/rspb.2015.0654 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Reed DH, O'Grady JJ, Brook BW, Ballou JD, Frankham R. Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates. Biological Conservation. 2003; 113: 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Flather CH, Hayward GD, Beissinger SR, Stephens PA. Minimum viable populations: is there a ‘magic number’ for conservation practitioners?. Trends in ecology & evolution. 2011; 26: 307–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pain DJ, Bowden CG, Cunningham AA, Cuthbert R, Das D, Gilbert M, Jakati RD, Jhala Y, Khan AA, Naidoo V, Oaks JL. et al. The race to prevent the extinction of South Asian vultures. Bird Conservation International. 2008; 18: S30–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Newton I. Population ecology of raptors. Berkhamsted, UK: T. & AD Poyser; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mason LR, Green RE, Howard C, Stephens PA, Willis SG, Aunins A, Brotons L, Chodkiewicz T, Chylarecki P, Escandell V, Foppen RPB, Herrando S, Husby M, Jiguet F, Kålås JA, Lindström Å Massimino D, Moshøj C, Nellis R, Paquet J-Y, Reif J, Sirkiä PM, Szép T, Florenzano GT, Teufelbauer N, Trautmann S, van Strien A, van Turnhout CAM, Voříšek P, Gregory RD. Population responses of bird populations to climate change on two continents vary with species’ ecological traits but not with direction of change in climate suitability. Climatic Change. 2019; 157: 337–354. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN, Natural Resources, Species Survival Commission. IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 3.1, IUCN: Cambridge & Gland; 2001. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/categories-and-criteria [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Eaton MA, Gregory RD, Noble DG, Robinson JA, Hughes J, Procter D, Brown AF, Gibbons DW. Regional IUCN red listing: the process as applied to birds in the United Kingdom. Conservation Biology. 2005; 19: 1557–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Redford KH, Amato G, Baillie J, Beldomenico P, Bennett EL, Clum N, Cook R, Fonseca G, Hedges S, Launay F, Lieberman S. et al. What does it mean to successfully conserve a (vertebrate) species?. BioScience. 2011; 61: 39–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Evans D, Arvela M. Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive Explanatory Notes & Guidelines for the period 2007–2012. European Commission, Brussels: 2011. Available at: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/2c12cea2-f827-4bdb-bb56-3731c9fd8b40/Art17-Guidelines-final.pdf [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Floyd W Weckerly

25 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-27507

Implications of the prevalence and magnitude of sustained declines for determining a minimum threshold Favourable Reference Value for population size

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gilbert,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers found the topic of the manuscript interesting and both indicated that the writing could be improved to increase clarity and focus. I agree with this assessment. Please consider all comments of both reviewers carefully when revising the manuscript.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by January 30, 2019. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Floyd W Weckerly

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have carefully read PONE-D-19-27507 “Implications of the prevalence and magnitude of sustained declines for determining a minimum threshold Favourable Reference Value for population size” by Green et al. and now provide this review. Overall, the manuscript is well written, design and analysis are sound, and the goal of the study is very worthwhile. My comments mostly pertain to increasing the clarity of the writing in some places and also expanding the context to make the manuscript of interest to a greater readership. Comments are presented in order of occurrence in manuscript.

Line 30: “animal populations”, not just birds? See my later comment about the potential difficulty of applying this technique for organisms in which there is not much long-term monitoring data.

Line 35: Is this literally true? We would hope that the multiplier can reduce the risk that population gets depleted below MVP, but whether population actually falls below MVP depends on events out there in the real world, not whether or not an MVP value is increased via the multiplier.

Lines 38 – 46: These lines are referring to all the bird species collectively, is this correct? That is, the multiplier is not calculated separately for each species. Writing needs to be clearer. (Later in manuscript this is clear, but needs to be so here as well.)

Lines 40 – 41: This is a bit ambiguous. Does the decline of 16-fold refer to a population decreasing by 16X over the course of 100 years? I think it would be more direct and easier for the reader to comprehend if the authors thought about population declines as percent change per year. For instance, even a consistent 2 - 3% decline per year is very substantial if it occurs over many decades. If I did the math right, a decline of 16X over 100 years corresponds to an annual decline of 2.8%. Later in the manuscript, the authors do refer to percent decline per year, but need some mention here as well.

Except for Lines 63 - 65, Introduction is very Euro-focused. That's ok, but manuscript would have more appeal if it could also refer (briefly) to conservation legislation is USA/Canada.

Line 57: Authors should see the Partners-in-Flight Landbird Population Estimates Database and Rosenberg et al. (2016) paper. But be aware that the methodology of the Rosenberg et al. paper was criticized. Nonetheless, it is an example (North American) of attempting to estimate range-wide population sizes and set target values.

Lines 63 – 65: This is a correct statement. However, there is some conservation legislation that does specify size of a recovered population. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (USA) specifies that marine mammal populations must be maintained (managed) to be at a size that is at least half the carrying capacity. (Of course, the problem is that it is difficult to estimate K.) Also, with regard to this sentence, it might be better to say that the methods do not always identify a target population size (for recovery, healthy, favourable) rather than saying that the methods are "poorly developed".

Lines 71 – 76: Agreed, well-stated.

Lines 84 – 85: Again, this sentence seems to imply that the multiplier is not calculated separately for each species. Writing needs to be more explicit and precise. (Granted, later in the manuscript, this ambiguity is cleared up.)

Lines 95 – 97: This sentence sort of leaves the reader hanging wondering what this two-century population trend study is all about. Perhaps add one or two more sentences that give a little more information, even though the study is described a little more later in the manuscript.

Line 120 and elsewhere: The overall idea of a SPD and being able to identify one quantitatively is interesting. Have other authors written about this, and particularly used the phrase "sustained population decline"?

Lines 128-137: It might be worthwhile to have a figure that helps explain the determination (identification) of a SPD. Also, have any other authors used these criteria? They seem straightforward enough that other authors might have used same or very similar, and hence should be cited.

Lines 135 – 137: Does this mean that a given species might have more than one SPD? If so, say this explicitly. (I saw later that Line 147 answered my question, nonetheless, provide a little more info here.)

Lines 142-144: OK, good to identify these censored SPDs, but then what? Were they still used in subsequent analyses? Might need one brief follow-up sentence here. Line 155-156: OK, but again, how was this information used? What did you do with these truncated SPDs? Line 157: Again, this still begs the question of why truncated SPDs were identified as such.

Lines 168-170: More precisely, I think this is an exponential DECAY function.

Line 172: More precisely, is theta the annual PROBABILITY of an SPD ending? Be consistent with Line 165.

Lines 179-181: Not sure what the authors mean by observed and expected numbers of declines. Is the expected number based on a given estimated value of theta? and hence the chi-square test is a way of assessing if the estimated value of theta is "accurate", as in a non-significant chi-square statistic? More explanation may be needed.

Lines 220-222: Doesn't the prevalence of SPDs also need to take into account the magnitude of an SPD, or is this "built into" the definition of an SPD? That is, an SPD can have any m value greater than zero, correct? (Nonetheless, identifying an SPD in count data from an annual survey probably is made more likely as the severity of the decline in the real population becomes more pronounced, and as such the observed prevalence of SPDs would depend on their estimated magnitude because this itself depends on the real magnitude.)

Line 243: Proportion of composite periods? or proportion of species (showing an SPD) during the composite period?

Lines 242 - 252: I'm not sure that the 15 surveillance periods of the GAB data are truly independent of one another with regard to the response variable, proportion of species with a decline. For example, when two periods of length a and b are combined to give a period with length c, doesn't the proportion of species with a decline in period c somehow depend on the proportions in a and b? I don't know for sure if there's an issue here with non-independence, but if there is, then it would call into question the legitimacy of the regression (Fig. 1).

Lines 262 - 263: Over what range of magnitudes? Line 268: A decline of what magnitude?

Line 271: Species as the unit for bootstrapping? or more precisely, was it the observed SPDs that were resampled (bootstrapped)?

Lines 325 - 328: These results hold regardless of magnitude of the SPD? That is, the values of 31.9 years, 10%, and 73.5% were determined over a wide range of magnitudes?

Lines 389 - 391: I'm not familiar with the reference that the authors give. In addition, they should see some of the research using the North American Breeding Bird Survey data, these are publications by John Sauer and others.

Lines 394-395: Be more precise about what is meant by "negative bias". I think the authors are suggesting that population declines (duration and hence overall magnitude) might be UNDERESTIMATED when the beginning and end of the trends cannot be identified in the monitoring data.

Lines 395-396: A recurring theme in the manuscript is that time-series data are often left and right-truncated and that this must be taken into account when trying to quantify a trend. To me, it seems like this must be a relatively common issue in the use of time-series data, are there general (and statistical) references to cite? Also, how have other authors dealt with this issue, either in bird data or perhaps population data (or any time series data) for other animal taxa?

Lines 402 - 407: As I previously commented, to me it makes more sense and is more intuitive to cast the trend as percent population change per year rather than (or in addition to) an X-fold difference between beginning and ending population size. A decline of 2 - 3% is serious when it is continual (every year) and over a long period of time (decades to century). This is what this study is really getting at. 8-fold for 100 years = -2.1% per year, 43-fold = -3.8%.

Lines 422 - 426: Excellent point.

Lines 430 - 458: I generally agree with everything that is stated here. However, I think the authors need to (1) not rely so much on the 15.8 multiplier that would be needed to offset 10% of birds expected to have an SPD of this magnitude within 100 years. It is ok to present this info but perhaps briefly present other scenarios (e.g., X% of birds expected to have an SPD of magnitude 5 or greater over a time period of 50 years). Perhaps a table of values for different multiplier scenarios could be useful. (2) Putting this analytical technique into practice for other taxa could be very difficult. Other than birds (and perhaps some insects) there is not any really long-term data that could be used to derive the multiplier. Authors should acknowledge this limitation more thoroughly and perhaps include an appeal for ecologists to start collecting such long-term data on other taxa.

Lines 479-482: Another good point.

Lines 493-519: This section is also very Euro-focused. That's ok but it does limit the appeal of the study somewhat. Perhaps the authors could link to conservation legislation in USA/Canada a little bit.

Lines 504-519: Sentences here seem a little off the subject or out of place. None of this content derives directly from the results of this study (calculation and values of the multiplier). At the least, these sentences should be condensed or incorporated into Introduction.

Overall the conclusion section is good, however be careful with statements such as Lines 529-530 "one transparent and robust population size decision". Is the "one" referring to using just one value of a multiplier? This would be a bad idea when defining the size of a recovered population. Rather, it is better to use a range of multipliers (e.g., 95% CIs) for adjusting the MVP, just as no one would present just one MVP size.

I enjoyed reading this manuscript.

Joe Veech

Reviewer #2: I find this manuscript very difficult to review. It contains an extensive analysis of sustained population declines in UK birds, and applies the results of that analysis to recommend adjustments to minimum population size (FRV-P) values that are part of the FCS assessments of the EU. I have concerns about the overall integration of the various components of the manuscript.

A few general comments:

1. It is really difficult to decipher the alphabet soup of acronyms in the manuscript.

2. These is a fundamental fuzziness in much of the descriptions of the conservation assessment information (such as FRV, FRV-P, etc) that complicates this discussion. Is FRV-P a threshold category for conservation action or a population status? That is never mentioned.

3. The primary analysis of the manuscript is poorly motivated. After a discussion of EU conservation categorizations, the manuscript switches gear to provide an extensive discussion of modeling durations of population declines. Then, it only returns to the original motivation (the conservation assessments) at the end, applying the very general results to attempt to inform very specific questions. These pieces need better integration.

It seems to me that there is a disconnection between the abstract (that is strongly focused on the conservation application) and the bulk of the manuscript (that is primary about the analysis of sustained population declines). I find it difficult to believe that the high-level result extracted from the bird population analysis and applied to conservation question (i.e., how much to adjust FRV-P) really has credibility, as it is produced at such a high level of abstraction from any species.

I question the rather grandiose assessment that this approach combines Caughley's rare population and declining population paradigms. I would that would best be done in a model that contains temporal stochasticity in demographic parameters.

4. I find it difficult to pass judgement on the quality of the primary analysis, of sustained population declines. It is an interesting result, but it seems to me that there are many assumptions that need to be stated. There would be huge heterogeneity among species in this probability, but that is not considered here, and the way significant periods of decline is defined and estimated makes no accommodation for the imprecision inherent in estimation of declines.

Specific comments:

Abstract: I find this to be quite confusing, as it pummels the readers with poorly described jargon. It could use some strong editing to provide a clear statement of the issue and how this analysis improves it. As I note elsewhere, it seems to me that the focus of the paper is the analysis of sustained declines, but the focus of the abstract is how the overall result ties into 1 component of FCS.

L 28. I had not heard of the term Favorable Conservation Status, and this first sentence just does'nt make sense to me. This should be reworded to at last describe (even vaguely!) what FCS is, and perhaps how FRV-P (l. 30) relates to it!

l. 55. Quantitative methods are always needed! I think you want to say that efficient methods are needed.

l. 59. You still have not defined this concept of "Favorable Conservation Status!" What does it mean? L 66-69 indicate that this concept relates to criteria we usually asspciate with risks of extinction, or species characteristics that provide a rationale for conservation activity. Please state this.

l. 69 and following. You choose to focus on just one element of FCS. It seems to me that your introduction up to this point is misleading, as you are not discussing FCS comprehensively, but are just refining one element of it.

l. 71 and following. Pleae clarify the motivation for defining FRV-P. There seems to be a lot of semantics on this paragraph. You call this "numerical measures of population size." Is this the current population size (i.e, the population status), or is this a minimum viable population size? I find this confusing. Defining population status is common, and identifying species with small populations is often considered a risk factor for conservation assessments (i.e., Rabinowitz-style criteria), but these status values are much different than MPVs which relate specifically to a demographic modeling attribute. Statements in this paragraph suggest that you wish to define FRV-P as a modified MVP, but is that the actual intent of the FRV-P criterion?

I believe that what you are saying here is the FRV-P is designed to be a MVP, and that your analysis provides an ad-hoc scaling of MVP to accommpdate stochastic effects not included in the original MVP formulation. If so, why not just define a more realistic MVP that includes such stockasticity?

l. 90-93. This seems to me to be a odd comment. How do we know that several decades is short relative to the duration of some declines? It would be better to say that perhaps declines defined over short intervals are not predictive of long term declines and thus do not inform extinction probabilities (as Thogmartin and Stanton have done for North American birds).

l. 121-123. This criterion defines a period of decline and recovery. the later criteria (up to line 135) are rules for finding the smallest n in the interval. Why not just say that?

l. 138. You never state it explicitly, but presumably the duration of the SPD is from tstart to tlow.

SPDs must also be at least 10 years in duration. This seems very arbitrary, and likely to have a strong influence on the results.

l. 165 onward. All analyses after this point make identical distribution assumptions among the SBDs. Is that valid?

l. 165-170. This seems to me to be an oversimplification. If so, why only consider d >9? Are there issues associated with not having d <10 in this analysis?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Joseph Veech

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 12;15(2):e0228742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228742.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Jan 2020

Dear Editor, the following is a copy of our Response to Reviewers' comments, I hope that is what is required in this section.

Rebuttal letter for manuscript: PONE-D-19-27507

Implications of the prevalence and magnitude of sustained declines for determining a minimum threshold Favourable Reference Value for population size.

________________________________________

AUTHORS’ INTRODUCTION TO THE REBUTTAL

We thank the reviewers for their comments. In the following list, we have numbered all the comments which require a response (labelled COMMENT) and then responded to each one (labelled RESPONSE).

COMMENT 1.1

Reviewer #1: I have carefully read PONE-D-19-27507 “Implications of the prevalence and magnitude of sustained declines for determining a minimum threshold Favourable Reference Value for population size” by Green et al. and now provide this review. Overall, the manuscript is well written, design and analysis are sound, and the goal of the study is very worthwhile. My comments mostly pertain to increasing the clarity of the writing in some places and also expanding the context to make the manuscript of interest to a greater readership. Comments are presented in order of occurrence in manuscript.

RESPONSE: We appreciate this comment very much and are most grateful for the reviewer’s careful reading of our MS. The constructive and perceptive criticisms have been most valuable in making revisions.

COMMENT 1.2

Line 30: “animal populations”, not just birds? See my later comment about the potential difficulty of applying this technique for organisms in which there is not much long-term monitoring data.

RESPONSE: We accept that data availability limitations will affect the taxa to which our suggested approach will be applicable. However, we think that there is nothing about our approach that is specific to birds, given that time-series data on the size of populations or indices of population size can be obtained. We think that such data of this kind exist for more than just birds, as is illustrated by the taxonomic coverage of, for example, the Living Planet Index. We have revised the text in the Introduction to say this.

COMMENT 1.3

Line 35: Is this literally true? We would hope that the multiplier can reduce the risk that population gets depleted below MVP, but whether population actually falls below MVP depends on events out there in the real world, not whether or not an MVP value is increased via the multiplier.

RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing out this sloppy drafting. We intended to say that the approach ALLOWS FOR the risk, not that it reduces it. We have rewritten that section to correct this.

COMMENT 1.4

Lines 38 – 46: These lines are referring to all the bird species collectively, is this correct? That is, the multiplier is not calculated separately for each species. Writing needs to be clearer. (Later in manuscript this is clear, but needs to be so here as well.)

RESPONSE: Thank you for pointing this out. You are correct and we have clarified the text here.

COMMENT 1.5

Lines 40 – 41: This is a bit ambiguous. Does the decline of 16-fold refer to a population decreasing by 16X over the course of 100 years? I think it would be more direct and easier for the reader to comprehend if the authors thought about population declines as percent change per year. For instance, even a consistent 2 - 3% decline per year is very substantial if it occurs over many decades. If I did the math right, a decline of 16X over 100 years corresponds to an annual decline of 2.8%. Later in the manuscript, the authors do refer to percent decline per year, but need some mention here as well.

RESPONSE: We wrote “Over a surveillance period of 100 years, we estimated that there was a 10% risk across species, that a sustained population decline of at least sixteen-fold would begin.” Hence, we are not concluding that a population would decline by that amount within that period. We believe this to be clear and that also including the rate of annual decline may be more confusing. Our logic for focussing of decline magnitudes rather than rates is explained later in the paper.

COMMENT 1.6

Except for Lines 63 - 65, Introduction is very Euro-focused. That's ok, but manuscript would have more appeal if it could also refer (briefly) to conservation legislation is USA/Canada.

RESPONSE: We agree. Our paper was stimulated by concern among people interested in the European Union’s environmental regulations and standards. We have revised the text throughout to broaden the focus. For example, we have included a reference to Partners in Flight population targets (see below).

COMMENT 1.7

Line 57: Authors should see the Partners-in-Flight Landbird Population Estimates Database and Rosenberg et al. (2016) paper. But be aware that the methodology of the Rosenberg et al. paper was criticized. Nonetheless, it is an example (North American) of attempting to estimate range-wide population sizes and set target values.

RESPONSE: Thank-you for this suggestion which has been included in the text

COMMENT 1.8

Lines 63 – 65: This is a correct statement. However, there is some conservation legislation that does specify size of a recovered population. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (USA) specifies that marine mammal populations must be maintained (managed) to be at a size that is at least half the carrying capacity. (Of course, the problem is that it is difficult to estimate K.) Also, with regard to this sentence, it might be better to say that the methods do not always identify a target population size (for recovery, healthy, favourable) rather than saying that the methods are "poorly developed".

RESPONSE: We agree and have revised the Introduction to be clearer on this, although we have not directly included the Marine Mammal protection Act example.

COMMENT 1.9

Lines 71 – 76: Agreed, well-stated.

RESPONSE: We appreciate this positive comment. We have retained text on this key principle concerning the Caughley small-population paradigm MVP, though we have restructured the section somewhat to accommodate other issues.

COMMENT 1.10

Lines 84 – 85: Again, this sentence seems to imply that the multiplier is not calculated separately for each species. Writing needs to be more explicit and precise. (Granted, later in the manuscript, this ambiguity is cleared up.)

RESPONSE: We have changed the wording to clarify that calculation for each species is necessary.

COMMENT 1.11

Lines 95 – 97: This sentence sort of leaves the reader hanging wondering what this two-century population trend study is all about. Perhaps add one or two more sentences that give a little more information, even though the study is described a little more later in the manuscript.

RESPONSE: We have improved this section, but aimed not to repeat what (as the reviewer acknowledges) we say later.

COMMENT 1.12

Line 120 and elsewhere: The overall idea of a SPD and being able to identify one quantitatively is interesting. Have other authors written about this, and particularly used the phrase "sustained population decline"?

RESPONSE: We think that this is a novel term , though we think that the concept is logical, simple and useful.

COMMENT 1.13

Lines 128-137: It might be worthwhile to have a figure that helps explain the determination (identification) of a SPD. Also, have any other authors used these criteria? They seem straightforward enough that other authors might have used same or very similar, and hence should be cited.

RESPONSE: We considered this but have not come up with a clear enough figure. A schematic diagram can be more ambiguous than the description in the written text. The algorithmic determination of an SPD in this paper is original and was not taken from another published text. Although it is complicated, we think that having full details of the definition as text is the best way to present it.

COMMENT 1.14

Lines 135 – 137: Does this mean that a given species might have more than one SPD? If so, say this explicitly. (I saw later that Line 147 answered my question, nonetheless, provide a little more info here.)

RESPONSE: Yes, we have clarified this.

COMMENT 1.15

Lines 142-144: OK, good to identify these censored SPDs, but then what? Were they still used in subsequent analyses? Might need one brief follow-up sentence here. Line 155-156: OK, but again, how was this information used? What did you do with these truncated SPDs? Line 157: Again, this still begs the question of why truncated SPDs were identified as such.

RESPONSE: We have checked the text on truncation and believe that the logic is clear. Truncated SPDs cannot be used uncritically to determine duration for obvious reasons. However, before truncation has occurred the data can be used to estimate the annual probability that an SPD which is in progress comes to an end. This is a form of censored survival analysis, where “survival” in this case is the persistence from one year to the next of an ongoing decline. We have added text to make this point. All SPDs contributed some data, including values for the mean annual rate of decline, which was obtainable for all of them.

COMMENT 1.16

Lines 168-170: More precisely, I think this is an exponential DECAY function.

RESPONSE: Indeed. This is an exponential decay function. We have now added those helpful words to the sentence defining the function.

COMMENT 1.17

Line 172: More precisely, is theta the annual PROBABILITY of an SPD ending? Be consistent with Line 165.

RESPONSE: Yes, that is a clearer way of putting it, so we’ve used it. Thank you.

COMMENT 1.18

Lines 179-181: Not sure what the authors mean by observed and expected numbers of declines. Is the expected number based on a given estimated value of theta? and hence the chi-square test is a way of assessing if the estimated value of theta is "accurate", as in a non-significant chi-square statistic? More explanation may be needed.

RESPONSE: The reviewer is correct. The purpose of the chi-squared test is to check whether assuming the exponential decay function is a reasonable way to model the rate at which SPDs come to an end (by populations stopping declining and becoming stable). We have added text to explain that better.

COMMENT 1.19

Lines 220-222: Doesn't the prevalence of SPDs also need to take into account the magnitude of an SPD, or is this "built into" the definition of an SPD? That is, an SPD can have any m value greater than zero, correct? (Nonetheless, identifying an SPD in count data from an annual survey probably is made more likely as the severity of the decline in the real population becomes more pronounced, and as such the observed prevalence of SPDs would depend on their estimated magnitude because this itself depends on the real magnitude.)

RESPONSE: “Prevalence” is defined as whether an SPD occurs or not (see line 220-221) and not how big or rapid it is. We show elsewhere (lines 192-196) that annual RATE of decline in SPDs is not dependent on their duration. That allows us to estimate rates of decline and prevalences separately and then combine them later (at line 259). We have added text to say that. Thank you for pointing out the need to do this.

COMMENT 1.20

Line 243: Proportion of composite periods? or proportion of species (showing an SPD) during the composite period?

RESPONSE: We have reworded this as the reviewer suggests. This makes it clearer- thank you.

COMMENT 1.21

Lines 242 - 252: I'm not sure that the 15 surveillance periods of the GAB data are truly independent of one another with regard to the response variable, proportion of species with a decline. For example, when two periods of length a and b are combined to give a period with length c, doesn't the proportion of species with a decline in period c somehow depend on the proportions in a and b? I don't know for sure if there's an issue here with non-independence, but if there is, then it would call into question the legitimacy of the regression (Fig. 1).

RESPONSE: The 15 surveillance periods certainly are not truly independent. This is why we did not perform a significance test on the regression. Our intention here was not to perform a test of the (highly implausible a priori) null hypothesis that decline prevalence is unrelated to surveillance period duration. Rather, it was to obtain an empirical relationship between prevalence and duration. The regression is legitimate for that purpose. We have added some text to the results to say this.

COMMENT 1.22

Lines 262 - 263: Over what range of magnitudes? Line 268: A decline of what magnitude?

RESPONSE: Our analysis covers the whole range of magnitudes. We have added text to this effect.

COMMENT 1.23

Line 271: Species as the unit for bootstrapping? or more precisely, was it the observed SPDs that were resampled (bootstrapped)?

RESPONSE: it was species (as stated), but in almost all cases there was just one SPD per species, so it is nearly the same thing.

COMMENT 1.24

Lines 325 - 328: These results hold regardless of magnitude of the SPD? That is, the values of 31.9 years, 10%, and 73.5% were determined over a wide range of magnitudes?

RESPONSE: This statement refers to SPDs of all magnitudes. Decline magnitude is taken into account in a later steps in our procedure (decribed at lines 339 and 364). We show elsewhere that the rate of decline was not related to SPD duration (see lines 192-196).

COMMENT 1.25

Lines 389 - 391: I'm not familiar with the reference that the authors give. In addition, they should see some of the research using the North American Breeding Bird Survey data, these are publications by John Sauer and others.

RESPONSE: This is a useful point. We have referenced a recent Partners in Flight report which uses a method based on decline rates and numerical population targets.

COMMENT 1.26

Lines 394-395: Be more precise about what is meant by "negative bias". I think the authors are suggesting that population declines (duration and hence overall magnitude) might be UNDERESTIMATED when the beginning and end of the trends cannot be identified in the monitoring data.

RESPONSE: We have used the reviewer’s wording here to make the point clear and jargon-free. Our new text, “This can lead to underestimation of decline duration and magnitude” says it unambiguously.

COMMENT 1.27

Lines 395-396: A recurring theme in the manuscript is that time-series data are often left and right-truncated and that this must be taken into account when trying to quantify a trend. To me, it seems like this must be a relatively common issue in the use of time-series data, are there general (and statistical) references to cite? Also, how have other authors dealt with this issue, either in bird data or perhaps population data (or any time series data) for other animal taxa?

RESPONSE: This is a good point. We have added text drawing attention to the analogy between our analyses of SPD duration and censored analyses of survivorship. The reference to Kalbfleisch (1979) gives methods.

COMMENT 1.28

Lines 402 - 407: As I previously commented, to me it makes more sense and is more intuitive to cast the trend as percent population change per year rather than (or in addition to) an X-fold difference between beginning and ending population size. A decline of 2 - 3% is serious when it is continual (every year) and over a long period of time (decades to century). This is what this study is really getting at. 8-fold for 100 years = -2.1% per year, 43-fold = -3.8%.

RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer that it is neither the duration nor the rate of the decline that is important from the point of view of conservation, but how rate and duration combine to produce magnitude (change from beginning to end of and SPD). So we disagree with the conclusion the reviewer draws here whilst supporting the foregoing logic!

COMMENT 1.29

Lines 422 - 426: Excellent point.

RESPONSE: We appreciate the reviewer’s support here.

COMMENT 1.30

Lines 430 - 458: I generally agree with everything that is stated here. However, I think the authors need to (1) not rely so much on the 15.8 multiplier that would be needed to offset 10% of birds expected to have an SPD of this magnitude within 100 years. It is ok to present this info but perhaps briefly present other scenarios (e.g., X% of birds expected to have an SPD of magnitude 5 or greater over a time period of 50 years). Perhaps a table of values for different multiplier scenarios could be useful. (2) Putting this analytical technique into practice for other taxa could be very difficult. Other than birds (and perhaps some insects) there is not any really long-term data that could be used to derive the multiplier. Authors should acknowledge this limitation more thoroughly and perhaps include an appeal for ecologists to start collecting such long-term data on other taxa.

RESPONSE: We did not intend to rely on the 15.8 multiplier. We point out (lines 440-443) that the selection of this value of the multiplier depends upon an arbitrary decision about how much risk is acceptable- in this case we take it that a 90% chance of the population not being depleted to below the small-population paradigm MVP is acceptable. We have added some text at line 441 to emphasise this. We have added text to the Introduction about the range of taxa to which our method could be applied. We think that it is quite wide. In addition to birds and insects, mentioned by the reviewer, there is the range of vertebrate taxa covered by the Living Planet Index.

COMMENT 1.31

Lines 479-482: Another good point.

RESPONSE: We appreciate the reviewer’s support here.

COMMENT 1.32

Lines 493-519: This section is also very Euro-focused. That's ok but it does limit the appeal of the study somewhat. Perhaps the authors could link to conservation legislation in USA/Canada a little bit.

RESPONSE: We agree and have widened the focus of this section.

COMMENT 1.33

Lines 504-519: Sentences here seem a little off the subject or out of place. None of this content derives directly from the results of this study (calculation and values of the multiplier). At the least, these sentences should be condensed or incorporated into Introduction.

RESPONSE: We agree and have reduced and rewritten this section and put some of the content into the Introduction where the logic is clearer.

COMMENT 1.34

Overall the conclusion section is good, however be careful with statements such as Lines 529-530 "one transparent and robust population size decision". Is the "one" referring to using just one value of a multiplier? This would be a bad idea when defining the size of a recovered population. Rather, it is better to use a range of multipliers (e.g., 95% CIs) for adjusting the MVP, just as no one would present just one MVP size.

RESPONSE: This is a good point we have changed the ‘one’ to ‘a’.

COMMENT 1.35

I enjoyed reading this manuscript.

RESPONSE: We are most grateful for the reviewer’s careful scrutiny and constructive suggestions.

Joe Veech

________________________________________________________________________________

REVIEWER #2: I find this manuscript very difficult to review. It contains an extensive analysis of sustained population declines in UK birds, and applies the results of that analysis to recommend adjustments to minimum population size (FRV-P) values that are part of the FCS assessments of the EU. I have concerns about the overall integration of the various components of the manuscript.

A few general comments:

COMMENT 2.1

It is really difficult to decipher the alphabet soup of acronyms in the manuscript.

RESPONSE: We have removed much of this from the manuscript to make it more accessible and generally applicable beyond the issue of Favourable Conservation Status as defined legally in Europe.

COMMENT 2.2

These is a fundamental fuzziness in much of the descriptions of the conservation assessment information (such as FRV, FRV-P, etc) that complicates this discussion. Is FRV-P a threshold category for conservation action or a population status? That is never mentioned.

RESPONSE: We use these terms because they are familiar to those engaged with the EU process. However, we agree that this is a limited subset of readers immersed in the world of FRVs, so have generalised the wording of the conservation assessment information to widen its interest and improve clarity. We have also altered the title to remove mention of terms used in the European Union’s legal processes.

COMMENT 2.3

The primary analysis of the manuscript is poorly motivated. After a discussion of EU conservation categorizations, the manuscript switches gear to provide an extensive discussion of modeling durations of population declines. Then, it only returns to the original motivation (the conservation assessments) at the end, applying the very general results to attempt to inform very specific questions. These pieces need better integration.

RESPONSE: Our Introduction now more clearly outlines our motivation for the new method proposed.

COMMENT 2.4

It seems to me that there is a disconnection between the abstract (that is strongly focused on the conservation application) and the bulk of the manuscript (that is primary about the analysis of sustained population declines). I find it difficult to believe that the high-level result extracted from the bird population analysis and applied to conservation question (i.e., how much to adjust FRV-P) really has credibility, as it is produced at such a high level of abstraction from any species.

RESPONSE: We have improved the abstract and the Introduction to lay a better foundation for what the paper is trying to achieve. We believe that reviewer 2, when criticising the proposed method as having a ‘high level of abstraction from any species’ is criticising the generic nature of the multiplier. We believe as stated in the manuscript, that this is a strength because it does not make assumptions as to the types of declines that may befall individual species and allows the unpredictability of real conservation problems to be common to all species. Our aim is to illustrate a generally protective multiplier to render small-population paradigm MVPs more robust, given that unpredicted long-term adverse changes befall populations. It is not intended to predict outcomes for individual species. We are highly sceptical that risks of future Sustained Population Declines can be predicted from species’ attributes, with the possible exception of effects of climatic change.

COMMENT 2.5

I question the rather grandiose assessment that this approach combines Caughley's rare population and declining population paradigms. I would that would best be done in a model that contains temporal stochasticity in demographic parameters.

RESPONSE: We disagree with the reviewer here. The reviewer’s assertion that our suggestion that our approach combines Caughley’s two paradigms is “grandiose” seems harsh and we believe is misplaced. The two paradigms are manifestly explicitly linked together in our study- SPDs are characteristic of the declining-population paradigm and the MVP values that we propose to multiply reflect the small-population paradigm. So we think it reasonable to make this simple point, especially given Caughley’s criticism that the two paradigms are too rarely brought together in solving practical conservation problems. The reviewer would prefer us to link the two in a very different way, using a PVA based upon a simulation model which uses estimates of temporal stochasticity in demographic parameters. If it was feasible, this might well be useful in assessing long-term risks to a given population. However, it would require robust estimates of all of the many parameters in the model. The data to support such models are simply not available for most species. In large part, that is because valid PVAs have to be based upon data which are not only robust, but also long-term. That combination is rarely achieved. Our different approach in this paper accepts that the future is difficult to predict and quantifies the rate of occurrence of past sustained population declines and their magnitudes, based upon empirical data. We are happy to admit that these rates and magnitudes might change over time and might not be a completely reliable guide to the future. However, we suggest that, at least in the foreseeable future, the results will be more likely to be such a guide to than individual PVA models based on guessed-at or poorly estimated parameter values.

COMMENT 2.6

I find it difficult to pass judgement on the quality of the primary analysis, of sustained population declines. It is an interesting result, but it seems to me that there are many assumptions that need to be stated. There would be huge heterogeneity among species in this probability, but that is not considered here, and the way significant periods of decline is defined and estimated makes no accommodation for the imprecision inherent in estimation of declines.

RESPONSE: We disagree with the reviewer here. As we point out in the paper, the past performance of conservation scientists and ecologists in predicting which species will undergo sustained population declines is not impressive. Hence, while the probability of such declines may well be heterogenous, we do not think that it is practical, with present knowledge, to account for that heterogeneity in these analyses. The assumptions and methods of our analysis are outlined in great detail and Reviewer 2 makes very few detailed comments below on assumptions that we have neglected to specify. We therefore believe that we have addressed those comments. We may not have presented the assumptions concerning the accuracy of the original monitoring data used clearly enough. if this is where Reviewer 2’s criticism lies, we believe we have now addressed this. We note and appreciate that Reviewer 1 approves of the logic of our approach, and we have used these constructive comments of Reviewer 1 to clarify some points.

Specific comments:

COMMENT 2.7

Abstract: I find this to be quite confusing, as it pummels the readers with poorly described jargon. It could use some strong editing to provide a clear statement of the issue and how this analysis improves it. As I note elsewhere, it seems to me that the focus of the paper is the analysis of sustained declines, but the focus of the abstract is how the overall result ties into 1 component of FCS.

RESPONSE: Thank you. we have edited the abstract to clarify it and we have linked the abstract more closely to the focus of the paper.

COMMENT 2.8

L 28. I had not heard of the term Favorable Conservation Status, and this first sentence just does'nt make sense to me. This should be reworded to at last describe (even vaguely!) what FCS is, and perhaps how FRV-P (l. 30) relates to it!

RESPONSE: Favourable Conservation Status is concept much in use in the European Union. Favourable reference values FRVs are also such. We have removed them from the abstract and title and have defined ‘favourable’ as a term in the introduction in the context of other assessments such as those in the US and Canada.

COMMENT 2.9

l. 55. Quantitative methods are always needed! I think you want to say that efficient methods are needed.

RESPONSE: We agree that it is good to add the word “efficient”. However, we did mean to say that the methods need to be quantitative as well. Previously (e.g. red-listing before the Mace-Lande criteria), conservation assessments of populations were efficient (in that they were done quite quickly and cheaply) but they were predominantly qualitative in most cases.

COMMENT 2.10

l. 59. You still have not defined this concept of "Favorable Conservation Status!" What does it mean? L 66-69 indicate that this concept relates to criteria we usually asspciate with risks of extinction, or species characteristics that provide a rationale for conservation activity. Please state this.

RESPONSE: As we pointed out in the Introduction, the main point of our paper is that FCS (an EU technical and legal concept) has NOT BEEN DEFINED satisfactorily in quantitative terms and we therefore aim to contribute a way to do that. For example, we stated clearly in the first paragraph of the Introduction “the term ‘favourable’ does not yet have a generally accepted definition”. We have redrafted the Introduction to present this and related concepts in a different way. We have removed the acronyms FCS and FRV-P but have kept the concept of what is a favourable population size which we believe (even if the reader is not familiar with the phrase Favourable Conservation Status) to be understandable to the reader.

COMMENT 2.11

l. 69 and following. You choose to focus on just one element of FCS. It seems to me that your introduction up to this point is misleading, as you are not discussing FCS comprehensively, but are just refining one element of it.

RESPONSE: We now focus on favourable population size as a measure and do not imply that the paper deals with the whole concept of FCS.

COMMENT 2.12

l. 71 and following. Pleae clarify the motivation for defining FRV-P. There seems to be a lot of semantics on this paragraph. You call this "numerical measures of population size." Is this the current population size (i.e, the population status), or is this a minimum viable population size? I find this confusing. Defining population status is common, and identifying species with small populations is often considered a risk factor for conservation assessments (i.e., Rabinowitz-style criteria), but these status values are much different than MPVs which relate specifically to a demographic modeling attribute. Statements in this paragraph suggest that you wish to define FRV-P as a modified MVP, but is that the actual intent of the FRV-P criterion?

RESPONSE: We think that the first two paragraphs of the Introduction already did this explicitly and clearly. However, we have responded by moving this part of the paper away from the EU concepts of FCS and FRV-P. We have rewritten the Introduction to clearly state what our motivations are and we hope this flows more clearly now. Our intention in the Introduction is still to say that favourable status, including population size, exists as a concept in legislation, but there is no accepted way of measuring or defining it. We give some examples where others have used methods that we do not think are satisfactory. We then state how our proposed method attempts to address some of the issues raised.

COMMENT 2.13

I believe that what you are saying here is the FRV-P is designed to be a MVP, and that your analysis provides an ad-hoc scaling of MVP to accommpdate stochastic effects not included in the original MVP formulation. If so, why not just define a more realistic MVP that includes such stockasticity?

RESPONSE: We think that the “more realistic MVP that includes such stochasticity” is not achievable for nearly all real animal populations. Only for a vanishingly small number of populations are (a) density dependence, (b) demographic rates, (c) environmental stochasticity’s effects on demographic rates known well enough and measured over a long enough period to build a reliable model of future risk. We contend that this is the case even for well-known species groups, such as birds. We therefore think that the reviewer’s proposal is unrealistic if the objective is to estimate long-term future risk for all or most of a large group of species. We have redrafted the section of the Introduction about MVPs to say this.

COMMENT 2.14

l. 90-93. This seems to me to be a odd comment. How do we know that several decades is short relative to the duration of some declines? It would be better to say that perhaps declines defined over short intervals are not predictive of long term declines and thus do not inform extinction probabilities (as Thogmartin and Stanton have done for North American birds).

RESPONSE: The reviewer has missed the point we are seeking to make here. Short-run monitoring populations does not reveal the full duration and magnitude of declines because their full probability distribution is veiled (i.e. short runs of data cannot tell you about long declines without special analysis).

COMMENT 2.15

l. 121-123. This criterion defines a period of decline and recovery. the later criteria (up to line 135) are rules for finding the smallest n in the interval. Why not just say that?

RESPONSE: Our aim here was to define the rules for identifying SPDs explicitly in such a way that others could repeat it exactly. We don’t feel that the suggested replacement sentence achieves that unamabiguous clarity.

COMMENT 2.16

l. 138. You never state it explicitly, but presumably the duration of the SPD is from tstart to tlow.

RESPONSE: Later sections make it clear that defining the duration of SPDs requires that censoring is taken into account and we describe how that was done in detail. See lines 163-185.

COMMENT 2.17

SPDs must also be at least 10 years in duration. This seems very arbitrary, and likely to have a strong influence on the results.

RESPONSE: We accept that the ten-year threshold is arbitrary but do not think that our results are sensitive to this. Allowing a shorter threshold would inflate the number of SPDs detected but decrease the proportion of them that are high-magnitude. Hence, the effect on the multiplier calculation would be small.

COMMENT 2.18

l. 165 onward. All analyses after this point make identical distribution assumptions among the SBDs. Is that valid?

RESPONSE: We do not understand this point. “identical distribution assumptions”: identical with respect to what? We allow duration and magnitude to vary among species, but do not define subsets of species with differing distributions. That is because an empirical basis for doing that has not been established for this set of species, though it might be done in the future. Ignoring this possible subdivision for now does not seem to us to diminish the validity of our results. We have added text in the Discussion about what seems to us to be the most feasible method for making separate predictions of future SPD prevalence and magnitude for sub-groups of bird species. That is to do so using information about sensitivity to climatic change. However, the methods are not robust enough to do this yet.

COMMENT 2.19

l. 165-170. This seems to me to be an oversimplification. If so, why only consider d >9? Are there issues associated with not having d <10 in this analysis?

RESPONSE: We test the assumption of a constant annual probability of SPD cessation explicitly- see lines 179-182. So it is a simplification but one for which we provide justification. We address the point about the threshold of ten years in response to a point above.

________________________________________

Decision Letter 1

Floyd W Weckerly

23 Jan 2020

Implications of the prevalence and magnitude of sustained declines for determining a minimum threshold for favourable population size

PONE-D-19-27507R1

Dear Dr. Gilbert,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Floyd W Weckerly

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Floyd W Weckerly

28 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-27507R1

Implications of the prevalence and magnitude of sustained declines for determining a minimum threshold for favourable population size

Dear Dr. Gilbert:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Floyd W Weckerly

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Data on population changes of UK breeding bird species with more than 10 years of monitoring data available between 1970 and 2013.

    Columns show: the total length in years of the monitoring data for each species; the first and last years of total monitoring period and the original dataset sources are given. Source codes are: BoCC - smoothed trends fitted to annual data from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO and Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Common Birds Census (CBC) and the BTO/JNCC/Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) (Harris et al. 2015); RBBP - data from the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (Holling 2014); SCARRABS - national population estimates from surveys of single species, which were typically undertaken at intervals of at least several years (Eaton et al. 2015); Declines of at least 10 years duration were identified, and the first (t1) and last (t2) years of the declines are given. The population size or indexed population sizes n1 at t1 and n2 at t2 are given. References are as supplied in the main text.

    (DOCX)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files S1 Table.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES