ReviewCambridge prisms. Extinction2023
Invasive species eradication: How do we declare success?
Review in Cambridge prisms. Extinction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eliminating invasive predators.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Intergenerational justice, the impending sixth mass extinction, reproduction and advanced biotechnologies, and humanity's future.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2025Review
- Inferring species extinction from sighting data.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deciding whether or not eradication of an invasive species has been successful is one of the main dilemmas facing managers of eradication programmes. When the species is no longer being detected, a decision must be made about when to stop the eradication programme and declare success. In practice, this decision is usually based on ad hoc rules, which may be inefficient. Since surveillance undertaken to confirm species absence is imperfect, any declaration of eradication success must consider the risk and the consequences of being wrong. If surveillance is insufficient, then eradication may be falsely declared (a Type I error), whereas continuation of surveillance when eradication has already occurred wastes resources (a Type II error). We review the various methods that have been developed for quantifying these errors and incorporating them into the decision-making process. We conclude with an overview of future developments likely to improve the practice of determining invasive species eradication success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.