ABSTRACT Conservation management becomes complicated when globally threatened species reach high densities locally, exceeding the carrying capacity of the ecosystem and causing damage. Managing high‐profile native species is particularly challenging, because ethical debates and public opposition to traditional control methods often prompt shifts toward strategies that prevent environmental harm rather than reducing populations. The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) in South Australia exemplifies these challenges because, although it can damage the vegetation from high browsing pressure, culling is avoided due to public resistance. Therefore, managers have to consider costly and logistically constrained alternatives such as fertility control and translocation. Demographic models are valuable tools for predicting population dynamics, but their effectiveness depends on reliable population density estimates, often biased by expert‐elicited and citizen‐science data. We combined a point‐process model, an ensemble species distribution model, and a demographic model to project koala populations in the Mount Lofty Ranges over the next 25 years to assess the efficiency and cost‐effectiveness of fertility‐control interventions while accounting for sampling biases, habitat suitability, and local densities. We tested two hypotheses: (1) koala distribution is driven by rainfall, temperature, and soil acidity, with summer rainfall boosting habitat suitability, and (2) spatially targeted fertility interventions in high‐suitability areas are more cost‐effective than generalised strategies due to subpopulation connectivity. Our models confirmed that these three environmental factors shape koala distribution and that, in the absence of intervention, the koala population could increase by ~17‐25% in 25 years. Fertility control focusing on adult females emerged as the most cost‐effective (~AU34 million) strategy, although it was slower at reducing population size compared to an intervention also sterilising female back young. While the choice of sterilisation scenario has minimal impact on overall costs, ethical considerations and long‐term conservation goals such as population density thresholds will have more influence on managing expenses effectively.
Saltré et al. (Thu,) studied this question.