
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

73286
10.1038/s41598-024-73286-y
Article
Employing targeted outreach to improve community involvement in detecting invasive Nile monitors (Varanus niloticus) in Florida
Mazzotti Frank J. fjma@ufl.edu

Dalaba Justin R.
Evans Paul M.
Gati Emily V.
Miller Melissa A.
https://ror.org/02y3ad647 grid.15276.37 0000 0004 1936 8091 Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 USA
20 9 2024
20 9 2024
2024
14 219765 10 2023
16 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
We successfully employed targeted outreach to communities in Palm Beach County, Florida, to enhance detection of invasive reptiles. We defined targeted outreach as delivering a specific message to a specific audience, at a specific location, to obtain a specific result. These efforts improved our ability to solicit community involvement focused on target species of interest in locations at risk of potential establishment of incipient populations. From 2018 through 2020, we reached over 112,000 individuals who reported over 50 nonnative lizard sightings to EDDMapS, a web-based mapping system for documenting invasive species, and the State-managed IVE-GOT1 reporting hotline. We considered reports to be directly attributed to our outreach efforts when the reporter indicated our outreach method as the source from which they obtained information on reporting large invasive lizards. We found print media elicited the most reports, while social media reached the largest audience both in direct shares and spillover to additional communities outside our target area. We concluded that to help improve invasive species management programs, three tactics could be employed: (1) using multiple forms of media, (2) additional educational support to improve the accuracy of public reports, and (3) rapid, dedicated capability to respond to reported sightings.

Keywords

Multimedia outreach
Community involvement
Detection
Invasive wildlife
Targeted outreach
Subject terms

Invasive species
Herpetology
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Invasive wildlife—nonnative species that negatively impact the environment, the economy, or human health and safety—are a significant concern in restoration of South Florida Everglades ecosystems1,2. South Florida has been particularly susceptible to invasion by reptiles due to a subtropical climate, depauperate native herpetofauna (due to peninsular geography3), thriving exotic pet trade, and an increased risk of escape due to destructive hurricanes2. Florida has more nonnative lizards reproducing in the wild than native species4. The largest species of lizards breeding in Florida are from South and Central America, Argentine black and white tegu (Salvator merianae), green iguana (Iguana iguana), and spiny-tailed iguanas, Ctenosaura spp, except for the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus), which originates in Africa.4. Nile monitors have recently been targeted for increased management by multiple government agencies including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. While the pet trade was the source of Nile monitors imported to the United States, we do not know if releases of captive lizards in Florida were accidental, intentional, or both5.

Nile monitors are large, semiaquatic, carnivorous lizards native to Sub-Saharan Africa that can grow up to 2.4 m in length6,7. These lizards are opportunistic foragers8 and inhabit a variety of habitats, including residential and agricultural areas9. In Florida, Nile monitors appear to prefer habitats adjacent to water, with vegetation, open spots for basking, and opportunities to occupy burrows5. The abundant water management canals and ponds in Florida provide many of these features.

One of two established Nile monitor populations in South Florida occurs in Palm Beach County along the C-51 Canal10. Nile monitors have the potential to compete with and depredate nests of native crocodilians, the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus)11,12. They may also threaten other aquatic species in Florida, such as water birds (herons, egrets, rails, gallinules, grebes, ducks, and shorebirds)4,5. In response, management agencies are making efforts to detect and remove Nile monitors from the C-51 Canal, C-51 Basin, and surrounding neighborhoods (Fig. 1). The C-51 Canal is the primary canal in the C-51 Basin in Palm Beach County, Florida, USA, which encompasses approximately 165 square kilometers (Fig. 1). The C-51 is primarily urban, bound by a busy road, county park, businesses, and residences along most of its length. Numerous smaller canals and ditches also drain into the canal from the north and south. Stormwater Treatment Areas (STA) East and West, and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge are south of the C-51 Canal at the western edge of the study site (Fig. 1).Fig. 1 Map of study site within Palm Beach County Florida showing location of the C-51 Basin, canals, waterways, and stormwater treatment areas (STA). All (verified and unverified) Argentine black and white tegu (red circles) and Nile monitor (blue circles) sightings reported in Palm Beach County and surrounding areas in Broward County during 2018 to 2020 are shown. Areas of targeted outreach effort in the C-51 Basin are demarcated with dashed lines. In total 55 nonnative lizard sightings occurred during this period, and 32 of these sightings (58%) could be directly attributed to UF targeted outreach efforts. Map was generated using ArcGIS Pro (Version 3.3.1) from Esri31.

Available methods for finding and removing invasive lizards have limited utility when species have a low probability of detection, occur at low density, exhibit elusive behavior, occur on private lands or largely inaccessible habitats, or exhibit a combination of these factors13–15. Development and validation of new methods are needed to effectively detect and remove invasive lizards, ideally while minimizing resources required. Community outreach offers the opportunity for environmental educators and wildlife professionals to improve detection and leverage resources through targeting community interest in detecting and reporting invasive wildlife.

Involving the public in reporting invasive species as part of regional networks has proven a useful tool16, as has the process of involving citizens in science as researchers (citizen science)17,18 and broadcasting a message widely to an unspecified audience to obtain a specific result (crowdsourcing)15. Community involvement in detection and monitoring of natural resources, and of invasive species, has been increasing in response to outreach efforts. Benefits of community involvement include an increased spatial extent of detection efforts as well as an increase in the numbers of eyes surveying15,18,19, both of which are especially beneficial when facing a low probability of detection or occurrence on private lands, where access may be limited. Community involvement also has significant challenges, which are frequently related to methods of data collection and use17. Providing access to educational resources, such as training and information can improve data quality, making it more suitable for use by scientists and decision-makers17,19.

We assessed the effectiveness of improving community involvement in management of invasive reptiles by employing targeted outreach to enhance detection of invasive Nile monitors with the goal of removing them. We defined targeted outreach as delivering a specific message to a specific audience, at a specific location, to obtain a specific result. We distinguished targeted outreach from citizen science in that we are not engaging the public in performing research18 and we are not broadcasting our message widely as in crowdsourcing15. Targeted outreach to specific audiences has been successfully used in a variety of situations. For example, targeted community outreach was used in Thailand to alleviate poaching pressure on wildlife20, communicate watershed information21, aid conservation projects22, manage the spread of invasive species by boaters23, and develop outreach programs24. Here, we provided an example of effectively using targeted outreach to detect large invasive lizards.

Methods

Implementing our definition of targeted outreach, we delivered a specific message (to look for and report large invasive lizards); to a specific audience at a specific location (residents and workers in the C-51 Basin and surrounding areas); with the desired result to promote the reporting of Nile monitors and other large invasive lizards to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) IVE-GOT1 reporting hotline or to EDDMapS (https://www.eddmaps.org/). Reported sightings were verified either by observer photograph, site visit, camera trap, or live trap. Our approach was based on the hypothesis that if Nile monitors occur in the C-51 Basin, someone has seen them. This is particularly important in residential areas, where much of the available Nile monitor habitat occurs on private property. From 2018 through 2020, we focused targeted outreach efforts within the C-51 Basin and adjacent neighborhoods (Fig. 1) using multiple communication strategies over a three-year period (Table 1), including door hangers, “wanted” flyers, presentations, social media, and traditional media (Table 1). Examples of outreach materials are provided in Supplemental Materials. We targeted neighborhoods in the C-51 Basin and surrounding areas based upon presence of known, or potential, suitable habitat for Nile monitors determined from a habitat assessment we previously conducted to estimate the monitor’s range25. An additional component to our targeted outreach included implementation of an online, geo-targeted survey for residents of Palm Beach County. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate the public’s (1) Overall awareness of invasive large lizards in South Florida; (2) Perceptions about invasive large lizards; and (3) Attitudes toward management. We delivered the questionnaire to willing participants in select zip code regions through Qualtrics, an online software program.Table 1 Summary of University of Florida (UF) targeted outreach methods and total reach conducted during 2018–2020.

Category	Targeted outreach method	Reach	
2018	2019	2020	Total	Category total	
In-person	Handouts (door hangers/flyers)	1153	2354	0	3,507	3,712	
Presentations	75	130	0	205	
Virtual	Webinars	0	0	229	229	108,756	
Social media	0	7664	45,993	53,657	
Mass media (news articles)	0	5,000	15,000	20,000	
Newsletters	0	0	34,350	34,350	
Survey/Questionnaire	0	0	520	520	
Total reach for in-person methods (handouts, presentations) includes number of households and individuals contacted (n = 3,712). Total reach for virtual methods (webinars, social media, mass media, newsletters, and survey/questionnaire) includes number of unique individuals who directly viewed content but does not include individuals reached through shared content (n = 108,756). Note, news outlets could not provide exact number of news article views for competitive reasons; therefore, mass media reach is estimated based on average readership.

The specific message delivered to our target audiences was to be on the lookout for invasive lizards while outdoors28. The specific, desired response was to report Nile monitors and other large invasive lizards to the FWC-managed IVEGOT1 hotline or to EDDMapS. The desired outcome of this response was to detect Nile monitors in a matrix of public and private lands.

To evaluate effectiveness of our targeted outreach, we obtained records of Nile monitor reports and other large lizards from EDDMapS and FWC IVE-GOT1 hotline records. EDDMapS and FWC considered a sighting to be verified when there was a photograph attached to the report or the species was identified by a wildlife expert. We considered reports to be directly attributed to University of Florida (UF) outreach efforts when the reporter indicated a UF outreach method as the source from which they obtained information on reporting large invasive lizards. We confirmed our assumptions to the best of our ability by following up directly with reporters, and through information FWC obtained by fielding calls through the IVE-GOT1 hotline. Not all reporters responded to this prompt or were able to clearly indicate the source from which they obtained information on reporting invasive species. We assumed these reports were not attributed to UF outreach efforts and were excluded from consideration. Therefore, estimates of reports attributed to UF outreach efforts are likely conservative. Experimental protocols for data collection of public perceptions and awareness were approved by University of Florida IRB permit # 202,000,259. All methods were conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations and informed consent was obtained from participants.

Results

During the three years of this project, our targeted efforts reached 112,468 individuals or households (Table 1). Through in-person methods, we distributed door hangers to 3,423 households, opportunistically handed out 84 “wanted” flyers, and delivered presentations to 205 individuals in Palm Beach County. Through online and virtual methods, we reached 53,657 unique individuals on social media (excluding those reached through shared content), presented webinars to 229 individuals, contacted 34,350 individuals via email newsletters, contacted 520 participants in an online geo-targeted survey, and potentially reached up to 20,000 people through print media outlets (e.g., Palm Beach Post and Sun Sentinel). Total reach from print media was estimated based on average readership since news companies could not provide exact reach for competitive reasons.

Most target audience responses were associated with print media (newspapers). In-person outreach, including placing door hangers and presentations provided an opportunity to interact directly with would-be reporters. Social media proved to be another effective method of outreach, in terms of reaching a larger number of individuals with less time and effort required.

During the three years of this project, 55 sightings of Nile monitors and Argentine black and white tegus were reported from Palm Beach County. A total of 30 Nile monitor sightings were reported, 15 (50%) of which were verified (Fig. 1). There were 25 total Argentine black and white tegus sightings reported from Palm Beach County during the same time, 15 (60%) of which were verified. Thirty-two (58%) of these were directly attributed to UF targeted outreach efforts (Table 2). Of the reports stemming from UF targeted outreach, eight (25%) were associated with news articles from May 2020. The additional 24 reports (75%) were attributed to in-person targeted outreach (door hangers, flyers, and presentations) and social media. The FWC responded to three of the reports attributed to UF outreach with live trapping and were able to remove an Argentine black and white tegu and a Nile monitor. We responded to a misidentified Nile monitor report with a live trap and removed a rhinoceros iguana (Cyclura cornuta), a previously unreported nonnative species for Palm Beach County.Table 2 Summary of large lizard sightings from Palm Beach County reported to EDDMapS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s IveGot1 hotline that were directly attributed to UF targeted outreach efforts.

Date	Reported species	Credibility	Verified species	Response	
07 May 18	Nile monitor	Verified	Nile monitor	No response	
05 Nov 18	Nile monitor	Verified	Nile monitor	No response	
21 Feb 19	Nile monitor	Misidentified	Argentine tegu	Removed	
24 Feb 19	Nile monitor	Misidentified	Argentine tegu	No response	
31 Mar 19	Argentine tegu	Misidentified	Nile monitor	Surveyed area	
12 May 19	Argentine tegu	Verified	Argentine tegu	Trap deployed	
21 May 19	African spiny-tailed lizard	Misidentified	Argentine tegu	No response	
24 May 19	Nile monitor	Verified	Nile monitor	Trap deployed	
27 May 19	Argentine tegu	Verified	Argentine tegu	Trap deployed	
07 June 19	Nile monitor	Misidentified	Cuban knight anole	No response	
07 June 19	Nile monitor	Credible	Not verified	Surveyed area	
09 June 19	Argentine tegu	Verified	Argentine tegu	No response	
15 June 19	Nile monitor	Misidentified	Rhinoceros iguana	Removed	
14 Oct 19	Argentine tegu	Possible	Not verified	No response	
7 Dec 19	Nile monitor	Possible	Not verified	No response	
25 Jan 20	Nile monitor	Possible	Not verified	No response	
20 Feb 20	Argentine tegu	Verified	Argentine tegu	No response	
02 Apr 20	Nile monitor	Possible	Not verified	No response	
17 Apr 20	Nile monitor	Possible	Not verified	No response	
20 Apr 20	Nile monitor	Possible	Not verified	No response	
11 May 20	Argentine tegu	Verified	Argentine tegu	No response	
13 May 20	Argentine tegu	Possible	Not verified	No response	
14 May 20	Argentine tegu	Verified	Argentine tegu	No response	
19 May 20	Argentine tegu	Credible	Not verified	No response	
19 May 20	Argentine tegu	Possible	Not verified	No response	
21 May 20	Argentine tegu	Possible	Not verified	No response	
21 May 20	Argentine tegu	Possible	Not verified	No response	
22 May 20	Nile monitor	Possible	Not verified	No response	
27 May 20	Argentine tegu	Possible	Not verified	No response	
27 Mat 20	Nile monitor	Verified	Nile monitor	Removed	
28 May 20	Nile monitor	Possible	Not verified	No response	
1 July 20	Nile monitor	Credible	Not verified	No response	
. For brevity, Argentine black and white tegu is termed Argentine tegu. Credibility of reports were classified as ‘Verified’ (species was correctly identified by reporter) or ‘Misidentified’ (species was incorrectly identified by reporter) as determined using photographic evidence attached to reports. Reports deemed ‘Credible’ included an accurate species description but could not be verified visually, and reports classified as ‘Possible’ included an observation lacking in detail but reported in an area where verified sightings are known to have occurred. Unverified species accounts are represented as “Not verified”. Management responses are noted based on what action was taken post-report.

In at least six cases, the reported species were misidentified. We determined through photographic evidence that species misidentified as Nile monitors included an Argentine black and white tegu, a Cuban knight anole (Anolis equestris), a green iguana, and a rhinoceros iguana. One report of an Argentine black and white tegu was later verified as a Nile monitor and one report of an African spiny-tailed lizard (Uromastyx sp.) was later verified as an Argentine black and white tegu. All misreports were of nonnative species, but not always the target species for removal.

Discussion

Targeted outreach proved effective at improving detection of Nile monitors and other large invasive and nonnative lizards in the C-51 Basin, surrounding neighborhoods, and other locations such as Broward County. This is particularly important as much of the suitable habitat available for large invasive lizards occurs on private property with limited access25. Through targeted outreach, we were able to increase our understanding of extent and habitats encompassing the range of Nile monitors in the greater C-51 Basin area. Understanding species distributions and habitat use of invasive wildlife via targeted outreach can help inform targeted removal efforts. By selectively targeting audiences, messages, and desired outcomes, outreach efforts can increase efficacy while reducing potential costs associated with a less directed outreach effort and species monitoring. Additionally, natural resource managers can improve removal efforts by knowing where to focus their efforts. Rapid response to nonnative species can increase the probability of removal, and, minimize the potential for establishment and expansion26,27.

Targeted outreach can be done by a broad community of environmental educators such as land grant university extension agents or wildlife professionals. Our methods may be of particular benefit to extension agents who act as a liaison for distributing information from academia to the community, and therefore often have access to a variety of audiences in the community (e.g., such as Master Gardeners and 4-H Clubs) as well as diverse methods for message delivery such as presentations, fact sheets, and social media. Wildlife professionals have access to similar methods of delivering a message and have an advantage of tightly linking reports to responses, increasing the probability of removal26,27.

We identified two issues of concern during this study. First, during in-person outreach we found a low awareness of nonnative and invasive lizards in general, and a poor ability to correctly identify Nile monitors and other large lizards. Development of supplemental informative tools such as the “Large Lizard Lineup” factsheet28 and providing training through in-person and virtual presentations may help improve accuracy of public reports, particularly those without photographic evidence. However, while quantifying a change in knowledge resulting from these methods was beyond the scope of this study, we recommend that subsequent studies utilizing targeted outreach consider this approach. Second, there were 15 verified reports of Argentine black and white tegus from Palm Beach County, a county where tegus were not known to be established, during the span of our targeted outreach efforts. Scattered reports such as these should be responded to rapidly and thoroughly before tegus can coalesce into a breeding population.

Three out of four large lizards (one Nile monitor, two Argentine black and white tegus, and one rhinoceros iguana) that were responded to were able to be removed by trapping. We attributed the low number of large lizard removals to limited funding for a dedicated response program in addition to a time lag for IVEGOT1 and EDDMapS reports to prompt a response. This is especially challenging for species such as Nile monitors that are often quick to leave the reported location. Responding rapidly to a report of an invasive species increases the probability of removal26,29. We recommend directly linking reports to a response capability to overcome this gap between reports and responses.

We learned valuable lessons regarding effectiveness of different targeted outreach methods for detection of invasive wildlife. Newspapers garnered the most reports and provided new information on Argentine black and white tegus, Nile monitors, and other large lizards. The benefit of in-person outreach, including door hangers and presentations, was the opportunity to interact directly with would-be reporters, potentially increasing the likelihood an individual would follow through on reporting invasive lizard sightings. We also were able to record public attitudes during in-person outreach to better understand how perceptions and attitudes may influence behavior (e.g., reporting or not reporting an invasive lizard to wildlife responders) and we plan to report those results in a separate manuscript. We found that social media was effective at reaching a larger number of individuals with less time and effort30. Perhaps the most valuable aspect of social media was that the message extended beyond the targeted audience, potentially increasing the number of individuals looking for Nile monitors and other large lizards. In several instances, communities shared photographs of our outreach materials through social media (e.g., Nextdoor app), reaching additional residents and neighborhoods.

Overall, there is a need for improved accuracy of large lizard identification and a rapid, dedicated capability to respond to reported sightings. These limitations can be overcome by additional support for focused outreach, educational materials, and training, as well as through additional support for identifying pathways to directly link reports to response capabilities. Nevertheless, misidentified sightings reported in this study all consisted of nonnative lizards and led to the removal of a previously unreported nonnative lizard species from Palm Beach County and numerous reports of invasive tegus where there were previously no known breeding population, exemplifying the importance of continued targeted outreach efforts.

In this study, we presented an example of effectively using targeted outreach to obtain reports of sightings of invasive lizards from residents and workers in Palm Beach County, Florida. These methods can be replicated in other locations with different target species, which could lead to an increase in local understanding of the status and range of invasive species, and ultimately improved management and monitoring programs.

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-73286-y.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided to F. J. M. by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through a Cooperative Agreement with the South Florida Caribbean Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (Cooperative Agreement Award Number F17AC01070). We conducted this work under University of Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol number 201708432.

Author contributions

F.J.M. designed the study, obtained funding, and wrote the final version of the manuscript. M.A.M. provided project oversight and coordination of field operations. F.J.M., J.R.D., E.V.G., and M.A.M. developed and revised targeted outreach materials. J.R.D. and E.V.G. collected data. J.R.D, MAM, and P.M.E. analyzed and interpreted the data. J.R.D and P.M.E. wrote early versions of the manuscript. F.J.M., P.M.E., and M.A.M. revised the manuscript.

Data availability

All data required for the analysis performed in this manuscript are included in the manuscript. Raw data and code are available upon request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. National Research Council Re-engineering water storage in the everglades: Risks and opportunities 2005 Natl. Acad. Press
National Research Council. Re-engineering water storage in the everglades: Risks and opportunities (Natl. Acad. Press, 2005).
2. Mazzotti FJ Harvey RG The invasion of exotic reptiles and amphibians in Florida IFAS Publ. 2012 320 1 2
Mazzotti, F. J. & Harvey, R. G. The invasion of exotic reptiles and amphibians in Florida. IFAS Publ. 320, 1–2 (2012).
3. Means DB Simberloff D The peninsula effect: habitat-correlated species decline in Florida’s herpetofauna J. Biogeogr. 1987 14 551 568 10.2307/2844880
Means, D. B. & Simberloff, D. The peninsula effect: habitat-correlated species decline in Florida’s herpetofauna. J. Biogeogr. 14, 551–568 (1987).
4. Engeman R Jacobson E Avery ML Meshaka WE Jr The aggressive invasion of exotic reptiles in Florida with a focus on prominent species: A review Curr. Zool. 2011 57 599 612 10.1093/czoolo/57.5.599
Engeman, R., Jacobson, E., Avery, M. L. & Meshaka, W. E. Jr. The aggressive invasion of exotic reptiles in Florida with a focus on prominent species: A review. Curr. Zool. 57, 599–612 (2011).
5. Enge KM Krysko KL Hankins KR Campbell TS King FW Status of the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus) in southwestern Florida Southeast. Nat. 2004 3 571 582 10.1656/1528-7092(2004)003[0571:SOTNMV]2.0.CO;2
Enge, K. M., Krysko, K. L., Hankins, K. R., Campbell, T. S. & King, F. W. Status of the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus) in southwestern Florida. Southeast. Nat. 3, 571–582 (2004).
6. Faust RJ Bayless MK Nile monitors: ecology, morphology, and husbandry Reptil. Mag. 1996 4 68 83
Faust, R. J. & Bayless, M. K. Nile monitors: ecology, morphology, and husbandry. Reptil. Mag. 4, 68–83 (1996).
7. Pianka E King D Varanoid lizards of the world 2004 Indiana Univ. Press
Pianka, E. & King, D. Varanoid lizards of the world (Indiana Univ. Press, 2004).
8. Mazzotti FJ Diet of Nile monitors (Varanus niloticus) removed from Palm Beach and Broward Counties, Florida, USA J. Herpetol. 2020 54 189 195 10.1670/18-115
Mazzotti, F. J. et al. Diet of Nile monitors (Varanus niloticus) removed from Palm Beach and Broward Counties, Florida, USA. J. Herpetol. 54, 189–195 (2020).
9. Bennett D A little book of monitor lizards 1995 Viper Press
Bennett, D. A little book of monitor lizards (Viper Press, 1995).
10. Ketterlin Eckles JK Mazzotti FJ Giardina D Hazelton D Rodgers L First evidence for reproduction of Nile monitors (Varanus niloticus) in Palm Beach County Southeast. Nat. 2017 15 114 119 10.1656/058.015.sp812
Ketterlin Eckles, J. K., Mazzotti, F. J., Giardina, D., Hazelton, D. & Rodgers, L. First evidence for reproduction of Nile monitors (Varanus niloticus) in Palm Beach County. Southeast. Nat. 15, 114–119 (2017).
11. Cott HB Scientific results of an enquiry into the ecology and economic status of the Nile crocodile in Uganda and northern Rhodesia Transactions Zool. Soc. Lond. 1960 29 212 356
Cott, H. B. Scientific results of an enquiry into the ecology and economic status of the Nile crocodile in Uganda and northern Rhodesia. Transactions Zool. Soc. Lond. 29, 212–356 (1960).
12. Mohda ML The ecology of the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) on central island Lake Rudolf. East Afr. Wildl. J. 1965 5 74 95
Mohda, M. L. The ecology of the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) on central island. Lake Rudolf. East Afr. Wildl. J. 5, 74–95 (1965).
13. Nafus MG Mazzotti FJ Reed RN Estimating detection probability for Burmese pythons with few detections and zero recaptures J. Herpetol. 2020 54 24 30 10.1670/18-154
Nafus, M. G., Mazzotti, F. J. & Reed, R. N. Estimating detection probability for Burmese pythons with few detections and zero recaptures. J. Herpetol. 54, 24–30 (2020).
14. Mehta SV Haight RG Homans FR Polasky S Venette RC Optimal detection and control strategies for invasive species management Ecol. Econ. 2007 2 237 245 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.024
Mehta, S. V., Haight, R. G., Homans, F. R., Polasky, S. & Venette, R. C. Optimal detection and control strategies for invasive species management. Ecol. Econ. 2, 237–245 (2007).
15. Koen EL Newton EJ Outreach increases detections of an invasive species in a crowdsourced monitoring program Biol. Invasions 2021 23 2611 2620 10.1007/s10530-021-02526-3
Koen, E. L. & Newton, E. J. Outreach increases detections of an invasive species in a crowdsourced monitoring program. Biol. Invasions 23, 2611–2620 (2021).
16. Crall AW Developing cost-effective early detection networks for regional invasions Biol. Invasions 2012 14 2461 2469 10.1007/s10530-012-0256-3
Crall, A. W. et al. Developing cost-effective early detection networks for regional invasions. Biol. Invasions 14, 2461–2469 (2012).
17. Conrad CC Hilchey KG A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011 176 273 291 10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5 20640506
Conrad, C. C. & Hilchey, K. G. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 176, 273–291 (2011).20640506
18. Gallo T Waitt D Creating a successful citizen science model to detect and report invasive species BioScience 2011 61 459 465 10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.8
Gallo, T. & Waitt, D. Creating a successful citizen science model to detect and report invasive species. BioScience 61, 459–465 (2011).
19. Delaney DG Sperling CD Adams CS Leung B Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks Biol. Invasions 2008 10 117 128 10.1007/s10530-007-9114-0
Delaney, D. G., Sperling, C. D., Adams, C. S. & Leung, B. Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol. Invasions 10, 117–128 (2008).
20. Steinmetz R Srirattanaporn S Mor-Tip J Seuaturien N Can community outreach alleviate poaching pressure and recover wildlife in South-East Asian protected areas? J. Appl. Ecol. 2014 51 1469 1478 10.1111/1365-2664.12239
Steinmetz, R., Srirattanaporn, S., Mor-Tip, J. & Seuaturien, N. Can community outreach alleviate poaching pressure and recover wildlife in South-East Asian protected areas?. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1469–1478 (2014).
21. Herron, E., Stepenuck, K., & Green, L., Tools for Effective Outreach. Fact Sheet XII. (2009).
22. Stern MJ Ardoin NM Powell RB Exploring the effectiveness of outreach strategies in conservation projects: The case of the Audubon Toyota Together Green program Soc. Nat. Resources 2017 30 1 95 111 10.1080/08941920.2016.1164266
Stern, M. J., Ardoin, N. M. & Powell, R. B. Exploring the effectiveness of outreach strategies in conservation projects: The case of the Audubon Toyota Together Green program. Soc. Nat. Resources 30(1), 95–111 (2017).
23. Witzling L Shaw B Seiler D Segmenting boaters based on level of transience: outreach and policy implications for the prevention of aquatic invasive species Biol. Invasions 2016 18 3635 3646 10.1007/s10530-016-1254-7
Witzling, L., Shaw, B. & Seiler, D. Segmenting boaters based on level of transience: outreach and policy implications for the prevention of aquatic invasive species. Biol. Invasions 18, 3635–3646 (2016).
24. Prokopy LS Genskow K Social indicator variations across watersheds: Implications for developing outreach and technical assistance programs Soc. Nat. Resources 2016 29 5 617 627 10.1080/08941920.2015.1081310
Prokopy, L. S. & Genskow, K. Social indicator variations across watersheds: Implications for developing outreach and technical assistance programs. Soc. Nat. Resources 29(5), 617–627 (2016).
25. Gati, E. V., Dalaba, J. R., Miller, M. A. & Mazzotti, F. J. Distribution, relative abundance, and occupancy of Nile monitors in the C-51 basin, Palm Beach County, FL: Is containment or eradication possible? Final. Perform. Rep. to U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fort Lauderdale Res. Educ. Center, Univ. Florida, Fort Lauderdale, FL. 1–38 (2020).
26. Dalaba JR Mazzotti FJ Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) to nonnative wildlife in South Florida EDIS 2019 4 1 2
Dalaba, J. R. & Mazzotti, F. J. Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) to nonnative wildlife in South Florida. EDIS 4, 1–2 (2019).
27. Reaser JK The early detection of and rapid response (EDRR) to invasive species: a conceptual framework and federal capacities assessment Biol. Invasions 2019 22 1 19 10.1007/s10530-019-02156-w
Reaser, J. K. et al. The early detection of and rapid response (EDRR) to invasive species: a conceptual framework and federal capacities assessment. Biol. Invasions 22, 1–19 (2019).
28. Dalaba JR Mazzotti FJ Large lizard lineup for South Florida EDIS 2019 4 2 2 10.32473/edis-uw459-2019
Dalaba, J. R. & Mazzotti, F. J. Large lizard lineup for South Florida. EDIS 4, 2–2 (2019).
29. Lodge DM Biological invasions: recommendations for us policy and management Ecol. Appl. 2006 16 2035 2054 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2035:BIRFUP]2.0.CO;2 17205888
Lodge, D. M. et al. Biological invasions: recommendations for us policy and management. Ecol. Appl. 16, 2035–2054 (2006).17205888
30. Robson, C., Hearst, M., Kau, C. & Pierce, J. Comparing the use of social networking and traditional media channels for promoting citizen science. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 1463–1468 (2013).
31. Esri Inc. ArcGIS Pro (Version 3.2). Esri Inc. https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview. (2023).
