Is Reintroduction Biology an Effective Applied Science?

Abstract

Reintroduction biology is a field of scientific research that aims to inform translocations of endangered species. We review two decades of published literature to evaluate whether reintroduction science is evolving in its decision-support role, as called for by advocates of evidence-based conservation. Reintroduction research increasingly addresses a priori hypotheses, but remains largely focused on short-term population establishment. Similarly, studies that directly assist decisions by explicitly comparing alternative management actions remain a minority. A small set of case studies demonstrate full integration of research in the reintroduction decision process. We encourage the use of tools that embed research in decision-making, particularly the explicit consideration of multiple management alternatives because this is the crux of any management decisions.

Hatchery‐reared endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) undergo a gradual transition to piscivory after introduction to the wild

“…As long‐term stocking programmes, such as those used by the SJRIP, are likely to assume that there will be ample opportunity for stocked cohorts to encounter favourable environmental conditions, and demonstrate relatively high survival rates (Lyon et al, ), other potential management strategies for aiding the survival of stocked fish have rarely been considered or implemented. Although often logistically difficult in large, open systems such as the San Juan River, we suggest that stocking programmes used for restoring endangered fishes should focus more on rigorously evaluating the outcomes of stocking and strive for improvements (Taylor et al, ). For Colorado pikeminnow in the San Juan River, this could include testing the effects of environmental enrichment of hatcheries (e.g.…”

Which species, how many, and from where: Integrating habitat suitability, population genomics, and abundance estimates into species reintroduction planning

“…Prevailing directions in reintroduction biology as of 10 years ago pointed toward improved planning, scaling‐up thinking to the ecosystem level, quantitative research to identify and address uncertainty, and integrated perspectives built on interdisciplinary science (Armstrong & Seddon ). The approach we used here represents an amalgamation of these directionalities and aligns with the findings in a recent review of the field (Taylor et al., ). Reintroduction projects have begun to incorporate more robust planning to identify suitable habitats for reintroductions through broad and fine scale modeling (D'Elia, Haig, Johnson, Marcot, & Young, ; Hebblewhite, Miquelle, Murzin, Aramilev, & Pikunov, ) as well as working to critically consider benefits and determine risks prior to releasing animals back into historical habitats (Anderson et al., ; Converse et al., ; Ewen et al., ).…”

“…This information can be used to identify ideal sites for releases during reintroduction so that each species might be more likely to establish initially and persist in the long‐term (Leathwick, Elith, Rowe, & Julian, ; Martinez‐Meyer et al., ; Wilson, Roberts, & Reid, ). Moreover, these a priori predictions of species success might be used as a basis for integrating structured hypothesis testing into reintroduction biology to address a current short‐coming of the field (Armstrong & Seddon, ; Taylor et al., ). Although habitat and species distribution modeling remains an ever‐changing field with complicated approaches (Araujo & Guisan, ; Elith & Leathwick, ), model development prior to reintroductions and model validation following reintroductions is a robust method for improving model performance.…”

Making structured decisions for reintroduced populations in the face of uncertainty

“…Despite HRG members assigning different weights to the objectives, the distributions of the final scores were very close (Figure 4), indicating that individual weights did not influence the optimal choice. Overall, only a small portion of published reintroduction literature considers two or more alternative actions (Taylor et al, 2017) despite the obvious utility this approach has in ensuring the best management outcomes. During our SDM process, three alternative actions were considered, including the status quo and two translocations 1 year apart.…”

“…The new science of reintroduction biology has led to increasing ability to predict the fates of reintroductions (Seddon, Griffiths, Soorae, & Armstrong, 2014). However, this research is rarely embedded within the management decisions taken for reintroduced populations (Taylor et al, 2017). Ideally, predictions of outcomes under alternative management actions are compared against objectives to select the best one.…”