Reintroducing reintroductions into the conservation arena

Robert, Alexandre; Colas, Bruno; Guigon, I.; Kerbiriou, Christian; Mihoub, Jean‐Baptiste; Saint-Jalme, Michel; Sarrazin, François

doi:10.1111/acv.12244

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our review highlights the deficit of peer‐reviewed articles that assess ecosystem‐level consequences of keystone species reintroductions, a bias toward mammals as a focal taxon, and a bias toward studies conducted in the United Sates. While studies of population dynamics of reintroduced keystone species are important to inform managers about the success of reintroductions (Long et al ; Hale ), more studies must focus on ecosystem‐level effects of reintroductions (Robert et al ) so that the presence, extent, and rate of ecosystem restoration driven by keystone species can be understood. Additionally, studies conducted on a wider variety of taxonomic groups, and in other geographic regions, would add to the understanding of keystone species worldwide, and increase knowledge in areas of high conservation concern where studies are lacking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem‐level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review

Hale

Koprowski

2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The keystone species concept was introduced in 1969 in reference to top‐down regulation of communities by predators, but has expanded to include myriad species at different trophic levels. Keystone species play disproportionately large, important roles in their ecosystems, but human‐wildlife conflicts often drive population declines. Population declines have resulted in the necessity of keystone species reintroduction; however, studies of such reintroductions are rare. We conducted a literature review and found only 30 peer‐reviewed journal articles that assessed reintroduced populations of keystone species, and only 11 of these assessed ecosystem‐level effects following reintroduction. Nine of 11 publications assessing ecosystem‐level effects found evidence of resumption of keystone roles; however, these publications focus on a narrow range of species. We highlight the deficit of peer‐reviewed literature on keystone species reintroductions, and draw attention to the need for assessment of ecosystem‐level effects so that the presence, extent, and rate of ecosystem restoration driven by keystone species can be better understood.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem‐level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review

Hale

Koprowski

2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To address several calls for an agreeable set of well-defined reporting criteria for reintroductions (Bubac et al, 2019;Morris et al, 2021;Robert et al, 2015;Seddon et al, 2007), we identified and categorized methodological consistencies from systematically reviewed studies to develop a framework for evaluating large carnivore reintroductions. This evaluation framework included a full suite of stages, indicators, and targets, along with referenced justification for all inclusions across as many species as possible (Figure 1).…”

Section: Phase Ii: Standardized Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for evaluating the success of large carnivore reintroductions

Briers-Louw,

Lindsey,

Gaylard

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic impacts have led to widespread species decline and extirpation, thereby compelling a global movement to protect and regenerate biodiversity through holistic ecosystem restoration including reintroductions. Yet, despite the increasing practice of conservation-driven reintroduction efforts over the past century, peer-reviewed literature and policy providing criteria with which to evaluate reintroduction stages and efficacy remain limited. Without these comprehensive and quantifiable metrics of relative success, such drastic conservation intervention strategies cannot be objectively evaluated nor compared, hindering the advancement of restoration as a discipline. Herein, we systematically reviewed 227 large carnivore reintroductions of 14 terrestrial mammal species across 23 countries since 1930 to contextualize global efforts to date, and from these, have developed a standardized framework to evaluate reintroduction success. We further retrospectively determined the extent to which existing studies met these criteria towards identifying current knowledge gaps and guide future reintroduction efforts. Most large carnivore records were of Felidae (70%) reintroduced into ‘closed’ systems (69%) across southern Africa (70%). Our proposed framework provides a full suite of stages, indicators, and targets for reintroduction evaluation, which, when retrospectively applied to reviewed studies, indicated that at least one-third lacked sufficient information to effectively evaluate and compare reintroduction outcomes. This comprehensive and prioritized framework provides novel transparency and scalability to large carnivore reintroduction programs, which is increasingly required to secure the sustained support of impacted communities and stakeholder networks. Moreover, the incorporation of this framework into future practice and policy as an applied tool may directly benefit the recovery of at least 30 large carnivore species, while its principles may be applied more broadly across taxonomic groups for faunal rewilding and global ecosystem restoration.

show abstract

“…With climate change as an important concern for species conservation (Bellard et al., 2012; Thomas et al, 2004; Thuiller et al., 2005; Urban, 2015), translocations represent an opportunity for practitioners to contribute to the migration of populations towards the poles, or higher up in altitude, to cooler climatic conditions, thus mitigating the deleterious effects of warming (Aitken & Whitlock, 2013; Brooker et al, 2011; Fahselt, 2007). Review articles on plant translocations have focused on an assessment of the success of translocations, and the factors determining that success (Dalrymple et al., 2011; Godefroid et al., 2011; Menges, 2008; Silcock et al., 2019), although the criteria for success are themselves a subject of debate (Haskins, 2015; Robert et al., 2015a, 2015b; Seddon, 2015; Shier, 2015). Curiously, no studies are available that examine the geographical and climatic differences between the natural origins of translocated plant material and its final destination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant translocations in Europe and the Mediterranean: Geographical and climatic directions and distances from source to host sites

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the number of plant translocations has been rapidly increasing for two decades, no study is available to date that examines the directions and distances of plant displacements, which is essential (though not sufficient) information for considering translocations as a management tool to enable species to cope with the consequences of climate change. In this paper, we study the geographical and climatic directions and distances from source to host sites in 638 source‐and‐host site pairs of plant translocations that aimed to achieve viable populations in the last decades in the Western Palearctic (Europe and the Mediterranean). Translocation distances ranged from 0 to 661 km, but were generally short, most (82%) being <25 km, due to both ecological considerations and legal and administrative constraints. The host sites were not preferentially located in any geographical direction or in any altitude relative to the source sites. In contrast, on a climate compass constructed from a principal component analysis of seven bioclimatic variables, the host sites were slightly, but significantly, under colder climatic conditions than the source sites. This observation appears more to be the consequence of an effort to counteract already felt effects of climate change than to anticipate future changes. The climatic distance between source sites and actual host sites was generally smaller than between source sites and randomly selected host sites at a given distance or within a given geographical area, which may be the result of a desire to minimise climatic differences or differences in other ecological factors correlated with climatic differences. Synthesis. This study is the first to compare, geographically and climatically, the source sites of biological material and the host sites in translocations of wild plant species to obtain viable populations. Past translocations in the Western Palearctic are in line with mitigating the consequences of global warming on plant species because the host sites were in slightly cooler conditions than the source sites. Despite this, climate considerations seem to have little been taken into account in plant translocation projects and will certainly have to be much more so in a future with rapid anthropogenic climate change.

show abstract

Reintroducing reintroductions into the conservation arena

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Ecosystem‐level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review

Ecosystem‐level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review

Guidelines for evaluating the success of large carnivore reintroductions

Plant translocations in Europe and the Mediterranean: Geographical and climatic directions and distances from source to host sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About