Literaturdatenbank
Literaturdatenbank |
|
 |
|
Giménez, A., Ibarra, I. P., Anadón, J. D., Tella, J. L., Díaz, M., & Nicola, G. G. , Are reintroductions the best conservation tool? not always. Unpublished paper presented at XII Congresso Luso Espanhol de Herpetologia.
Added by: Admin (06 Jan 2014 18:22:49 UTC) |
| Resource type: Conference Paper BibTeX citation key: Gimnez2012 View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: General Keywords: Amphibien - amphibians, Echsen - saurians, Habitat - habitat, Schildkröten - turtles + tortoises, Schlangen - snakes Creators: Anadón, Díaz, Giménez, Ibarra, Nicola, Tella Collection: XII Congresso Luso Espanhol de Herpetologia |
Views: 7/615
Views index: 16% Popularity index: 4% |
| Abstract |
|
Species translocations (introduction, reintroduction and restocking) are increasingly used as key tools against the current biodiversity crisis caused by human impacts on populations and ecosystems. Although the potential of translocations for conservation seems straightforward, their results and goals are still hotly debated since the convenience, justification, and usefulness of certain projects remain unclear. First, there is a worrying trend to use translocations as a techno-fix for complex conservation problems without considering the alternative approach of understanding the causes of population declines. Second, an unknown proportion of projects appear to be led by other reasons rather than restoring the long-term viability of populations (e.g. aesthetical, sociopolitical). Third, translocations are often unsuccessful. Finally, translocation projects may be harmful in the long term due to potential side-effects associated with them on the species or on recipient communities and ecosystems. Existing guidelines for translocations (e.g. IUCN, 1987; http://www.iucnsscrsg.org) provide lists of relevant issues that should be taken into account when considering implementing such projects. However, guidelines for translocations cannot be used as a clear decision-making process to decide when translocations must be undertaken according to our current state of knowledge because: (1) we still lack clear criteria to judge whether or not a given project is suitable and likely to succeed and (2) guidelines do not consider differences in relative importance of issues related to necessity and potential usefulness. Decision-making criteria for such assessments should consider an explicit goal for translocations and determine how issues related to this goal are hierarchically arranged throughout the development of any translocation project. Here we assess how recent and current translocations address criteria designed to evaluate their necessity and potential usefulness. We first reviewed guidelines for translocations and reformulated their recommendations into 10 main criteria. Then, we assessed whether or not ongoing translocations addressed these criteria using two independent databases. First, we reviewed 280 studies published between 1996 and 2010 in eight major conservation biology journals. Second, to avoid the potential effects of publication bias towards well-developed and successful projects, popular target taxa, or hot scientific topics, we compiled a complete list of the 174 translocation projects developed for terrestrial vertebrates in Spain during the last two decades. We selected Spain as an example of a country with high biodiversity and with a long experience in nature conservation, including an increasing use of exsitu conservation programs. Extensive consultation with experts and conservation managers ensured that the list was complete, thus avoiding bias against unsuccessful projects. Compliance with criteria was assessed by means of questionnaires filled out by selected experts. We found that most projects, either published or unpublished, do not fully address the criteria proposed for translocations. We contend that the absence of a clear decision-making system for translocations leads to projects that ultimately fail to meet conservation goals. We fill this gap by proposing a Hierarchical Decision-making System for Translocations nests criteria for translocations into successive decision levels. Rather than proposing any new criteria, we integrated and ordered recommendations arising from current guidelines as a way of obtaining a step-by-step methodology for evaluating translocations as conservation tools. We grouped the 10 criteria developed previously criteria within the decision-making system into three levels considering three factors: (1) hierarchical importance in the decision process; (2) adverse consequences if not fulfilled; and (3) solutions for a negative evaluation. The first level, “Necessity of the translocation”, assesses whether the project is carried out with adequate conservation objectives and translocation is the most adequate tool for the conservation of the threatened species or population. The second level, “Risk evaluation”, aims to ensure that the project will mitigate any impacts. The third level, “Technical and logistical suitability”, aims to maximize the likelihood of success at establishing new viable populations. Our proposal covers a key gap in conservation science by integrating existing guidelines into an explicit method to determine whether or not a translocation project should be implemented. This will improve translocation projects, increase their likelihood of success, and contribute to the efficient use of resources available for conservation.
Added by: Admin |