Reintroduction of rare and endangered plants: common factors, questions and approaches
Edward O. Guerrant Jr A C and Thomas N. Kaye BA Berry Botanic Garden, 11505 SW Summerville Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97219, USA.
B Institute for Applied Ecology, 563 SW Jefferson Avenue, Corvallis, Oregon 97333, and Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: ed.guerrant@berrybot.org
Australian Journal of Botany 55(3) 362-370 https://doi.org/10.1071/BT06033
Submitted: 20 February 2006 Accepted: 9 October 2006 Published: 18 May 2007
Abstract
The science of reintroduction for conservation purposes is young, and there is still much to learn about the practice. As a means to achieving biological goals of successfully establishing new populations to enhance a species survival prospects, and project goals, such as learning how to go about establishing new populations, reintroduction projects are best done as well designed scientific experiments that test explicit hypotheses. Focusing on a range of factors common to any reintroduction, we review several empirical reintroduction projects with respect to hypotheses tested, experimental materials and methods employed, and evaluate their success in both biological and project terms.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the many colleagues who have assisted us in our work, some for many years. In particular EOG thanks Andrea Raven and the many interns and volunteers of the Berry Botanic Garden, and Bruce Rittenhouse and Nancy Brian of the Salem District, and Russ Holmes and Susan Carter of the Roseburg District, USDI Bureau of Land Management. TNK gratefully acknowledges Beth Lawrence, Jen Cramer, Angela Brandt, and other staff of the Institute for Applied Ecology, as well as Nancy Sawtelle and Sally Villegas of the Eugene District, USDI Bureau of Land Management. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions. We also gratefully acknowledge many years of funding and other logistical support by the USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service, which made many of these projects possible. Finally, Dr David Coates, and the other organisers of the symposium in which a version of this paper was delivered by EOG, have our thanks, as does the Department of Conservation and Land Management for financial and other support that made our participation possible.
Borlase SC,
Loebel DA,
Frankham R,
Nurthen RK,
Briscoe DA, Daggard GE
(1993) Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: consequences of equlization of family sizes. Conservation Biology 7, 122–131.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kaye TN, Cramer JR
(2003) Direct seeding or transplanting: the cost of restoring populations of Kincaid’s lupine (Oregon). Ecological Restoration 21, 224–225.
Lawrence BA, Kaye TN
(2006) Habitat variation throughout the historic range of golden paintbrush, a Pacific Northwest prairie endemic: Implications for reintroduction. Northwest Science 80, 140–152.
Loebel DA,
Nurthen RK,
Frankham R,
Briscoe DA, Craven D
(1992) Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: consequences of equalizing founder representation. Zoo Biology 11, 319–332.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McGlaughlin M,
Karoly K, Kaye TN
(2002) Genetic variation and its relationship to population size in reintroduced populations of the pink sand verbena, Abronia umbellata subsp. breviflora. Conservation Genetics 3, 411–420.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Newman D, Pilson D
(1997) Increased probability of extinction due to decrease genetic effective population size: experimental populations of Clarkia pulchella. Evolution 51, 354–362.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Parenti RL, Guerrant EO
(1990) Down but not out: reintroduction of the extirpated Malheur wirelettuce, Stephanomeria malheurensis. Endangered Species UPDATE 8, 62–63.
