Conservation translocation – an increasingly viable option for managing threatened plant species
Heidi C. Zimmer A G , Tony D. Auld A B C , Peter Cuneo D , Catherine A. Offord D and Lucy E. Commander E F
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, PO Box 1967, Hurstville, NSW 1481, Australia.
B School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
C Centre for Ecosystem Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
D Australian Plantbank, Australian Botanic Garden Mount Annan, Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Locked Bag 6002, Mount Annan, NSW 2567, Australia.
E Australian Network for Plant Conservation, GPO Box 1777, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
F The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Perth, WA 6009, Australia.
G Corresponding author. Email: heidi.zimmer@gmail.com
Australian Journal of Botany 67(7) 501-509 https://doi.org/10.1071/BT19083
Submitted: 2 May 2019 Accepted: 17 September 2019 Published: 4 December 2019
Abstract
Translocation is the establishment and augmentation of plant populations using ex situ material, and can reduce extinction risk. Historically, translocation has been considered to be high cost and high risk, but today, translocation is increasingly recognised as a necessary option for managing many threatened plant species. To examine the viability of translocation as a management action, we analysed the frequency of it being a recommended management action, its estimated cost over time, and its perceived likelihood of success as compared with other management actions. We did this using the 368 threatened plant species in the New South Wales state register of threatened species management strategies (the Saving our Species (SOS) database). Translocation was recommended as a management action for 30% of threatened plants (112 species), mostly in response to demographic threats (i.e. threats affecting species with small population sizes/restricted distributions, for example, environmental and demographic stochasticity or low genetic diversity). The estimated cost of translocation per species was similar to other common management actions. However, expert elicitation data (in the SoS database) indicated that translocation was less certain of a beneficial outcome, compared with almost all other management actions. Based on these findings, we create a decision framework, which uses the principles of extinction risk assessment to assist conservation managers in determining when translocation is most likely to be beneficial. We suggest that the use of translocation to mitigate the risk of extinction associated with small population sizes/restricted ranges is supported by the principles of extinction risk assessment. With a growing knowledge base, and costs comparable to other management actions, translocation is becoming an increasingly viable option for the conservation management of threatened plants, provided best practice guidelines are followed.
Additional keywords: augmentation, ex situ conservation, extinction risk, introduction, reintroduction.
References
Albrecht MA, Osazuwa‐Peters OL, Maschinski J, Bell TJ, Bowles ML, Brumback WE, Duquesnel J, Kunz M, Lange J, McCue KA, McEachern AK, et al (2018) Effects of life history and reproduction on recruitment time lags in reintroductions of rare plants. Conservation Biology| Effects of life history and reproduction on recruitment time lags in reintroductions of rare plants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Australian Government (2012) Weeds of national significance. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeds/lists/wons.html (accessed 12 February 2019).
Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GOU, Swartz B, Quental TB, Marshall C, McGuire JL, Lindsey EL, Maguire KC, Mersey B, Ferrer EA (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51
| Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21368823PubMed |
Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode B, Cook C, Game ET, Granthan H, Kark S, Linke S, McDonald-Madden E, Pressey RL, Walker S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (2008) Is conservation triage just smart decision making? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23, 649–654.
| Is conservation triage just smart decision making?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brazill-Boast J, Williams M, Rickwood B, Partridge T, Bywater G, Cumbo B, Shannon I, Probert WJM, Ravallion J, Possingham H, Maloney RF (2018) A large-scale application of project prioritization to threatened species investment by a government agency. PLoS One 13, e0201413
| A large-scale application of project prioritization to threatened species investment by a government agency.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30106972PubMed |
Burgman M (2005) ‘Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Center for Plant Conservation (2018) Best plant conservation practices to support species survival in the wild. Available at: https://www.publicgardens.org/resources/cpc-best-plant-conservation-practices-support-species-survival-wild (accessed 13 August 2019).
Commander LE, Coates D, Broadhurst L, Offord CA, Makinson RO, Matthes M (2018) ‘Guidelines for the translocation of threatened plants in Australia.’ 3rd edn. (Australian Network for Plant Conservation: Canberra, ACT)
Corlett RT (2016) Plant diversity in a changing world: status, trends, and conservation needs. Plant Diversity 38, 10–16.
| Plant diversity in a changing world: status, trends, and conservation needs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30159445PubMed |
Dalrymple SA, Banks E, Stewart GB, Pullin AS (2012) A meta-analysis of threatened plant reintroductions from across the globe. In ‘Plant reintroduction in a changing climate: promises and perils’. (Eds J Maschinski, EH Haskins) pp. 31–50. (Island Press: Washington, DC)
Di Fonzo MM, Nicol S, Possingham HP, Flakus S, West JG, Failing L, Long G, Walshe T (2017) Cost-effective resource allocator: a decision support tool for threatened species management. Parks 23, 101–113.
| Cost-effective resource allocator: a decision support tool for threatened species management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dillon R, Monks L, Coates D (2018) Establishment success and persistence of threatened plant translocations in south west Western Australia: an experimental approach. Australian Journal of Botany 66, 338–346.
| Establishment success and persistence of threatened plant translocations in south west Western Australia: an experimental approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biological Conservation 126, 131–140.
| Genetics and extinction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gaston KJ, Fuller RA (2009) The sizes of species’ geographic ranges. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 1–9.
| The sizes of species’ geographic ranges.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Godefroid S, Vanderborght T (2011) Plant reintroductions: the need for a global database. Biodiversity and Conservation 20, 3683–3688.
Holl KD, Aide TM (2011) When and where to actively restore ecosystems? Forest Ecology and Management 261, 1558–1563.
| When and where to actively restore ecosystems?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (1987) ‘The IUCN position statement on translocation of living organisms: introductions, re-introductions and re-stocking.’ (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland, Switzerland)
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (2013) Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations. Version 1.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2013-009.pdf (accessed 12 February 2019)
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (2018) Numbers of threatened species by major groups of organisms (1996–2018). Available at: http://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/summarystats/2018-1_Summary_Stats_Page_Documents/2018_1_RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf (accessed 8 July 2018).
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (2019a) IUCN Red List. Statistics. Conservation actions needed. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/search/stats (accessed 11 August 2019).
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (2019b) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 14 (August 2019). Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/redlistguidelines (accessed 12 November 2019).
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (2019c) The IUCN Red List of threatened species statistics. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/search/stats?id=57234 (accessed 15 April 2019).
Joseph LN, Maloney RF, Possingham HP (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23, 328–338.
| Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19183202PubMed |
Kindvall O, Gärdenfors U (2003) Temporal extrapolation of PVA results in relation to the IUCN Red List criterion E. Conservation Biology 17, 316–321.
| Temporal extrapolation of PVA results in relation to the IUCN Red List criterion E.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lande R (1993) Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. American Naturalist 142, 911–927.
| Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29519140PubMed |
Lawton JH (1993) Range, population abundance and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8, 409–413.
| Range, population abundance and conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Le Breton TD, Zimmer HC, Gallagher RV, Cox MC, Allen S, Auld TD (2019) Using IUCN criteria to perform rapid assessments of at-risk taxa. Biodiversity and Conservation 28, 863–883.
| Using IUCN criteria to perform rapid assessments of at-risk taxa.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Li DZ, Pritchard HW (2009) The science and economics of ex situ plant conservation. Trends in Plant Science 14, 614–621.
| The science and economics of ex situ plant conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19818672PubMed |
Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akcakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conservation Biology 22, 1424–1442.
| Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18847444PubMed |
Martínez-Paz J, Almansa C, Casasnovas V, Colino J (2016) Pooling expert opinion on environmental discounting: an international Delphi survey. Conservation & Society 14, 243–253.
| Pooling expert opinion on environmental discounting: an international Delphi survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Maunder M (1992) Plant reintroduction: an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 1, 51–61.
| Plant reintroduction: an overview.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Monks L, Coates D, Bell T, Bowles ML (2012) Determining success criteria for reintroductions of threatened long-lived plants. In ‘Plant reintroduction in a changing climate’. pp. 189–208. (Island Press: Washington, DC)
Mooers AØ, Faith DP, Maddison WP (2008) Converting endangered species categories to probabilities of extinction for phylogenetic conservation prioritization. PLoS One 3, e3700
| Converting endangered species categories to probabilities of extinction for phylogenetic conservation prioritization.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19002251PubMed |
Müller H, Eriksson O (2013) A pragmatic and utilitarian view of species translocation as a tool in conservation biology. Biodiversity and Conservation 22, 1837–1841.
| A pragmatic and utilitarian view of species translocation as a tool in conservation biology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) (2018) New South Wales invasive species plan 2018–2021. Available at: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/807753/InvasiveSpeciesPlan2018.pdf (accessed 12 February 2019).
New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW OEH) (2013) Saving our Species technical report. Available at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Animals-and-plants/Threatened-species/saving-our-species-technical-report-130699.pdf (accessed 12 February 2019).
New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW OEH) (2018a) Saving our Species program. Available at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/threatened-species/saving-our-species-program (accessed 17 February 2019).
New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW OEH) (2018b) Saving our Species database. Available at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/threatened-species/saving-our-species-program/saving-our-species-database (accessed May 2018).
Novacek MJ, Cleland EE (2001) The current biodiversity extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98, 5466–5470.
| The current biodiversity extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11344295PubMed |
Offord CA, Meagher PF (2009) ‘Plant germplasm conservation in Australia: strategies and guidelines for developing, managing and utilising ex situ collections.’ (Australian Network for Plant Conservation: Canberra, ACT)
Palstra FP, Ruzzante RE (2008) Genetic estimates of contemporary effective population size: what can they tell us about the importance of genetic stochasticity for wild population persistence? Molecular Ecology 17, 3428–3447.
| Genetic estimates of contemporary effective population size: what can they tell us about the importance of genetic stochasticity for wild population persistence?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19160474PubMed |
RBGDT (Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust) (2016) OEH Saving our Species program 2016–2021. Seed and ex situ conservation – information pack. Unpublished.
Schatz GE (2009) Plants on the IUCN Red List: setting priorities to inform conservation. Trends in Plant Science 14, 638–642.
| Plants on the IUCN Red List: setting priorities to inform conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19773196PubMed |
Seddon PJ (2010) From reintroduction to assisted colonization: moving along the conservation translocation spectrum. Restoration Ecology 18, 796–802.
| From reintroduction to assisted colonization: moving along the conservation translocation spectrum.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Seddon PJ, Armstrong DP, Soorae P, Launay F, Walker S, Ruiz-Miranda CR, Molur S, Koldewey H, Kleiman DG (2009) The risks of assisted colonization. Conservation Biology 23, 788–789.
| The risks of assisted colonization.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19627304PubMed |
Silcock JL, Simmons CL, Monks L, Dillon R, Reiter N, Jusaitis M, Vesk PA, Byrne M, Coates DJ (2019) Threatened plant translocation in Australia: a review. Biological Conservation 236, 211–222.
| Threatened plant translocation in Australia: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Swan KD, Lloyd NA, Moehrenschlager A (2018) Projecting further increases in conservation translocations: a Canadian case study. Biological Conservation 228, 175–182.
| Projecting further increases in conservation translocations: a Canadian case study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Walsh JC, Dicks LV, Sutherland WJ (2015) The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions. Conservation Biology 29, 88–98.
| The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25103469PubMed |
Webber BL, Scott JK, Didham RK (2011) Translocation or bust! A new acclimatization agenda for the 21st century. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26, 495–496.
| Translocation or bust! A new acclimatization agenda for the 21st century.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
