docPete Hollingsworth Linda Neaves
download 
Report Transcription
Pete Hollingsworth Linda Neaves
Pete Hollingsworth Linda Neaves RBGE Hansueli Krapf Conservation Genetics Knowledge Exchange NO YES Is conservation benefit the primary aim? accidental release other purposes: NO • • • • • non-lethal control rehabilitation commercial/recreational religious aesthetic etc. David Perez Signal crayfish Figure adapted from IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations 2012 Common carp DPM Is the release intentional? Is the release intentional? accidental release NO YES other purposes: Is conservation benefit the primary aim? NO YES • • • • • non-lethal control rehabilitation commercial/recreational religious aesthetic etc. CONSERVATION TRANSLOCATIONS Release into indigenous range? YES Population restoration NO Conservation introduction Reinforcement Assisted colonisation Reintroduction Ecological replacement Figure adapted from IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations 2012 Is the release intentional? accidental release NO YES other purposes: Is conservation benefit the primary aim? NO YES • • • • • non-lethal control rehabilitation commercial/recreational religious aesthetic etc. CONSERVATION TRANSLOCATIONS Release into indigenous range? YES Population restoration Successful genetic rescue of inbred adders NO Conservation introduction Reinforcement Zdeněk Fric Reintroduction Madsen et al. (1999) Nature 402: 34-35. Madsen et al. (2004) Bio. Cons. 120: 145-147. Is the release intentional? accidental release NO YES other purposes: Is conservation benefit the primary aim? NO YES • • • • • non-lethal control rehabilitation commercial/recreational religious aesthetic etc. CONSERVATION TRANSLOCATIONS Release into indigenous range? Population restoration Reintroduction of small cow-wheat NO Conservation introduction Reinforcement Assisted colonisation Reintroduction Ecological replacement Figure adapted from IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations 2012 Konrad Lackerbeck YES Is the release intentional? accidental release NO YES other purposes: Is conservation benefit the primary aim? NO YES • • • • • non-lethal control rehabilitation commercial/recreational religious aesthetic etc. CONSERVATION TRANSLOCATIONS Release into indigenous range? Marbled white successfully moved YES 65 km N NO Population restoration Conservation introduction Reintroduction Willis et al. (2009) Cons. Letters 2: 45-51. Assisted colonisation Michael Apel Reinforcement Ecological replacement Is the release intentional? accidental release NO YES other purposes: Is conservation benefit the primary aim? NO YES • • • • • non-lethal control rehabilitation commercial/recreational religious aesthetic etc. CONSERVATION TRANSLOCATIONS Release into indigenous range? Aldabran tortoise replacing Cylindraspis tortoise YES NO Population restoration Conservation introduction Assisted colonisation Reintroduction Ecological replacement Aiwok Reinforcement Griffiths et al. (2010) Restoration Ecology 18: 1-7. RBGE Hansueli Krapf How successful are translocations? Willow Red kite How successful are translocations? 50 Number of translocations 45 40 35 30 Failure (4%) Partially successful (40%) Succcessful (37%) Highly successful (19%) 25 20 15 10 5 0 193 releases (184 studies): 19% ‘highly successful’ Compiled from RSG Global Reintroduction Perspectives 2008, 2010, 2011 The Importance of Guidelines • 1998 IUCN Guidelines widely used but now dated • Translocations of varying levels of risk, planning, success likelihood are being undertaken • New Guidelines provide a checklist of issues to consider – Promote success – Reduce risk The Importance of Guidelines • 1998 IUCN Guidelines widely used but now dated • Translocations of varying levels of risk, planning, success likelihood are being undertaken • New Guidelines provide a checklist of issues to consider – Promote success – Reduce risk IUCN Guidelines For Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations Adopted by SSC Steering Committee 5th September 2012 Conservation situation 1. Is a translocation appropriate? Feasibility assessment Decision to translocate Risk assessment 2. Planning translocation 3. Implementation and Release Dissemination to inform future decisions 4. Monitoring 5. Outcome assessment Figure adapted from IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations 2012 Adaptive management Conservation situation 1. Is Is aa translocation translocation appropriate? 1. appropriate? Feasibility assessment Risk assessment • Assess Decision conservation benefit to translocate • Evaluation of alternatives • • • • Area-based actions Species-based actions 2. Planning translocation Social/indirect actions No action • Assess/address causes of extinction Reintroductions are only one aspect of the conservation 3. Implementation and Release programme in sand lizards 4. Monitoring 5. Outcome assessment ARC, CCW & NE (2010). Sand Lizard and Smooth Snake SAP Adaptive management N P Holmes Dissemination to inform future decisions Corbett & Moulton (1997) EN Reports No. 288 Conservation situation 1. Is translocation appropriate? 2.aPlanning a translocation Feasibility assessment • Define:Decision to translocate • Goals • Objectives • Actions Risk assessment RBGE 2. Planning translocation • Potential for incorporation of experimental design into the plan 3. Implementation and Release Dissemination to inform future decisions 4. Monitoring 5. Outcome assessment Adaptive management Conservation situation 1. Is translocation appropriate? 2.aPlanning a translocation • Define:Decision to translocate Chris van Swaay • Goals Feasibility assessment• Objectives • Actions 2. Planning translocation • Biological feasibility • Potential for incorporation of • Biological knowledge • Habitat/ climatic experimental design into the plan requirements 3. Implementation and Release • Founders/Donor sites • Disease and parasite • Animal Dissemination towelfare •inform Socialfuture feasibility decisions compliance • Regulatory 4. Monitoring • Resources availability Understanding of complex species interaction and habitat changes required to enable successful reintroduction of large blue butterfly 5. Outcome assessment Thomas et al. (2009) Science 325: 80-83. Conservation situation 1. Is translocation appropriate? 2.aPlanning a translocation • Define:Decision to translocate requirements 3. Implementation and Release • Founders/Donor sites • Disease and parasite • Animal Dissemination towelfare •inform Socialfuture feasibility decisions compliance • Regulatory 4. Monitoring • Resources availability Carol Carpenter • Goals Feasibility assessment• Objectives • Actions 2. Planning translocation • Biological feasibility • Potential for incorporation of • Biological knowledge • Habitat/ climatic experimental design into the plan Adaptive management Introduction of predators such as white tailed seaeagle can lead to animal human conflict 5. Outcome assessment Figure adapted from IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations 2012 Conservation situation 1. Is translocation appropriate? 2.aPlanning a translocation • Define:Decision to translocate • • • • Risk assessment • Goals Feasibility assessment• Objectives • Number of risk factors • Actions 2. Planning translocation • Level of risk and/or uncertainty Biological feasibility • Potential for incorporation of • Biological knowledge • Habitat/ climatic experimental design into the plan • Risk to source population • Ecological consequences of requirements 3. Implementation and Releasetranslocation • Founders/Donor sites • Disease • Disease and parasite • Invasions • Animal welfare • Gene escapes Adaptive Social feasibility management • Socio-economic Regulatory compliance 4. Monitoring • Financial Resources availability 5. Outcome assessment Figure adapted from IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations 2012 Conservation situation 1. Is translocation appropriate? 2.aPlanning a translocation • Define:Decision to translocate Dieter Weber • Goals • Objectives • Actions • Risk assessment Number of risk factors 2. Planning translocation • Level of risk and/or uncertainty Dissemination to inform future decisions Low risk • Potential for incorporation of experimental design into the plan • Risk to source population • Ecological consequences of 3. Implementation and Releasetranslocation • Disease • Invasions • Gene escapes Adaptive management • Socio-economic 4. Monitoring • Financial Chytrid fungus is implicated in serious declines and extinctions of >200 species of amphibians 5. Outcome assessment Bell and Stockell (2008) Australian Zoology, 34 379-386 Buckley & Foster (2009) EN Report No. 642 Conservation situation 1. Is translocation appropriate? 2.aPlanning a translocation • Define:Decision to translocate Willow • Goals • Objectives • Actions • Risk assessment Number of risk factors 2. Planning translocation • Level of risk and/or uncertainty Dissemination to inform future decisions • Potential for incorporation of experimental design into the plan • Risk to source population • Ecological consequences of 3. Implementation and Releasetranslocation • Disease • Invasions • Gene escapes Adaptive management • Socio-economic 4. Monitoring • Financial Low risk Chalara fraxinea at 17 nursery sites and 84 recent plantings in UK 5. Outcome assessment http://www.forestry.gov.uk/chalara Conservation situation 1. a translocation appropriate? 3. IsImplementation and Release Feasibility assessment Risk assessment • ReleaseDecision site andtoareas translocate • Release strategy • Implementation beyond the 2. Planning extends translocation release to • Public engagement • Habitat management 3. Implementation and Release Dissemination to inform future decisions Adaptive management 4. Monitoring Grey partridge suffer lower mortality rates when introduced5. asOutcome groups in autumn, compared with pairs in assessment spring. Rantanen et al. (2010) J. App. Ecol. 47: 1357-1364 Conservation situation 1. Is a translocation appropriate? 4. Monitoring Decision to translocate • • • • • • Dissemination to inform future decisions Risk assessment Pre and post release monitoring Demographic Behavioural 2. Planning translocation Ecological Genetic Health and mortality Socio-economic and financial 3. Implementation and Release Bernard Landgraf Feasibility assessment 4. Monitoring Adaptive management Non invasive genetic monitoring allows monitoring of 5. Outcome assessment elusive species such as otter Koelewijin et al. (2010) Cons. Gen. 11: 601-614. Conservation situation 1. Is 5. a translocation appropriate? Outcome assessment Feasibility assessment Risk assessment • Establish success and problems Decision to of translocate encountered during translocation 3. Implementation and Release Dissemination to inform future decisions 4. Monitoring Peter G Trimming • Regular reporting and 2. Planning translocation dissemination of information Adaptive management Vole reintroductions with different vegetation 5. Outcome assessment abundance enabled assessment of the impacts of release site on success Moorhouse et al. (2009) Bio. Cons.142: 53-60. Conservation situation 1. Is a translocation appropriate? Feasibility assessment Decision to translocate Risk assessment 2. Planning translocation 3. Implementation and Release Dissemination to inform future decisions 4. Monitoring 5. Outcome assessment Figure adapted from IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations 2012 Adaptive management Conservation Introductions The intentional movement and release of an organism outside its indigenous range Kakapo ‘marooning’ Mnolf Kevin Cole N. American falcon reintroduction of mixed sub-species Conservation Introductions Translocation as a conservation tool during climate change Marbled white, Melanargia galathea, moved 65 km Michael Apel Philmarin A paucity of examples Small skipper, Thymelicus sylvestris, moved 35 km. Both colonies expanded 2001-2006, and were thriving in 2008 Willis et al. (2009) Cons. Letters 2: 45-51 • Predicting which species will respond naturally • Understanding where negative outcomes are most likely Sarah (Dluogs) Knowledge gaps • Selecting suitable sites outside of natural range – Climate/habitat requirements – Ecological relationships i.e. Dependant/associated species • Selecting suitable donor pools – Mixing versus matching Pateman et al. (2012) Science 336: 1028-1030. Dalrymple et al. (2012) In Plant reintroduction in a changing climate. Island Press (p31-50). Frankham et al. (2011) Conservation Biology 25: 465-475. Andewa – Invasiveness/escape of species, their genes – Unpredicted consequences of novel interactions • Translocations need to become more experimental Piet Spaans Translocations as conservation tool • Recording and dissemination of translocation design and outcomes to inform future decision making • IUCN guidelines designed for all situations – Planning effort should be proportionate to scale and nature of translocation – Scottish ‘best practice code’ being developed пончик • Adequate and appropriate monitoring (esp. long term) Acknowledgements Members of the Reintroduction and Invasive Species Specialist Groups’ Task Force on Moving Plants and Animals for Conservation Purposes: • • • • • • • • Mark R Stanley Price (Chair) Frédéric Launay Piero Genovesi Doug Armstrong Sarah Dalrymple Peter Hollingsworth Michael Jordan Michael Maunder • • • • • • • Ben Minteer Axel Moehrenschlager Sanjay Molur François Sarrazin Philip Seddon Pritpal Soorae Wendy Strahm Funding from NERC Knowledge Exchange grant
