Redefining baselines in endangered species recovery

Abstract

Baselines rooted in historical records or concepts of previous conditions are necessarily used to identify and generate recovery goals for endangered species. However, strict adherence to various spatial, temporal, and genetic baselines can limit endangered species recovery actions, success, and the broader conservation of biodiversity. Recent approaches that deviate from historical baselines such as assisted colonization and intentional hybridization have been used to facilitate recovery but lack broad acceptance and an underpinning conceptual framework to guide their use in practice. We here present a novel framework for addressing when baseline‐abandoning approaches should be implemented that requires both scientific input and management‐defined thresholds. We submit that in cases where species face extreme endangerment and managers have little chance of reducing or ameliorating future threats within a species' historical range, it is better to embrace a more flexible recovery model that includes taking action that deviates from historical baselines. Embracing this reinterpretation of management baselines not only has the potential to advance endangered species recovery but could have important cascading effects on ecosystem‐based approaches to conservation. Further, rethinking adherences to baselines can affect our broader social–psychological relationship with wildlife conservation and management. Overall, although historical data on baseline conditions will remain vital to the initial setting of recovery goals, many situations will require more dynamic interpretations of paths to recovering endangered species. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

Conservation status assessment of the Sharp-shinned Hawk, an endangered insular raptor in Puerto Rico

“…However, limiting factors need to be identified and addressed before translocations and reintroductions are attempted (Jachowski et al. ).…”

“…Captive breeding and reintroduction of Mauritius Kestrels (Falco puncatus) resulted in a population increase from four to 400 individuals in a 23-yr period (Safford and Jones 1997). However, limiting factors need to be identified and addressed before translocations and reintroductions are attempted (Jachowski et al 2015).…”

Opportunities and challenges with growing wildlife populations and zoonotic diseases in Sweden

“…The shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries developed by Pauly (1995) has many analogies with management challenges involved with increasing wildlife populations (Morrison 2009; Jachowski et al 2015). However, apart from ways to use the resource, there are also challenges involved with other forms of areal land-use developed in the absence of numerous wildlife species (Martinuzzi et al 2015).…”

Ecology of a widespread large omnivore, Homo sapiens, and its impacts on ecosystem processes

“…There is no standard definition of invasive species, but generally they are considered to be species that are outside their native range, have a rapidly increasing population or have become widespread and abundant, and harm the ecosystem (Colautti & MacIsaac, 2004). Researchers in conservation, restoration, and rewilding commonly use significant H. sapiens impact as a baseline, and seek to restore to before that impact in many cases (Corlett, 2013;Jachowski, Kesler, Steen, & Walters, 2015;Svenning et al, 2015). Many ecologists are accustomed to consider only the negative ecological impacts of H. sapiens and will undoubtedly be skeptical that it can safely be used as a taxon substitute.…”