Reintroduction modelling: A guide to choosing and combining models for species reintroductions

Hunter‐Ayad, James; Ohlemüller, Ralf; Recio, Mariano R.; Seddon, Philip J.

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13629

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…), as long as overhunting has ceased. We acknowledge that other key factors need be taken into account for successful species reintroduction projects, including but not limited to adequate source populations, pedigree and genetics, and disease assessments (Dinca et al, 2018;Hunter-Ayad et al, 2020). Restoration projects should also consider assessing which ecoregions currently cannot meet the requirement of faunal intactness and determine where they could best support restoration in these ecoregions to rebuild faunal intactness and, over time, functional intactness as densities rebuild.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?

Plumptre¹,

Baisero²,

Belote³

et al. 2021

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation efforts should target the few remaining areas of the world that represent outstanding examples of ecological integrity and aim to restore ecological integrity to a much broader area of the world with intact habitat and minimal species loss while this is still possible. There have been many assessments of “intactness” in recent years but most of these use measures of anthropogenic impact at a site, rather than faunal intactness or ecological integrity. This paper makes the first assessment of faunal intactness for the global terrestrial land surface and assesses how many ecoregions have sites that could qualify as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs – sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity) based on their outstanding ecological integrity (under KBA Criterion C). Three datasets are combined on species loss at sites to create a new spatially explicit map of numbers of species extirpated. Based on this map it is estimated that no more than 2.9% of the land surface can be considered to be faunally intact. Additionally, using habitat/density distribution data for 15 large mammals we also make an initial assessment of areas where mammal densities are reduced, showing a further decrease in surface area to 2.8% of the land surface that could be considered functionally intact. Only 11% of the functionally intact areas that were identified are included within existing protected areas, and only 4% within existing KBAs triggered by other criteria. Our findings show that the number of ecoregions that could qualify as Criterion C KBAs could potentially increase land area up to 20% if their faunal composition was restored with the reintroduction of 1–5 species. Hence, if all necessary requirements are met in order to reintroduce species and regain faunal integrity, this will increase ecological integrity across much of the area where human impacts are low (human footprint ≤4). Focusing restoration efforts in these areas could significantly increase the area of the planet with full ecological integrity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?

Plumptre¹,

Baisero²,

Belote³

et al. 2021

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, current naturalizing populations could become part of the shifting range. Overall, this illustrates the value of our modelling strategy for guiding assisted migration scenarios (Hunter‐Ayad et al, 2020). Combining SDMs with dispersal models thus have a strong potential for guiding conservation and restoration efforts, but field validation remains critical (Laliberté & St‐Laurent, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Preprocessing was performed with the R package "raster v.3.0-7" (Hijmans, 2019), models were trained and projections obtained with "Maxent v. 3.4.3" (Phillips et al, 2020) using the R package "dismo v.1.1.4" (Hijmans et al, 2017), and evaluation was performed following Warren & Seifert (2011) with the R package "ENMeval v0.3.0" (Muscarella et al, 2014; Appendix S5) on the infrastructure of the Flemish Supercomputer Center (VSC; FWO, 2020).…”

Section: Model Building and Projectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of dispersal limitation and reforestation in shaping the distributional shift of a forest herb under climate change

Daele

Honnay

Kort

2021

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More a priori objectives can be outlined with the inclusion of our species and landscape data. Detailed statistical correlative or expert-based modeling could be expanded to include the needs of multiple species, climate change, and any nuanced requirement to increase CT success [ 42 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global assessment of forest quality for threatened terrestrial vertebrate species in need of conservation translocation programs

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation actions such as habitat protection, restoration, and translocations are critical actions in preventing further extinctions of threatened species. We used the 152 threatened species on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List with conservation translocations as a recommended conservation action to access the habitat quality of these species’ ranges. We determined where multi-species conservation translocation and forest restoration efforts can be concentrated. To determine the habitat quality of species’ ranges, we assessed forest cover, forest restoration potential, protected area status, and invasive species concerns. Forty-four percent (67 species) of species with translocations recommended have part of their range in a protected area, existing forest cover, and currently no invasive species risk. However, the majority (85 species) currently need habitat management (63 species), invasive species control (71 species), or protection (34 species). We also identified key differences between species recommended for reintroductions (115 species) and benign introductions (37 species), such as the percentage of a species’ range within a protected area, in which reintroductions (median = 7.4%) had more than benign introductions (median = 0.9%). Mauritius, central Africa, eastern Australia and Himalaya regions each have areas with range overlap of three or more species recommended for translocations and forest restoration potential. For those species with CT programs in place, mean forest cover was 32% and restoration potential was 16%, suggesting potential minimum habitat requirements for initial releases. Results provide a global perspective on reintroduction and translocation needs of threatened species with evidenced-based information on habitat quality, i.e. forest restoration potential, forest cover, protected areas, and invasive species control, to aid conservation translocation scientists and ultimately improve the success of such projects.

show abstract

Reintroduction modelling: A guide to choosing and combining models for species reintroductions

Cited by 26 publications

References 87 publications

Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?

Where Might We Find Ecologically Intact Communities?

The role of dispersal limitation and reforestation in shaping the distributional shift of a forest herb under climate change

Global assessment of forest quality for threatened terrestrial vertebrate species in need of conservation translocation programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About