Cargando…
Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management
Increasingly intensive strategies to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function are being deployed in response to global anthropogenic threats, including intentionally introducing and eradicating species via assisted migration, rewilding, biological control, invasive species eradications, and gene...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9291768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33734489 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13734 |
_version_ | 1784749208793776128 |
---|---|
author | Pearson, Dean E. Clark, Tyler J. Hahn, Philip G. |
author_facet | Pearson, Dean E. Clark, Tyler J. Hahn, Philip G. |
author_sort | Pearson, Dean E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Increasingly intensive strategies to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function are being deployed in response to global anthropogenic threats, including intentionally introducing and eradicating species via assisted migration, rewilding, biological control, invasive species eradications, and gene drives. These actions are highly contentious because of their potential for unintended consequences. We conducted a global literature review of these conservation actions to quantify how often unintended outcomes occur and to elucidate their underlying causes. To evaluate conservation outcomes, we developed a community assessment framework for systematically mapping the range of possible interaction types for 111 case studies. Applying this tool, we quantified the number of interaction types considered in each study and documented the nature and strength of intended and unintended outcomes. Intended outcomes were reported in 51% of cases, a combination of intended outcomes and unintended outcomes in 26%, and strictly unintended outcomes in 10%. Hence, unintended outcomes were reported in 36% of all cases evaluated. In evaluating overall conservations outcomes (weighing intended vs. unintended effects), some unintended effects were fairly innocuous relative to the conservation objective, whereas others resulted in serious unintended consequences in recipient communities. Studies that assessed a greater number of community interactions with the target species reported unintended outcomes more often, suggesting that unintended consequences may be underreported due to insufficient vetting. Most reported unintended outcomes arose from direct effects (68%) or simple density‐mediated or indirect effects (25%) linked to the target species. Only a few documented cases arose from more complex interaction pathways (7%). Therefore, most unintended outcomes involved simple interactions that could be predicted and mitigated through more formal vetting. Our community assessment framework provides a tool for screening future conservation actions by mapping the recipient community interaction web to identify and mitigate unintended outcomes from intentional species introductions and eradications for conservation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9291768 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92917682022-07-20 Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management Pearson, Dean E. Clark, Tyler J. Hahn, Philip G. Conserv Biol Reviews Increasingly intensive strategies to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function are being deployed in response to global anthropogenic threats, including intentionally introducing and eradicating species via assisted migration, rewilding, biological control, invasive species eradications, and gene drives. These actions are highly contentious because of their potential for unintended consequences. We conducted a global literature review of these conservation actions to quantify how often unintended outcomes occur and to elucidate their underlying causes. To evaluate conservation outcomes, we developed a community assessment framework for systematically mapping the range of possible interaction types for 111 case studies. Applying this tool, we quantified the number of interaction types considered in each study and documented the nature and strength of intended and unintended outcomes. Intended outcomes were reported in 51% of cases, a combination of intended outcomes and unintended outcomes in 26%, and strictly unintended outcomes in 10%. Hence, unintended outcomes were reported in 36% of all cases evaluated. In evaluating overall conservations outcomes (weighing intended vs. unintended effects), some unintended effects were fairly innocuous relative to the conservation objective, whereas others resulted in serious unintended consequences in recipient communities. Studies that assessed a greater number of community interactions with the target species reported unintended outcomes more often, suggesting that unintended consequences may be underreported due to insufficient vetting. Most reported unintended outcomes arose from direct effects (68%) or simple density‐mediated or indirect effects (25%) linked to the target species. Only a few documented cases arose from more complex interaction pathways (7%). Therefore, most unintended outcomes involved simple interactions that could be predicted and mitigated through more formal vetting. Our community assessment framework provides a tool for screening future conservation actions by mapping the recipient community interaction web to identify and mitigate unintended outcomes from intentional species introductions and eradications for conservation. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-31 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9291768/ /pubmed/33734489 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13734 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Reviews Pearson, Dean E. Clark, Tyler J. Hahn, Philip G. Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management |
title | Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management |
title_full | Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management |
title_fullStr | Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management |
title_short | Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management |
title_sort | evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management |
topic | Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9291768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33734489 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13734 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pearsondeane evaluatingunintendedconsequencesofintentionalspeciesintroductionsanderadicationsforimprovedconservationmanagement AT clarktylerj evaluatingunintendedconsequencesofintentionalspeciesintroductionsanderadicationsforimprovedconservationmanagement AT hahnphilipg evaluatingunintendedconsequencesofintentionalspeciesintroductionsanderadicationsforimprovedconservationmanagement |