Predicting reintroduction costs for wildlife populations under anthropogenic stress

Habitat remediation followed by managed connectivity reduces unwanted changes in evolutionary trajectory of high extirpation risk populations

As we continue to convert green spaces into roadways and buildings, connectivity between populations and biodiversity will continue to decline. In threatened and endangered species, this trend is particularly concerning because the cessation of immigration can cause increased inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity, leading to lower adaptability and higher extirpation probabilities in these populations. Unfortunately, monitoring changes in genetic diversity from management actions such as assisted migration and predicting the extent of introduced genetic variation that is needed to prevent extirpation is difficult and costly in situ. Therefore, we designed an agent-based model to link population-wide genetic variability and the influx of unique alleles via immigration to population stability and extirpation outcomes. These models showed that management of connectivity can be critical in restoring at-risk populations and reducing the effects of inbreeding depression. However, the rescued populations were more similar to the migrant source population (average FST range 0.05-0.10) compared to the historical recipient population (average FST range 0.23-0.37). This means that these management actions not only recovered the populations from the effects of inbreeding depression, but they did so in a way that changed the evolutionary trajectory that was predicted and expected for these populations prior to the population crash. This change was most extreme in populations with the smallest population sizes, which are representative of critically endangered species that could reasonably be considered candidates for restored connectivity or translocation strategies. Understanding how these at-risk populations change in response to varying management interventions has broad implications for the long-term adaptability of these populations and can improve future efforts for protecting locally adapted allele complexes when connectivity is restored.

Incorporating human dimensions is associated with better wildlife translocation outcomes

Wildlife translocations are increasingly used to combat declining biodiversity worldwide. Successful translocation often hinges on coexistence between humans and wildlife, yet not all translocation efforts explicitly include human dimensions (e.g., economic incentives, education programs, and conflict reduction assistance). To evaluate the prevalence and associated outcomes of including human dimensions as objectives when planning translocations, we analyze 305 case studies from the IUCN's Global Re-Introduction Perspectives Series. We find that fewer than half of all projects included human dimension objectives (42%), but that projects including human dimension objectives were associated with improved wildlife population outcomes (i.e., higher probability of survival, reproduction, or population growth). Translocation efforts were more likely to include human dimension objectives if they involved mammals, species with a history of local human conflict, and local stakeholders. Our findings underscore the importance of incorporating objectives related to human dimensions in translocation planning efforts to improve conservation success.

Renewed coexistence: learning from steering group stakeholders on a beaver reintroduction project in England

Species reintroductions are growing in popularity, and example motivations include supporting species populations or the restoration of ecosystem function. Interactions between humans and the reintroduced species are likely to occur post-reintroduction. Coexistence between humans and wildlife is adaptive and dynamic, in part requiring management of conflicts between humans and wildlife, or of conflicts between humans over wildlife management. We seek to learn from the experiences of steering group members in a Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) project in England and identify how governance of coexistence with reintroduced species may differ from the governance of coexistence with species that are already present in the landscape. Using a qualitative thematic analysis of an online survey, we identify a series of lessons in six key areas: (1) project governance, (2) stakeholder engagement, (3) research and monitoring programme, (4) strategy to manage arising conflicts, (5) public engagement, and (6) broad perspectives on reintroduction trials. We advocate for reflective evaluation as an essential component of reintroduction projects to enable knowledge-sharing from experiences, leading to improved practices in the future. Reflecting on our analysis, we identify and define ‘Renewed Coexistence’—a new term that draws on pre-existing coexistence knowledge but identifies the unique elements that relate to governing coexistence with reintroduced species.