Ongoing climate change has accelerated discussions related to the movement of species across landscapes. As a discipline that has historically focused on the concept of preserving and maintaining, conservation biology seems increasingly comfortable with the idea of translocating individuals to augment dwindling numbers or diversity of an already present population. Assisted migration, however, particularly the movement of populations to locations outside of their historical ranges, remains relatively uncommon outside of plant and forestry fields (M. I. Williams and R. Kasten Dumroese, J. Forest. 111, 287–297; 2013). This is, in part, due to the inherent uncertainty regarding the organism’s own survival in new habitats, as highlighted by a recent ‘failed’ translocation of the endangered western swamp turtle (Pseudemydura umbrina) (see N&V article by Morris in this issue of Nature Climate Change and S. Paget et al., Funct. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14338; 2023), but is also related to the potential risk to the colonized ecosystems. This has led to debate in the scientific community. As one example, a survey of marine experts and coral scientists showed unanimous concern for future coral survival and belief in urgent need for action, but split support of coral propagation outside of their normal range (42% “yes”, 42% “no”, 16% “maybe”) (E. M. Mertz and A. McDonald, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1072, 012001; 2022). Those against assisted migration citing reasons that included both low chances of success and high potential risk.
Somewhere in the murky middle ground of it all is the question of reintroductions: translocating species into areas where they previously existed but have since become extirpated (locally extinct). Reintroductions are some of the most common types of translocation, yet still quite often face failure, particularly when time has passed and conditions have changed since the species last roamed the region.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution