Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1419–1429 | Cite as

Independent contributions of threat and popularity to conservation translocations

  • M. Díaz
  • J. D. Anadón
  • J. L. Tella
  • A. Giménez
  • I. Pérez
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity appreciation and engagement

Abstract

Species translocations are popular tools in conservation, but may be increasingly motivated by species’ popularity, rather than their threat status. We analyzed relative contributions of threat status (a surrogate for extinction risk) and popularity (an estimate of the degree of public knowledge, awareness or notoriety) to the likelihood of developing translocation projects for a representative whole regional fauna (174 conservation translocations during the last two decades for 82 out of the 527 species of Spanish terrestrial vertebrates). Three measures of threat status were obtained from technical (IUCN) and legal sources. Popularity estimates were obtained from body size data and two different Internet search protocols. All combinations of the three factors used to estimate threat status were correlated, as were the three indicators of species popularity (internet popularity indexes and body mass). Selected estimates unbiasedly captured differences in both threat and popularity among species. Threat and popularity were only weakly correlated, as expected when considering faunas as a whole rather than the better-studied subsets. Threat status and popularity had significant and equivalent contributions to explain the development of conservation translocations. Popularity, or lack thereof, partly explained the development of projects for non-threatened but popular species, as well as the lack of projects for several highly endangered species unknown by the public. Observed mismatches between technical and social criteria can be prevented by (a) strict separation of conservation translocations from translocations directed to cover other social demands or (b) development of explicit, quantitative decision-making criteria aimed at rigorous ex-ante evaluations of translocations.

Keywords

Decision criteria Internet searches Popularity Conservation translocations Threat status 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Graciela G. Nicola collaborated in the development of body size and popularity estimates, and in collating comprehensive species’ lists of all animal groups. Martina Carrete provided part of the data of bird body masses. Piotr Tryjanowski and, especially, Alberto Díaz provided references and fruitful discussion on Internet searches as sources of popularity estimates. Comments from four referees and the associate editor, Anurag Chaurasia, were very helpful. This paper is a contribution to the projects REMEDINAL3-CM (S2013/MAE-2719) and VEABA (ECO2013-42110-P), funded by regional and national Spanish agencies, respectively.

Supplementary material

10531_2018_1500_MOESM1_ESM.xls (185 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 185 kb)
10531_2018_1500_MOESM2_ESM.docx (11 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 11 kb)
10531_2018_1500_MOESM3_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 18 kb)

References

  1. Amstrong DP, Seddon PJ (2008) Directions in reintroduction biology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anadón JD, Giménez A, Martínez M, Martínez J, Pérez I, Esteve MA (2006) Factors determining the distribution of the spur-thighed tortoise Testudo graeca in south-east Spain: a hierarchical approach. Ecography 29:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ, Gribble NA (1998) Partitioning the variation among spatial, temporal and environmental components in a multivariate data set. Aust J Ecol 23:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bajomi B, Pullin AS, Stewart GB, Takács-Sánta A (2010) Bias and dispersal in the animal reintroduction literature. Oryx 44:358–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barua M (2011) Mobilizing metaphors: the popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts. Biodivers Conserv 20:1427–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batson WG, Gordon IJ, Fletcher DB, Manning AD (2015) Translocation tactics: a framework to support the IUCN Guidelines for wildlife translocations and improve the quality of applied methods. J Appl Ecol 52:120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE) (2011) Real Decreto 139/2011 de 4 de febrero para el desarrollo del Listado de Especies Silvestres en Régimen de Protección Especial y del Catálogo Español de Especies Amenazadas. BOE 46:20912–20951Google Scholar
  8. Brichieri-Colombi TA, Moehrenschlager A (2016) Alignment of threat, effort, and perceived success in North American conservation translocations. Conserv Biol 30:1159–1172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrete M, Grande JM, Tella JL, Sánchez-Zapata JA, Donázar JA, Díaz-Delgado R, Romo A (2007) Habitat, human pressure, and social behavior: partialling out factors affecting large-scale territory extinction in an endangered vulture. Biol Conserv 136:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. J Anim Ecol 63:215–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clucas B, McHugh K, Caro T (2008) Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodiv Conserv 17:1517–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Klemm C, Shine C (1993) Biological diversity conservation and the law: legal mechanisms for conserving species and ecosystems. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Doadrio I (ed) (2001) Atlas y Libro Rojo de los peces continentales españoles. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2000) An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol Conserv 96:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frynta D, Lišková S, Bültmann S, Burda H (2010) Being attractive brings advantages: the case of parrot species in captivity. PLoS ONE 5:e12568CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris JBC, Reid JL, Scheffers BR, Wanger TC, Sodhi NS, Fordham DA, Brook BW (2012) Conserving imperiled species: a comparison of the IUCN red list and US endangered species act. Conserv Lett 5:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoffmann M et al (2010) The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330:1503–1509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. IUCN/SSC (2013) Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations. Version 1.0. IUCN/SSC, GlandGoogle Scholar
  19. Knight AJ (2008) “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. J Environ Psychol 28:94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leunda PM, Elvira B, Ribeiro F, Ferreiro RM, Oscoz J, Alves MJ, Collares-Pereira MJ (2009) International standardization of common names for Iberian endemic freshwater fishes. Limnetica 28:189–202Google Scholar
  21. Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Hortal J (2010) The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mac Nally R, Walsh CJ (2004) Hierarchical partitioning public domain software. Biodivers Conserv 13:659–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Madroño A, González GG, Atienza JC (eds) (2004) Libro rojo de las aves de España. Organismo Autónomo Parques Nacionales, MadridGoogle Scholar
  24. Navigli R (2009) Word sense disambiguation: a survey. ACM Comp Surv 41:Article 10.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1459352.1459355
  25. Palomo LJ, Gisbert J, Blanco JC (eds) (2008) Atlas y Libro Rojo de los mamíferos terrestres de España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  26. Pérez I, Anadón JD, Díaz M, Nicola GG, Tella JL, Giménez A (2012) What is wrong with current translocations? A review and a decision-making proposal. Front Ecol Environ 10:494–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pleguezuelos JM, Márquez R, Lizana M (eds) (2004) Atlas y libro rojo de los anfibios y reptiles de España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  28. Pons P, Quintana XD (2003) Unsuitable reintroductions and conservation priorities. Oryx 37:285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberge JM (2014) Using data from online social networks in conservation science: which species engage the most on Twitter? Biodivers Conserv 23:715–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria http://www.R-project.org
  31. Salvador A, Elvira B (eds) (2014) Enciclopedia Virtual de los Vertebrados Españoles. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain http://www.vertebradosibericos.org/
  32. Sarrazin F, Barbault R (1996) Reintroduction: challenges and lessons for basic ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:474–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sitas N, Baillie JCM, Isaac NJB (2009) What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action. Anim Conserv 12:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Takada K (2013) Exploitation of flagship species of Scarabaeid beetles with application of analyzed results on cultural entomology. Appl Ecol Environ Sci 1:1–6Google Scholar
  35. Tella JL, Hiraldo F (2014) Illegal and legal parrot trade shows a long-term, cross-cultural preference for the most attractive species increasing their risk of extinction. PLoS ONE 9:e107546CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Turvey ST, Fernández-Secades C, Nuñez-Miño JM, Hart T, Martínez P, Brocca JL, Young RP (2014) Is local ecological knowledge a useful conservation tool for small mammals in a Caribbean multicultural landscape? Biol Conserv 169:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verissimo D, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ (2011) Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conserv Lett 4:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhong Z, Ng HT (2012) Word sense disambiguation improves information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers vol. 1, pp 273–282Google Scholar
  39. Zmihorski M, Dziarska-Palac J, Sparks TH, Tryjanowski P (2013) Ecological correlates of the popularity of birds and butterflies in Internet information resources. Oikos 122:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Met Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biogeography and Global ChangeMuseo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (BGC-MNCN-CSIC)MadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of BiologyQueens College CUNYFlushingUSA
  3. 3.Ecology, Evolution and Behavior Subprogram, Biology Program. The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Conservation BiologyEstación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC)SevilleSpain
  5. 5.Department of Applied Biology and EcologyMiguel Hernández UniversityAlicanteSpain
  6. 6.Columbia School of Social WorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations