ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022
Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management.
Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Compound Ecoclimatic Events: The Long-Term Recovery of Conservation-Priority Mammals After an Extreme Ice Storm Event Was Promoted by the Alleviation of Poaching.Global change biology · 2026Article
- Contrasting cryptofaunal responses to seabird nutrient inputs illuminate coral reef productivity pathways.Ecology · 2026Article
- Invasive Predator Management Can Mitigate the Impacts of Fire and Low Rainfall for Some Herpetofauna.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Discovery of the potentially invasive Asian longhorned tick, Haemaphysalis longicornis Neumann (Acari: Ixodidae) in Türkiye: an unexpected finding through citizen science.Experimental & applied acarology · 2025Article
- Climate space, traits, and the spread of nonnative plants in North America.Plant diversity · 2025Article
- Five lessons for avoiding failure when scaling in conservation.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Review
- Genomic divergence, local adaptation, and complex demographic history may inform management of a popular sportfish species complex.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- The EICAT+ framework enables classification of positive impacts of alien taxa on native biodiversity.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Modeling total predation to avoid perverse outcomes from cat control in a data-poor island ecosystem.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
- Review
- Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.