Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33734489›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022

Evaluating unintended consequences of intentional species introductions and eradications for improved conservation management.

Dean E Pearson, Tyler J Clark, Philip G Hahn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dean E PearsonRocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7623-2498
Tyler J ClarkWildlife Biology Program, Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0115-3482
Philip G HahnDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Funding

MPG RanchNational Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship 366280NSF DEB-1901552Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service
6 · The paper itself

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

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemBiodiversityIntroduced Speciesassisted migrationbiological controlbiological invasioncontrol biológicoefectos no consideradoserradicación de especies invasorasgene drivegenética dirigidaintroducción de especiesinvasión biológicainvasive species eradicationmigración asistidanontarget effectsretorno a la vida silvestrerewildingspecies introduction

Identifiers

PMID33734489
PMCPMC9291768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.