ArticlePloS one2021
Two species, one island: Retrospective analysis of threatened fauna translocations with divergent outcomes.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Giving a Rat's: Acquisition of Baseline Health Data on Native Australian Rodents During a Conservation Translocation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Population Viability Analysis on Chinese Goral Indicates an Extinction Risk for a Local Population in Beijing, China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Habitat selection by vulnerable golden bandicoots in the arid zone.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Translocations are globally a popular tool used with the intention of improving threatened species conservation and re-establishing ecosystem function. While practitioners strive for successful outcomes the failure rate of translocations continues to be high. We demonstrate how predictive modelling can contribute to more informed decision making and hence potentially improve the success rate of translocation programs. Two species, the Djoongari (Shark Bay mouse) Pseudomys fieldi and the golden bandicoot Isoodon auratus barrowensis, were introduced independently to Doole Island in the Exmouth Gulf of Western Australia. We used population viability analysis to critique the outcomes of these translocations and provide an example of how this tool can be incorporated with expert knowledge to predict likely outcomes of translocations. Djoongari did not establish on the island after seven translocations over nine years, while golden bandicoots established a population after just one release event. Retrospective population viability analysis (of data that was unavailable prior to the translocations) predicted and clarified the reasons behind the outcomes of both translocations. Golden bandicoots have considerably higher demographic plasticity than Djoongari, which were never likely to establish on the island. We conclude that the failure of the Djoongari translocation was due to interactions between sparse habitat, native predators and cyclonic storm surges, whereas golden bandicoots have demonstrated habitat flexibility and an ability to recover from multiple natural disasters. As a result we (1) remind conservation planners of the importance of quantifying likely refuges and habitat availability at release sites, (2) suggest practitioners consider how different threats (including natural disasters) may interact at potential release sites and (3) advocate for the incorporation of predictive modelling during the planning stages of translocations, particularly for conservation introductions where no precedent exists for the species' survival at a particular location.
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.