Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38628146›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2024

Preventing extinction in an age of species migration and planetary change.

Erick J Lundgren, Arian D Wallach, Jens-Christian Svenning, Martin A Schlaepfer, Astrid L A Andersson, Daniel Ramp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Preventing extinction in an age of species migration and planetary change.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024
    Article
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

6 authors.

Erick J LundgrenSchool of Biology and Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9893-3324
Arian D WallachSchool of Biology and Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6640-3887
Jens-Christian SvenningCenter for Ecological Dynamics in a Novel Biosphere (ECONOVO) & Center for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3415-0862
Martin A SchlaepferInstitute for Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8752-6245
Astrid L A AnderssonSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0002-6839-7409
Daniel RampCentre for Compassionate Conservation, TD School, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3202-9898

Funding

Australian Research Council FT210100243Daniel National Research Foundation 16549Villum Funden 16549
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International and national conservation policies almost exclusively focus on conserving species in their historic native ranges, thus excluding species that have been introduced by people and some of those that have extended their ranges on their own accord. Given that many of such migrants are threatened in their native ranges, conservation goals that explicitly exclude these populations may overlook opportunities to prevent extinctions and respond dynamically to rapidly changing environmental and climatic conditions. Focusing on terrestrial mammals, we quantified the number of threatened mammals that have established new populations through assisted migration (i.e., introduction). We devised 4 alternative scenarios for the inclusion of assisted-migrant populations in mainstream conservation policy with the aim of preventing global species extinctions. We then used spatial prioritization algorithms to simulate how these scenarios could change global spatial conservation priorities. We found that 22% (70 species out of 265) of all identified assisted-migrant mammals were threatened in their native ranges, mirroring the 25% of all mammals that are threatened. Reassessing global threat statuses by combining native and migrant ranges reduced the threat status of 23 species (∼33% of threatened assisted migrants). Thus, including migrant populations in threat assessments provides a more accurate assessment of actual global extinction risk among species. Spatial prioritization simulations showed that reimagining the role of assisted-migrant populations in preventing species extinction could increase the importance of overlooked landscapes, particularly in central Australia, Europe, and the southwestern United States. Our results indicated that these various and nonexhaustive ways to consider assisted-migrant populations, with due consideration of potential conservation conflicts with resident taxa, may provide unprecedented opportunities to prevent species extinctions.

Indexed as

Animal MigrationConservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesExtinction, BiologicalMammalsAnimalsClimate Changecambio climáticoclimate changeecosistema novedosoespecie introducidaextinciónextinctionintroduced speciesinvasioninvasiónmigración de especiesnovel ecosystemsspecies migration

Identifiers

PMID38628146
PMCPMC11589049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.