How ready are we to move species threatened from climate change? Insights into the assisted colonization debate from Australia

Assisted colonization, the intentional movement of species beyond their native range, has been proposed as a climate change adaptation tool for biodiversity conservation. The risks and benefits of its implementation are still being debated but already the climate is changing, species are moving and the pressure on at‐risk species must therefore be increasing. However, instances where moving species beyond their natural range purely for conservation purposes due to climate change are few, and the opportunity for science to inform practice is limited. Here we survey active participants in flora translocations and/or flora conservation in Australia in order to investigate the gap between theoretical and conceptual ideas about assisted colonization and to gauge preparedness for its implementation. We found that actions that mitigate proximal threats are preferred over those that move species beyond their current range. A lack of knowledge of species biology and ecology is an impediment to the acceptance of assisted colonization. In addition, prohibitive costs and the potential increased risk of the spread of diseases, pests and/or pathogens are viewed as more important obstacles of successful assisted colonization than potential for invasion at the recipient site. Full approval from all stakeholders at the source and recipient sites was found to be the most important factor for the successful assisted colonization of flora.     

Assisted Colonization: A Question of Focal Units and Recipient Localities

Assisted colonization as an adaptation strategy to conserve or restore biodiversity in the face of climate change deservedly evokes controversy. Assisted colonization is perceived by some as a last option for conserving endangered species and by others as a risky and unwise management effort due to current gaps of knowledge. Based on the pros and cons of the recent debate, we show that the current discussion mainly focuses on the assisted colonization of rare and endangered species beyond their natural range of distribution. We suggest that a more useful approach for the conservation of endangered species could occur by focusing on the relevant foundation or keystone species, which ensure ecosystem integrity for a multitude of dependent species by governing the habitat structure and micro‐climate of the site. Examples of foundation species include dominant tree species in forests or dominant corals in coral reefs. For a given conservation or restoration need (e.g. conservation of rare species), we recommend the assisted colonization of pre‐adapted ecotypes of the relevant foundation species from climates similar to future expectations for the target site. This approach could lead to climate‐safe habitats for endangered species with minimal adverse effects on recipient ecosystems.     

Whose backyard? Some precautions in choosing recipient sites for assisted colonisation of Australian plants and animals

In cases where assisted colonisation is the appropriate conservation tool, the selection of recipient sites is a major challenge. Here, we propose a framework for site selection that can be applied to the Australian biota, where planning for assisted colonisation is in its infancy. Characteristics that will be important drivers in the decision‐making process include the size of a recipient site, the potential to augment corridors and respond to niche gaps, the maximisation of climatic buffering, bioregional similarity, tenure security, and the minimisation of opportunities for hybridisation and invasiveness. Sites we suggest be precluded from assisted colonisation include sites of high species endemism, IUCN category 1 reference reserves and fully‐functioning threatened ecological communities.     

Are all risk perceptions created equal? Comparing general risk assessments and specific risk assessments associated with climate change

For policy-making to address public risk perceptions effectively, policy-makers must have a clear understanding of the nature of public risks. Public opinion polls regularly solicit perceptions of risk toward a variety of topics. These assessments, though, tend to be general with no specificity offered for a nuanced interpretation. Yet, there is good reason to assume that risk perceptions are not based on the same criteria. If true, policy-makers may be unable to address risks adequately without a better understanding of the drivers of risk perceptions. This project focuses on two primary research questions: (1) Does the public weigh the risk associated with global climate change differently in specific sub-domains? (2) If so, which climate change sub-domains are various members of the public most concerned about when offering a general assessment of global climate change risk? We assess public risk perceptions of climate change in three sub-domains—public health, economic development, and environment—and find that two of the three sub-domains are predictors of a general assessment of risk.     

The effect of climate change on the occurrence and prevalence of livestock diseases in Great Britain: a review

There is strong evidence to suggest that climate change has, and will continue to affect the occurrence, distribution and prevalence of livestock diseases in Great Britain (GB). This paper reviews how climate change could affect livestock diseases in GB. Factors influenced by climate change and that could affect livestock diseases include the molecular biology of the pathogen itself; vectors (if any); farming practice and land use; zoological and environmental factors; and the establishment of new microenvironments and microclimates. The interaction of these factors is an important consideration in forecasting how livestock diseases may be affected. Risk assessments should focus on looking for combinations of factors that may be directly affected by climate change, or that may be indirectly affected through changes in human activity, such as land use (e.g. deforestation), transport and movement of animals, intensity of livestock farming and habitat change. A risk assessment framework is proposed, based on modules that accommodate these factors. This framework could be used to screen for the emergence of unexpected disease events.