Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 129, Issue 1–2, pp 1–7 | Cite as

Quantitative tools and simultaneous actions needed for species conservation under climate change–reply to Shoo et al. (2013)

  • Marko Ahteensuu
  • Sami Aikio
  • Pedro Cardoso
  • Marko Hyvärinen
  • Maria Hällfors
  • Susanna Lehvävirta
  • Leif Schulman
  • Elina Vaara
Commentary

Abstract

We identify four issues in the decision framework for species conservation management under climate change proposed by Shoo et al. (2013) Clim Chan 119:239–246 and suggest ways to address them. First, binary-decision flow charts require Yes/No answers, which are not appropriate in most conservation decisions. A quantitative framework is preferable and action-guidance should be obtained even when the realistic answer to some questions remains “we simply do not know”. Second, the proposed flow chart imposes an a priori order of precedence and does not explicitly allow simultaneous actions. A workable framework should enable optimal allocation between multiple kinds of conservation efforts and permit complementary actions. Third, the probability of success, co-benefit to non-target species, and cost are unlikely to have a simple, consistent relationship across taxa. These variables need to be assessed case-by-case for each conservation measure and species. Finally, the decision framework disregards the legal, social, and ethical aspects pertaining to decision-making.

Keywords

Seed Bank Conservation Measure Conservation Action Decision Framework Conservation Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the Academy of Finland research project number 258144 “Constraints and Opportunities of Assisted Dispersal of Plants in Climate Change Adaptation–Biological, Legal and Ethical Analyses (CO-ADAPT)”. Helpful comments by Rebecca Whitlock on an earlier version of this response were much appreciated. Elina Vaara was funded by a Kone Foundation research grant.

Supplementary material

10584_2014_1311_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (247 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 247 kb)

References

  1. Ahteensuu M, Lehvävirta S (2014) Assisted migration, risks and scientific uncertainty, and ethics: a comment on Albrecht et al.’s review paper. J Agric Environ Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10806-014-9493-z Google Scholar
  2. Ahteensuu M, Sandin P (2012) The precautionary principle. In: Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Roeser S, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics and social implications of risk. Springer, pp 961–978Google Scholar
  3. Camacho AE (2010) Assisted migration: redefining nature and natural resource law under climate change. Yale J Regul 27(2):171–255Google Scholar
  4. Chen I-C, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R, Roy DB, Thomas CD (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science:1024–1026Google Scholar
  5. Hannah L (2012) Saving a million species: extinction risk from climate change. IslandPress, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Hughes L, McIntyre S, Lindenmayer DB, Parmesan C, Possingham HP, Thomas CD (2008) Assisted colonization and rapid climate change. Science 321:345–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. IUCN/SSC (2013) Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN species survival commission viiii + 57ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Maschinski J, Wright SJ, Lewis C (2012) The critical role of the public: plant conservation through volunteer and community outreach projects. In: Maschinski J, Haskins E (eds) Plant reintroduction in a changing climate: promises and perils. IslandPress, Washington, pp 53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McDonald-Madden E, Runge MC, Possingham HP, Martin TG (2011) Optimal timing for managed relocation of species faced with climate change. Nat Clim Chang 1:261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rout TM, McDonald-Madden E, Martin TG, Mitchell NJ, Possingham HP, Armstrong DP (2013) How to decide whether to move species threatened by climate change. PLoS One 8(10):e75814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schwartz MW, Martin TG (2013) Translocation of imperiled species under changing climates. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1286:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shoo LP, Hoffmann AA, Garnett S, Pressey RL, Williams YM, Taylor M, Falconi L, Yates CJ, Scott JK, Alagador D, Williams SE (2013) Making decisions to conserve species under climate change. Clim Change 119:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE et al (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Warren R, VanDerWal J, Price J et al (2013) Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. Nat Clim Chang. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1887 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marko Ahteensuu
    • 1
  • Sami Aikio
    • 2
  • Pedro Cardoso
    • 2
  • Marko Hyvärinen
    • 2
  • Maria Hällfors
    • 2
  • Susanna Lehvävirta
    • 2
  • Leif Schulman
    • 2
  • Elina Vaara
    • 2
  1. 1.Assisted Migration Research Programme, Botany Unit, Finnish Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations