Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 129, Issue 1–2, pp 9–11 | Cite as

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

Shoo, L., A. Hoffmann, S. Garnett, R. Pressey, Y. Williams, M. Taylor, L. Falconi, C. Yates, J. Scott, D. Alagador and S. Williams (2013). “Making decisions to conserve species under climate change.” Climatic Change 119(2): 239-246.
  • Luke P. ShooEmail author
  • Ary A. Hoffmann
  • Stephen Garnett
  • John K. Scott
  • Stephen E. Williams
Response

AHTEENSUU ET AL. highlight four issues with our proposed framework for guiding decisions to conserve species under climate change and suggest some ways forward. From the outset we stress that we presented a framework. By their very nature, frameworks are for building on and elaborating. We thus welcome the contribution of Ahteensuu et al.. Here we continue the conversation about how the framework might more easily translate into practice across a range of applications.

Issue 1: Yes/No answers are often not appropriate

Firstly, the primary purpose of the framework we presented was to bring together (in one place) the suite of actions currently being considered to conserve species under climate change and begin the task of identifying constraints on the decision problem that might affect allocation of resources to particular actions. Candidate constraints included the likelihood of success, cost of implementation and likely co-benefits to non-target species (in addition to perceived...

Keywords

Management Objective Species Conservation Good Judgment Optimize Resource Allocation Decision Science 
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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Possingham H, Andelman S, Noon B, Trombulak S, Pulliam H (2001) Making smart conservation decisions. Pages 225–244. Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Richardson DM, Hellmann JJ, McLachlan JS, Sax DF, Schwartz MW, Gonzalez R, Brennan EJ, Camacho A, Rooth TL, Sala OE, Schneider SH, Ashe DM, Rappaport Clark JR, Early R, Etterson JR, Fielder ED, Gill JL, Minteer BA, Polasky S, Safford HD, Thompson AR, Vellend M (2009) Multidimensional evaluation of managed relocation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:9721–9724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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):e75814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Sandler RL (2012) The ethics of species: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luke P. Shoo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ary A. Hoffmann
    • 3
  • Stephen Garnett
    • 4
  • John K. Scott
    • 5
  • Stephen E. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, School of Marine and Tropical BiologyJames Cook University of North QueenslandTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Environmental Stress and Adaptation Research, Bio21 Institute and Department of ZoologyThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.School for Environmental ResearchCharles Darwin UniversityDarwinAustralia
  5. 5.CSIRO Land & Water FlagshipPO WembleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations