Ecological Risk–Benefit Analysis for Assisted Colonization

Assisted colonization (AC), translocating a species outside its indigenous range to avoid its extinction, is one of the few conservation options for some species. It is also controversial because of the history of ecological impacts of invasive species, including the extinction of native species as a result of novel ecological interactions resulting from the introduction. Although several national and international organizations have issued guidelines related to AC, none allow case-specific decision-making based on risks and benefits to biodiversity. We propose a two-pronged approach to fill this gap. The first step aims to separate clear-cut cases of AC from those that require an in-depth risk analysis. We propose a set of seven qualitative criteria to identify AC projects that are clearly low-risk and high-benefit, and therefore should not be controversial, and those that are clearly high-risk or low-benefit and therefore should not be attempted. This identifies only the most obvious cases, leaving out many cases to be determined through a quantitative analysis to estimate the probabilities of extirpation of the resident species because of AC, which is the second step of our approach. We propose a roadmap for developing such a system based on community ecology theory, and a framework for considering the estimated probabilities in a global context. Our framework recommends an AC project only if it would result in a larger number of globally extant species than a scenario of no action. We propose large-scale testing of the clear-cut approach, further development of the quantitative approach, and wide consultation for adopting international guidelines for risk assessment of AC projects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Change Biology
Published
2025-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70613
Primary Topic
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ecological Risk–Benefit Analysis for Assisted Colonization

Jon Paul Rodrı́guez, Mathew A. Leibold, Rafael D’Andrea, Sarah E. Dalrymple et al.
Global Change Biology
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
article

Ecological Risk–Benefit Analysis for Assisted Colonization

Jon Paul Rodrı́guez, Mathew A. Leibold, Rafael D’Andrea, Sarah E. Dalrymple, Piero Genovesi, Wendy Foden, György Barabás, Mark A. McPeek, Meghna Krishnadas, H. Reşi̇t Akçakaya, Axel Moehrenschlager
article en

Abstract

Assisted colonization (AC), translocating a species outside its indigenous range to avoid its extinction, is one of the few conservation options for some species. It is also controversial because of the history of ecological impacts of invasive species, including the extinction of native species as a result of novel ecological interactions resulting from the introduction. Although several national and international organizations have issued guidelines related to AC, none allow case-specific decision-making based on risks and benefits to biodiversity. We propose a two-pronged approach to fill this gap. The first step aims to separate clear-cut cases of AC from those that require an in-depth risk analysis. We propose a set of seven qualitative criteria to identify AC projects that are clearly low-risk and high-benefit, and therefore should not be controversial, and those that are clearly high-risk or low-benefit and therefore should not be attempted. This identifies only the most obvious cases, leaving out many cases to be determined through a quantitative analysis to estimate the probabilities of extirpation of the resident species because of AC, which is the second step of our approach. We propose a roadmap for developing such a system based on community ecology theory, and a framework for considering the estimated probabilities in a global context. Our framework recommends an AC project only if it would result in a larger number of globally extant species than a scenario of no action. We propose large-scale testing of the clear-cut approach, further development of the quantitative approach, and wide consultation for adopting international guidelines for risk assessment of AC projects.

Global Change BiologyVol. 31(11)
Linköping University (SE), Dartmouth College (US), South African National Parks (ZA), Panthera Corporation (US), Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas (VE), National Centre for Biological Sciences (IN), Stellenbosch University (ZA), University of Florida (US), Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (IT), Laboratoire Lorrain de Recherche en Informatique et ses Applications (FR), HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research (HU), International Union for Conservation of Nature (CH), Stony Brook University (US), Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.