Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, USA.
Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2022 Feb;36(1):e13734. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13734. Epub 2021 May 31.
Increasingly intensive strategies to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function are being deployed in response to global anthropogenic threats, including intentionally introducing and eradicating species via assisted migration, rewilding, biological control, invasive species eradications, and gene drives. These actions are highly contentious because of their potential for unintended consequences. We conducted a global literature review of these conservation actions to quantify how often unintended outcomes occur and to elucidate their underlying causes. To evaluate conservation outcomes, we developed a community assessment framework for systematically mapping the range of possible interaction types for 111 case studies. Applying this tool, we quantified the number of interaction types considered in each study and documented the nature and strength of intended and unintended outcomes. Intended outcomes were reported in 51% of cases, a combination of intended outcomes and unintended outcomes in 26%, and strictly unintended outcomes in 10%. Hence, unintended outcomes were reported in 36% of all cases evaluated. In evaluating overall conservations outcomes (weighing intended vs. unintended effects), some unintended effects were fairly innocuous relative to the conservation objective, whereas others resulted in serious unintended consequences in recipient communities. Studies that assessed a greater number of community interactions with the target species reported unintended outcomes more often, suggesting that unintended consequences may be underreported due to insufficient vetting. Most reported unintended outcomes arose from direct effects (68%) or simple density-mediated or indirect effects (25%) linked to the target species. Only a few documented cases arose from more complex interaction pathways (7%). Therefore, most unintended outcomes involved simple interactions that could be predicted and mitigated through more formal vetting. Our community assessment framework provides a tool for screening future conservation actions by mapping the recipient community interaction web to identify and mitigate unintended outcomes from intentional species introductions and eradications for conservation.
为了应对全球人为威胁，包括通过辅助迁移、重新引入野生物种、生物防治、入侵物种根除和基因驱动等方式有目的地引入和根除物种，人们越来越多地采取强化策略来维护生物多样性和生态系统功能。这些行动极具争议性，因为它们可能会带来意想不到的后果。我们对这些保护行动进行了全球文献回顾，以量化意外后果发生的频率，并阐明其潜在原因。为了评估保护结果，我们开发了一个社区评估框架，用于系统地绘制 111 个案例研究中可能的相互作用类型的范围。应用这个工具，我们量化了每个研究中考虑的相互作用类型的数量，并记录了预期和意外结果的性质和强度。在 51%的案例中报告了预期结果，在 26%的案例中报告了预期结果和意外结果的组合，在 10%的案例中报告了严格的意外结果。因此，在评估的所有案例中，有 36%报告了意外结果。在评估整体保护结果（权衡预期和意外效果）时，一些意外效果相对于保护目标来说相当无害，而另一些则在受援社区中导致了严重的意外后果。评估与目标物种有更多社区相互作用的研究报告意外结果的频率更高，这表明由于审查不足，意外后果可能被低估。大多数报告的意外后果来自与目标物种直接相关的直接效应（68%）或简单的密度介导或间接效应（25%）。只有少数有记录的案例来自更复杂的相互作用途径（7%）。因此，大多数意外后果涉及可以通过更正式的审查来预测和减轻的简单相互作用。我们的社区评估框架提供了一个工具，用于通过绘制受援社区相互作用网络来筛选未来的保护行动，以识别和减轻有目的的物种引入和根除过程中对保护产生的意外后果。
