The Infona portal uses cookies, i.e. strings of text saved by a browser on the user's device. The portal can access those files and use them to remember the user's data, such as their chosen settings (screen view, interface language, etc.), or their login data. By using the Infona portal the user accepts automatic saving and using this information for portal operation purposes. More information on the subject can be found in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. By closing this window the user confirms that they have read the information on cookie usage, and they accept the privacy policy and the way cookies are used by the portal. You can change the cookie settings in your browser.
Abstract: The rapidity of climate change is predicted to exceed the ability of many species to adapt or to disperse to more climatically favorable surroundings. Conservation of these species may require managed relocation (also called assisted migration or assisted colonization) of individuals to locations where the probability of their future persistence may be higher. The history of non‐native species throughout the world suggests managed relocation may not be applicable universally. Given the constrained existence of freshwater organisms within highly dendritic networks containing isolated ponds, lakes, and rivers, managed relocation may represent a useful conservation strategy. Yet, these same distinctive properties of freshwater ecosystems may increase the probability of unintended ecological consequences. We explored whether managed relocation is an ecologically sound conservation strategy for freshwater systems and provided guidelines for identifying candidates and localities for managed relocation. A comparison of ecological and life‐history traits of freshwater animals associated with high probabilities of extirpation and invasion suggests that it is possible to select species for managed relocation to minimize the likelihood of unintended effects to recipient ecosystems. We recommend that translocations occur within the species’ historical range and optimally within the same major river basin and that lacustrine and riverine species be translocated to physically isolated seepage lakes and upstream of natural or artificial barriers, respectively, to lower the risk of secondary spread across the landscape. We provide five core recommendations to enhance the scientific basis of guidelines for managed relocation in freshwater environments: adopt the term managed translocation to reflect the fact that individuals will not always be reintroduced within their historical native range; examine the trade‐off between facilitation of individual movement and the probability of range expansion of non‐native species; determine which species and locations might be immediately considered for managed translocation; adopt a hypothetico‐deductive framework by conducting experimental trials to introduce species of conservation concern into new areas within their historical range; build on previous research associated with species reintroductions through communication and synthesis of case studies....
Set the date range to filter the displayed results. You can set a starting date, ending date or both. You can enter the dates manually or choose them from the calendar.