Precisions about which translocated populations can be included in the database and which populations cannot, according to translocation type
We include in the database populations that have been reinforced with individuals from abroad (reinforcement) or created in a site where the species had gone extinct
before (reintroduction) or in a site where it has never occurred to our knowledge (introduction), with the objective of improving the viability (see Box)
of the reinforced population or resulting in the viability of the created population.
The necessary objective of viability can be one objective among others. For example, we include in the database populations that have been translocated with
the double objective of obtaining both a viable population and data to improve further translocations (e.g. Colas et al. 2008, Noël et al. 2011),
or with the double objective of obtaining a viable population as well as a so-called ecosystem service (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
We also include in the database translocated populations which viability is a particular goal included in a broader objective of, e.g., restoring a given community (e.g. Donath et al. 2007).
On the contrary, we do not include populations that were translocated for experimental purpose only, such as reciprocal transplant experiments
to test for local adaptation with no aim of improving population viability (e.g., Raabová et al. 2007), or survival experiments in artificial ecosystems like aquaculture tanks
(e.g. Balestri et al. 2011). We neither include in the database translocation cases where individuals were just displaced from their original site to close vicinity, allowing
these individuals to be saved from, e.g., civil engineering, but where no reinforcement and no new population could be considered (e.g. Bruelheide and Flintrop 2000).
Box on population viability
Viability is a concept from population dynamics theory. Given the probabilistic nature of individual survival, growth, reproduction and dispersal, the persistence or extinction
of a population in the future must be foreseen with probabilistic analysis. Sophisticated population viability analysis using demographic rates from individual monitoring and matrix
models can be conducted to estimate extinction probabilities over a given time period (Beissinger and McCullough 2002). A population is then considered viable if its probability of
extinction over a time period in the future is below a given threshold (e.g. less than 5% over 100 years). Practically, relevant demographic data sets allowing such sophisticated
population viability analysis are scarce, and viability is often estimated using other indicators, such as those used by IUCN to classify species in Red List categories
(A to D criteria in IUCN 2001).
References:
Balestri, E., Vallerini, F., & Lardicci, C. (2011). Storm-generated fragments of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica from beach wrack – A potential source of transplants for restoration.
Biological Conservation, 144(5), 1644–1654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.020
Beissinger, S. R., & McCullough, D. L. (Eds.). (2002).
Population Viability Analysis. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
Bruelheide, H., & Flintrop, T. (2000). Evaluating the transplantation of a meadow in the Harz Mountains, Germany.
Biological Conservation, 92(1), 109 120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00061-0
Colas, B., Kirchner, F., Riba, M., Olivieri, I., Mignot, A., Imbert, E., … Fréville, H. (2008). Restoration demography: a 10-year demographic comparison between introduced and natural populations of endemic
Centaurea corymbosa (Asteraceae).
Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(5), 1468–1476.
Donath, T. W., Bissels, S., Hölzel, N., & Otte, A. (2007). Large scale application of diaspore transfer with plant material in restoration practice – Impact of seed and microsite limitation.
Biological Conservation, 138(1–2), 224–234.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.020
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.). (2005).
Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Noël, F., Prati, D., van Kleunen, M., Gygax, A., Moser, D., & Fischer, M. (2011). Establishment success of 25 rare wetland species introduced into restored habitats is best predicted by ecological distance to source habitats.
Biological Conservation, 144(1), 602–609.
Raabová, J., Münzbergová, Z., & Fischer, M. (2007). Ecological rather than geographic or genetic distance affects local adaptation of the rare perennial herb, Aster amellus.
Biological Conservation, 139(3–4), 348–357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.007
UICN. (2001).
Catégories et critères de l’UICN pour la liste rouge : Version 3.1. Gland, Switzerland: Commission de sauvegarde des espèces de l’UICN.
Precisions about the information included, when available, in the database for every translocated population
For every translocated population, the TransLoc database gathers and standardizes data in 84 fields of information grouped in the following categories:
- Context
- Type/Phase
- Location
- Habitat type
- Biological material
- Interventions
- Post-RST* monitoring (* Release, Sowing, or Transplantation)
- Results
- Bibliography
Each category corresponds to one tab in the population pages of the website. The definitions of every field of information and of every possible response can be downloaded
here.
Two additional tabs are available for every translocated population. The first tab records the number of translocated individuals per stage/age, year, and accurate
location of RST. The second tab records the population size (including native individuals and/or translocated individuals and/or their descent) per stage/age and per year.