Abstract
The use of conservation translocations to mitigate human effects on biodiversity is increasing, but how these efforts are allocated remains unclear. Based on a comprehensive literature review and online author survey, we sought to determine the goals of translocation efforts, whether they focus on species and regions with high threat and likelihood of perceived success, and how success might be improved. We systematically searched the ISI Web of Knowledge and Academic Search Complete databases to determine the species and regions of conservation translocations and found 1863 articles on conservation translocations in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and Caribbean published from 1974 to 2013. We questioned 330 relevant authors to determine the motivation for translocations, how translocations were evaluated, and obstacles encountered. Conservation translocations in North America were geographically widespread (in 21 countries), increased in frequency over time for all animal classes (from 1 in 1974 to 84 in 2013), and included 279 different species. Reintroductions and reinforcements were more common in the United States than in Canada and Mexico, Central America, or the Caribbean, and their prevalence was correlated with the number of species at risk at national and state or provincial levels. Translocated species had a higher threat status at state and provincial levels than globally (International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List categorization), suggesting that translocations may have been motivated by regional priorities rather than global risk. Our survey of authors was consistent with these results; most translocations were requested, supported, or funded by government agencies and downlisting species at national or state or provincial levels was the main goal. Nonetheless, downlisting was the least reported measure of success, whereas survival and reproduction of translocated individuals were the most reported. Reported barriers to success included biological factors such as animal mortality and nonbiological factors, such as financial constraints, which were less often considered in the selection of release sites. Our review thus highlights discrepancies between project goals and evaluation criteria and between risk factors considered and obstacles encountered, indicating room to further optimize translocation projects.