Rafael D'Andrea, György Barabás, Sarah E. Dalrymple, Wendy Foden, Piero Genovesi, Meghna Krishnadas, Mathew A. Leibold, Mark A. McPeek, Axel Moehrenschlager, Jon Paul Rodriguez, H. Reşit Akçakaya
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.
{"title":"Ecological Risk–Benefit Analysis for Assisted Colonization","authors":"Rafael D'Andrea, György Barabás, Sarah E. Dalrymple, Wendy Foden, Piero Genovesi, Meghna Krishnadas, Mathew A. Leibold, Mark A. McPeek, Axel Moehrenschlager, Jon Paul Rodriguez, H. Reşit Akçakaya","doi":"10.1111/gcb.70613","DOIUrl":"10.1111/gcb.70613","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":175,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology","volume":"31 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcb.70613","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145567779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Xiaopeng Deng, Zhangcai Qin, Min Chen, Wenjie Dong, Yao Huang, Son Hwi Kim, Hanzhi Xie, Wenping Yuan
Despite repeated increases in national climate pledges since the Paris Agreement, a significant gap remains between collective ambition and the action required to meet its temperature goals. Integrating these pledges with global models, we show that full implementation would still lead to approximately 1.7°C of warming, missing the 1.5°C target. When considering ongoing policy inaction, a cumulative shortfall of 505 GtCO2e in anticipated mitigation is expected, and this warming increases by nearly 0.3°C, drastically narrowing the window to stay below 2.0°C. Our analysis reveals a critical disparity on a regional level: High-income nations are often meeting modest targets, while low-income countries face capacity constraints in delivering ambitious pledges. This imbalance underscores that persistent inequities in responsibility and resources are undermining global climate effectiveness. Closing the ambition–credibility gap urgently requires enhanced international cooperation and support to ensure a viable pathway for all.