Sally Walker

The Risks of Assisted Colonization

There is a growing debate over whether species should be translocated outside their historic ranges to deal with extinction risks as habitats shift due to climate change. This idea of taking preemptive action to avert predicted extinction risks has been given emphasis by the recent International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assessment of species susceptibility to climate-change impacts (Foden et al. 2008), prompting suggestions that “more aggressive measures, such as so-called ‘assisted migration’” be considered (Marris 2008). Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2008) provide a decision framework for identifying scenarios in which what they term “assisted colonization” (AC) is justified. We see problems with the impact of these articles, despite their conservative approach. First, there are current international translocation guidelines (IUCN 1998) that provide a strong rationale against the early adoption of AC as a conservation tool. The Reintroduction Specialist Group (RSG) was created in 1988 to address the proliferation of ill-conceived translocations that had been taking place, including many releases of species outside historic ranges (Stanley Price & Soorae 2003). The RSG formulated the guidelines for translocation planning to ensure that conservation benefits accrue. “Benign introduction” (BI)—the translocation of species to suitable habitat outside their historic range as a conservation measure—was considered appropriate only when there was no habitat left within the original species range (IUCN 1998). Although AC appears to fall within the definition of BI, the two differ in that AC aims proactively to establish species outside their historic range to preempt predicted climate-driven changes in habitat suitability. Calls to take proactive conservation measures need to consider that there are currently huge uncertainties involved, not only in climatechange predictions and consequent species responses (Araújo et al. 2005; Hulme 2005; Sekercioglu et al. 2008) but also in our understanding of the habitat requirements of species (Stamps & Swaisgood 2007) and the effects of translocations on ecosystem function (Armstrong & Seddon 2008). At a recent conference (First International Wildlife Reintroduction Conference, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, Illinois,April2008, http://www. reintroduction.org/), RSG members discussed climate-change implications for translocations, acknowledging the need for the integration of reintroduction biology and restoration ecology, and the updating of translocation guidelines to consider issues such as the mitigation of climate-driven habitat change and overcoming barriers to natural dispersal of species. Given current uncertainty, however, there is substantial risk that prematurely embracing the undeniably sexy AC concept will initiate a new era of ill-conceived species translocations. Philip J. Seddon,∗ Doug P. Armstrong,† Pritpal Soorae,‡ Frederic Launay,§ Sally Walker,∗∗ Carlos R. Ruiz-Miranda,†† Sanjay Molur,∗∗ Heather Koldewey,‡‡ and Devra G. Kleiman§§ ∗RSG Bird Section Chair, Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, email philip.seddon@stonebow. otago.ac.nz †RSG Australasia Chair, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand ‡RSG Programme Officer, Environment Agency, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates §RSG Chair, Environment Agency, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates ∗∗RSG South Asia co-Chair, Zoo Outreach, Coimbatore, India ††RSG Meso-South America Chair, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ‡‡RSG Fish Section Chair, Zoological Society of London, London, United Kingdom §§RSG North America Chair, Zoo-Logic, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, U.S.A.

Endemic South Asian primates updated on the 2004 IUCN Red List

1551 August 2004 This issue is dedicated to langur taxonomy, of a group that was thought of as a simple, large population of a common species of Hanuman/ Common Langur found throughout India. The Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) Workshop for South Asian primates was an education of sorts to the primatologists of the region who were unfamiliar with the species/subspecies definitions and distributions as proposed by the IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group (PSG) working document, or the latest publication of Colin Groves book, Primate Taxonomy. Eventually the group decided to use the expertise of the most experienced primate taxonomist present at the workshop, Douglas Brandon-Jones, who also happened to be the lead author of the above mentioned document, which now has been published in the International Journal of Primatology. The group of South Asian primate field biologists accepted the langur subspecies definitions proposed by PSG and Doug as opposed to the species as defined by Colin Groves. However, since there was much confusion in delimiting boundaries for the various subspecies, it was agreed to rely on Dougs study of all museum specimens during his subsequent visit to BNHS and some field sites in the final assessment. The paper presented in this issue of ZPJ is a result of the extensive study of specimens which Doug has carried out in his taxonomic career. The final report of the status of South Asian primates in the CAMP Report also follows the same taxonomy as this paper for the Indian langurs.