Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Spending Limited Resources On De-Extinction Could Lead To Net Biodiversity PDF
Spending Limited Resources On De-Extinction Could Lead To Net Biodiversity PDF
There is contentious debate surrounding the merits of de-extinction as a biodiversity conservation tool. Here, we use extant
analogues to predict conservation actions for potential de-extinction candidate species from New Zealand and the Australian
state of New South Wales, and use a prioritization protocol to predict the impacts of reintroducing and maintaining popula-
tions of these species on conservation of extant threatened species. Even using the optimistic assumptions that resurrection of
species is externally sponsored, and that actions for resurrected species can share costs with extant analogue species, public
funding for conservation of resurrected species would lead to fewer extant species that could be conserved, suggesting net
biodiversity loss. If full costs of establishment and maintenance for resurrected species populations were publicly funded, there
could be substantial sacrifices in extant species conservation. If conservation of resurrected species populations could be fully
externally sponsored, there could be benefits to extant threatened species. However, such benefits would be outweighed by
opportunity costs, assuming such discretionary money could directly fund conservation of extant species. Potential sacrifices
in conservation of extant species should be a crucial consideration in deciding whether to invest in de-extinction or focus our
efforts on extant species.
T
echnological advances are reducing the barriers to resurrect- de-extinction management, there could be additional benefits to
ing extinct species or their close genetic proxies, allowing species sharing habitats or threats.
de-extinction to be considered as a biodiversity conserva- Here, we test the potential impact of establishing and sustaining
tion tool1,2. Arguments in favour of de-extinction include necessity, wild populations of resurrected extinct species (or proxies of such
driven by the rapid rate of species and habitat loss3,4, an ethical species) on the conservation of extant species. Specifically, we use
duty to redress past mistakes5, as well as potential technological long-term conservation programmes for extant analogue species
and ecological knowledge that could stem from de-extinction pro- in New Zealand (NZ) and the Australian state of New South Wales
grammes4. Counter-arguments include high risk of failure due to (NSW), to infer potential conservation actions for resurrected spe-
difficulties of cloning for some species6, technical risks inherent in cies, and predict the impact of resurrected species programmes on
re-introductions7–9, loss of culture in resurrected animal species8, conservation of extant species. We use these datasets because they
and lack of remaining habitat for some species10,11, as well as nega- contain detailed prescriptions and costs of actions designed to
tive consequences for extant species, including reduced incentive achieve population recovery for most of the extant threatened spe-
for traditional conservation12, and ecological impacts of introducing cies requiring specific management actions in either jurisdiction.
long-absent or genetically modified species12. We estimate the net number of extant species that can be conserved,
The relative cost versus benefit for biodiversity is fundamental to using the following scenarios: (1) establishment and maintenance of
the debate surrounding de-extinction. Assuming species are resur- resurrected species become the burden of government conservation
rected to be released into former habitats, the cost of de-extinction programmes, and (2) establishment and maintenance of resurrected
includes the process of producing initial founder populations, species populations are funded externally using non-public resources.
translocating individuals, then monitoring and managing new wild In Scenario 1, the use of government resources on resurrected species
populations. If conservation funds are re-directed from extant to results in less funding for extant species programmes, but provides
resurrected species, there is risk of perverse outcomes whereby net potential benefits for species that share actions with resurrected spe-
biodiversity might decrease as a result of de-extinction12,13. Although cies. In Scenario 2, there are also potential benefits to extant species
private agencies might fund the resurrection of extinct species out conservation programmes through shared conservation actions.
of technical or philanthropic interest, the subsequent ongoing However, there are potential opportunity costs, if private agencies use
management of such species (many of which would face the same resources they could otherwise have used on conservation of extant
threats that made them extinct) would fall on government agencies, species. Our analysis assumes that species would be resurrected to be
as commonly occurs with extant threatened species. Alternatively, re-introduced into their former habitats, rather than for other poten-
if private agencies are willing to provide new funding for post tial reasons, such as research or public display.
Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada. 2Science and Policy Group, Department of
1
Conservation, 70 Moorhouse Avenue, Addington, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand. 3School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag
4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. 4New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, 59 Goulburn Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2000,
Australia. 5University of Queensland, ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, St Lucia, Queensland 4072,
Australia. 6Conservation Science, The Nature Conservancy, 245 Riverside Drive, West End, Queensland 4101, Australia. 7University of Otago,
Department of Zoology, 340 Great King Street, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand. *e-mail: joseph.bennett@carleton.ca
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION ARTICLES
(31) extant species. External funding for conservation of the five Methods
focal extinct NSW species could instead be used to conserve over Focal extinct species were chosen based on taxonomic relatedness as well as having
eight times as many (42) extant species. ranges, habitats, threats and life-history strategies shared with extant analogue
species. We chose fully extinct species (not just locally extirpated) that went
It is probable that including the costs of producing viable initial extinct after AD 1000, assuming that feasibility of resurrection (for example,
populations of these species would greatly increase our estimates for availability of genetic material, knowledge of life history and physiology)
the sacrifices in extant species conservation. The costs for such pro- would be prohibitively low for species that went extinct before this time.
grammes are difficult to project, but they are likely to be substantial. However, we did not assess the availability of genetic material in our focal species,
nor consider the feasibility or cost of producing viable initial populations.
A programme aimed at using stem cell technology and surrogates
to prevent the extinction of the northern white rhinoceros (which
Species conservation projects and prioritization algorithms. Species
would have fewer technical hurdles than resurrecting species from conservation projects for all species in the NZ and NSW datasets (including the
only preserved materials) has been estimated to cost several million analogue species) were determined using information gathered from threatened
dollars2. In addition, our analyses make the generous assumption species experts (>100 experts for NZ, ~250 for NSW). The projects include the
that we would have perfect analogues for the extinct species, such specific actions (including specific location, timing and cost) considered necessary
that conservation programmes for resurrected and extant species to ensure ~95% probability of each species’ persistence over 50 years.
The prioritization algorithms rank species by the cost-effectiveness of
would share costs. Breeding and husbandry of resurrected species their conservation projects, using the following equation:
before and after reintroduction could well be more expensive and
more prone to failure than for extant species, because we typically Bi × Si
Ei =
know less about the behaviour and physiology of extinct species. Ci
Reintroduction of locally extirpated species would likely have con- where Ei is the cost effectiveness of the conservation project for species i; Bi is
siderably lower risk and costs, given better knowledge of the ecology the benefit of the project to the species, defined as the difference between
and physiology of such species. estimated probabilities that a species will be secure in 50 years with and without
the project; Si is the estimated probability of success for the conservation project;
Debates regarding the merits of de-extinction tend to centre and Ci is the total cost of all actions for the project, across all sites. The NZ
on either ethical or biological arguments. Ethical arguments often algorithm uses an additional parameter that estimates a species’ evolutionary
focus on the potential of de-extinction to right past wrongs, versus distinctiveness (see ref. 15 for details). Costs of actions are shared among prioritized
the ‘moral hazard’ arising from diminished motivation to conserve species recovery projects. For example, the cost of predator control at a site
that benefits two prioritized species sharing the site is reduced by 50% for each
extant species, if it is assumed that extinctions can be reversed some-
of the two species.
time in the (potentially distant) future12. Biological arguments often The algorithm begins with all species ranked, then eliminates the
focus on the relative benefit to biodiversity. For example, there may lowest-ranked species sequentially until the set first-year budget is reached.
be conservation gains through applying technical lessons learned in As species are removed from the ranks, cost sharing is updated for the remaining
the process of attempting de-extinctions4. There could also be gains species. Species that are no longer prioritized no longer share costs with those
that remain. Additional details regarding the algorithm are given in refs 15,26.
through restoration of ecosystem processes that were provided by
the extinct species18. For example, extinct ‘ecosystem engineers’,
Data availability. The data and code for the NZ and NSW prioritization protocols
such as woolly mammoths or passenger pigeons, could potentially have been deposited in the Dryad Digital Repository at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/
be resurrected in attempts to restore their lost functional roles19. dryad.3qn55 and http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.p86t5, respectively.
In addition, resurrected species could act as ‘flagships’ to promote
conservation5, and potentially increase resources for management Received 21 August 2016; accepted 13 December 2016;
of extant threatened species. published 1 March 2017
However, there is considerable risk in assuming that resurrected
species would fill these intended roles. Resurrected ecosystem engi- References
neers would be introduced into environments that have been much 1. Folch, J. et al. First birth of an animal from an extinct subspecies
altered by humans, and they could fail to thrive in these new circum- (Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica) by cloning. Theriogenology 71, 1026–1034 (2009).
stances7,19. Resurrecting populations large enough for such species to 2. Callaway, E. Stem-cell plan aims to bring rhino back from brink of
fill their former roles could also prove very challenging19. Conversely, extinction. Nature 533, 20–21 (2016).
3. Kumar, S. Extinction need not be forever. Nature 492, 9 (2012).
there may be biodiversity losses if resurrected species become inva- 4. Sherkow, J. S. & Greely, H. T. What if extinction is not forever? Science 340,
sive or spread disease12,20,21. Experience with extant iconic species 32–33 (2013).
also suggests a high risk that iconic species resurrected as ‘flagships’ 5. Cohen, S. The ethics of de-extinction. NanoEthics 8, 165–178 (2014).
could draw resources away from programmes for extant species22, or 6. Shapiro, B. Mammoth 2.0: Will genome engineering resurrect extinct
even create self-reinforcing biases whereby the public profile of res- species? Genome Biol. 16, 228 (2015).
7. Seddon, P. J., Moehrenschlager, A. & Ewen, J. Reintroducing resurrected
urrected species and resources spent on them would synergistically species: selecting DeExtinction candidates. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 140–147
increase, at the expense of non-iconic extant species23. (2014).
More fundamentally, de-extinction could lead either to bio- 8. Jones, K. E. From dinosaurs to dodos: Who could and should we de-extinct?
diversity gains via resurrection of the extinct species themselves Front. Biogeog. 6, 20–24 (2014).
9. Weeks, A. R. et al. Assessing the benefits and risks of translocations
and shared conservation actions with extant species, or to losses
in changing environments: a genetic perspective. Evol. Appl. 4,
through missed opportunities to allocate resources to extant species. 709–725 (2011).
Conservation resources are scarce24, necessitating careful allocation 10. Jenkins, C. N., Van Houtan, K. S., Pimm, S. L. & Sexton, J. O. US protected
of funds25. Our analysis strongly suggests that resources expended lands mismatch biodiversity priorities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112,
on long-term conservation of resurrected species could easily lead 5081–5086 (2015).
11. Peers, M. J. L. et al. De-extinction potential under climate change: extensive
to net biodiversity loss, compared with spending the same resources mismatch between historic and future habitat suitability for three candidate
on extant species. If the risk of failure and the costs associated with birds. Biol. Cons. 197, 164–170 (2016).
establishing viable populations could also be calculated, estimates 12. IUCN/SSC Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for
of potential net losses or missed opportunities would probably be Conservation Benefit: Version 1.0 (International Union for Conservation of
considerably higher. Given this considerable potential for missed Nature, 2016).
13. Camacho, A. E. Going the way of the dodo: de-extinction, dualisms, and
opportunity, as well as the risks inherent in assuming a resurrected reframing conservation. Wash. Univ. Law Rev. 92, 849–906 (2015).
species would fulfil its role as an ecosystem engineer or flagship 14. Shapiro, B. Pathways to de-extinction: How close can we get to resurrection
species, it is unlikely that de-extinction could be justified on grounds of an extinct species? Funct. Ecol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12705
of biodiversity conservation. (2016).
© 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.