Understanding Publication Bias in Reintroduction Biology by Assessing Translocations of New Zealand's Herpetofauna

The intentional translocation of animals is an important tool for species conservation and ecosystem restoration, but reported success rates are low, particularly for threatened and endangered species. Publication bias further distorts success rates because the results of successful translocations may be more likely to be published than failed translocations. We conducted the first comprehensive review of all published and unpublished translocations of herpetofauna in New Zealand to assess publication bias. Of 74 translocations of 29 species in 25 years, 35 have been reported in the published literature, and the outcomes of 12 have been published. Using a traditional definition of success, publication bias resulted in a gross overestimate of translocation success rates (41.7% and 8.1% for published and all translocations, respectively), but bias against failed translocations was minimal (8.3% and 6.8%, respectively). Publication bias against translocations with uncertain outcomes, the vast majority of projects, was also strong (50.0% and 85.1% for published and all translocations, respectively). Recent translocations were less likely to be published than older translocations. The reasons behind translocations were related to publication. A greater percentage of translocations for conservation and research were published (63.3% and 40.0%, respectively) than translocations for mitigation during land development (10.0%). Translocations conducted in collaboration with a university were more frequently published (82.7% and 24.4%, respectively). To account for some of this publication bias, we reassessed the outcome of each translocation using a standardized definition of success, which takes into consideration the species’ life history and the time since release. Our standardized definition of translocation success provided a more accurate summary of success rates and allows for a more rigorous evaluation of the causes of translocation success and failure in large‐scale reviews.

[1]  J. Innes,et al.  Animal Translocations: What are they and why do we do them? , 2012 .

[2]  K. Moseby,et al.  Predation determines the outcome of 10 reintroduction attempts in arid South Australia , 2011 .

[3]  F. Allendorf,et al.  Genetic structure and individual performance following a recent founding event in a small lizard , 2011, Conservation Genetics.

[4]  Z. Amr,et al.  Movement patterns and habitat use of soft-released translocated spur-thighed tortoises, Testudo graeca , 2011, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[5]  A. Pullin,et al.  Bias and dispersal in the animal reintroduction literature , 2010, Oryx.

[6]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Standards for documenting and monitoring bird reintroduction projects , 2010 .

[7]  N. Nelson,et al.  How do reproductive skew and founder group size affect genetic diversity in reintroduced populations? , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[8]  P. Bishop,et al.  Suitability of Amphibians and Reptiles for Translocation , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[9]  R. Griffiths,et al.  Captive Breeding, Reintroduction, and the Conservation of Amphibians , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[10]  M. Child,et al.  Combining the Fields of Reintroduction Biology and Restoration Ecology , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[11]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  Publication bias against negative results from clinical trials: three of the seven deadly sins , 2007, Nature Clinical Practice Neurology.

[12]  Amber E. Budden,et al.  Publication bias and merit in ecology , 2007 .

[13]  Doug P Armstrong,et al.  Developing the Science of Reintroduction Biology , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[14]  I. Jamieson,et al.  Moderate inbreeding depression in a reintroduced population of North Island robins , 2007 .

[15]  M. Mendl,et al.  Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  J. Nichols,et al.  Monitoring for conservation. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[17]  I. Jamieson,et al.  Inbreeding and Endangered Species Management: Is New Zealand Out of Step with the Rest of the World? , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[18]  E. E. Clark,et al.  Translocation as a conservation tool: site fidelity and movement of repatriated gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) , 2005 .

[19]  R. Griffiths,et al.  Evaluation of translocation as a tool for mitigating development threats to great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) in England, 1990–2001 , 2005 .

[20]  Matthew A. Kwiatkowski,et al.  Translocation of urban Gila Monsters: a problematic conservation tool , 2004 .

[21]  S. Pledger,et al.  The fate of a population of the endemic frog Leiopelma pakeka (Anura: Leiopelmatidae) translocated to restored habitat on Maud Island, New Zealand , 2004 .

[22]  N. Nelson,et al.  Establishing a New Wild Population of Tuatara (Sphenodon guntheri) , 2002 .

[23]  A. Møller,et al.  Testing and adjusting for publication bias , 2001 .

[24]  B. Gill,et al.  Records of foreign reptiles and amphibians accidentally imported to New Zealand , 2001 .

[25]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  An assessment of the published results of animal relocations , 2000 .

[26]  J. Ogden,et al.  Conservation Issues in New Zealand , 2000 .

[27]  P. Seddon,et al.  Persistence without intervention: assessing success in wildlife reintroductions. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[28]  R. Griffiths,et al.  Translocation of slow-worms (Anguis fragilis) as a mitigation strategy: a case study from south-east England , 1999 .

[29]  John D. C. Linnell,et al.  Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: a review , 1997, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[30]  B. Griffith,et al.  The influence of valuational and organizational considerations on the success of rare species translocations , 1997 .

[31]  B. Griffith,et al.  Avian and Mammalian Translocations: Update and Reanalysis of 1987 Survey Data , 1996 .

[32]  J. M. Scott,et al.  Translocation as a Species Conservation Tool: Status and Strategy , 1989, Science.

[33]  Edwin E. Wagner,et al.  Effect of positive findings on submission and acceptance rates: A note on meta-analysis bias. , 1986 .

[34]  P. Seddon,et al.  Directions in reintroduction biology. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[35]  T. Barnes,et al.  TOWARD A PROFESSIONAL POSITION ON THE TRANSLOCATION OF PROBLEM WILDLIFE , 1998 .

[36]  I. Mclean,et al.  New Zealand translocations: theory and practice , 1995 .

[37]  A. Cree Low annual reproductive output in female reptiles from New Zealand , 1994 .

[38]  R. Hitchmough,et al.  Taxonomic and conservation review of the New Zealand herpetofauna , 1994 .

[39]  C. K. Dodd,et al.  Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: Are they conservation strategies that work? , 1991 .

[40]  Charles H. Daugherty,et al.  The significance of the biological resources of New Zealand islands for ecological restoration , 1990 .