Questions for improving plant translocation practice

The Plant Translocation Network was initiated in January 2018 by Sarah Dalrymple and Richard Winder, and has worked to develop 42 key research questions about plant translocations and climate change. These are organized into four research themes forming the basis of the four objectives below.

Objective 1: Use plant translocations as bioassays of climate change

Exposure to climate change will affect organisms as and when climatic thresholds for survival and reproduction are exceeded. This objective seeks field evidence for this by using plant translocations to resolve uncertainties in plant niche theory, particularly with respect to thermal niche. For example, what can translocations tell us about niche conservatism? How do niches alter for different ecotypes and/or zones within the species range and with different life stages of a plant species? Do plants adapt to new conditions post-translocation? What are the climatic thresholds for maladaptation?

Objective 2: Revealing recent climate change and monitoring future changes

Plant translocations circumvent problems like dispersal limitation, colonisation lag, and disequilibrium between available niche space and colonised area. They can address questions about the role of biotic interactions in shaping range shifts, where current efforts only amount to predictive modelling. They might also detect climate prediction failures; early detection increases the potential crucial model improvements and more timely adaptive management. Plant translocations can also help refine concepts like climate velocity, and the importance of microhabitat-buffering effects.

Objective 3: Evaluating the potential of plant translocations to provide solutions to climate-induced biodiversity loss

There is a growing but still polarised literature on the use of interventions such as assisted colonisation in dealing with climate change. Extant translocations could address some of the many questions associated with this controversial practice. When selecting recipient sites, how good are predictive techniques such as species distribution modelling? What additional edaphic or biotic parameters should be considered? What is the optimal timing? What were the unforeseen consequences of moving species into new habitats? What can translocations tell us about the potential for communities to receive new species? Will assemblages of species have to be moved together? How effectively can translocations achieve ecological replacement for lost ecosystem function? Can disease resistance be incorporated into translocations within-range or to new sites? What are the unexpected benefits of translocations and can they be harnessed to protect threatened or endangered species?

Objective 4: Define implications for policy and practice

A variety of existing frameworks can assist in deciding when translocations might be tested for staunching climate-induced biodiversity losses. Our work will go beyond that to provide the technical insight and evidence truly needed to judge when such interventions are feasible, enabling policy-makers to make better-informed decisions as to when translocations are desirable. Practitioners would also benefit from empirical knowhow and generalisations where these are achievable. Conventional thinking holds that scientists cannot reach “policy-relevant consensus about the ecological impacts of moving species” for timely climate change adaptation Neff & Carroll 2016. We argue however, there is an untapped resource in the yet-to-be-collated data on plant translocations. In order to maximize the utility and impact of the scientific discoveries, we will discuss issues at the interface of policy and science. How do we align the scientific projects with current policy needs and the political environment? How can we ensure that our work is in line with public views and enriched by public input? How do we take into account ethical issues?