Study

Translocations and fauna reconstruction sites: Western Shield review-February 2003

  • Published source details Mawson P.R. (2004) Translocations and fauna reconstruction sites: Western Shield review-February 2003. Conservation Science Western Australia, 5, 108-121

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Release captive-bred individuals to re-establish or boost populations in native range

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Translocate to re-establish or boost populations in native range

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Release captive-bred individuals to re-establish or boost populations in native range

    A review of 14 releases of six species of captive-bred mammals in Western Australia, Australia (Mawson 2004) found that where outcomes were available for release programmes, over half were regarded as successful. One out of two releases of rufous hare-wallabies Lagorchestes hirsutus, one out of two of dibblers Parantechinus apicalis and one out of four of western quolls Dasyurus geoffroii were classed as successful. However, the only release of banded hare-wallabies Lagostrophus fasciatus and one out of two releases of rufous hare-wallabies Lagorchestes hirsutus were classed as unsuccessful. At the time of the review, the outcomes of two releases of bilbies Perameles lagotis, three of western quolls, one of dibblers and three of Shark Bay mouse Pseudomys fieldi remained uncertain. In 1993–2002, sixteen to 149 captive-bred mammals were released per location. One translocation of Shark Bay mouse was partially sourced from wild stock. Invasive mammals were controlled at some release sites. The definition of successful reintroduction was not stated for most species but, for others, it included measures of population increase and persistence.

  2. Translocate to re-establish or boost populations in native range

    A review study of 66 translocations of 14 mammal species in Western Australia (Mawson 2004) found that over half of translocations, for which the outcome could be determined, were classified as successful. Out of 20 mammal translocations with a confirmed outcome, 11 (55%) were classed as successful and nine (45%) as non-successful. At the time of the review, the outcome of 46 translocations (68% of all translocations studied) remained uncertain. Species translocated were quokka Setonix brachyurus, black-flanked rock-wallaby Petrogale lateralis, tammar wallaby Macropus eugenii, brush-tailed bettong Bettongia penicillata, boodie Bettongia lesueur, common wallaroo Macropus robustus, numbat Myrmecobius fasciatus, southern brown bandicoot Isoodon obesulus, western barred bandicoot Perameles bougainville, western ringtail possum Pseudocheirus occidentalis, greater stick-nest rat Leporillus conditor, shark bay mouse Pseudomys fieldi, Thevenard Island mouse Leggadina lakedownensis and pebble-mound mouse Pseudomys sp. In 1993–2002, between 5–188 individuals of each species were translocated to different locations. Invasive mammals were controlled in some recipient sites. Two translocations included some captive-bred animals but most were translocated from wild populations. The definition of successful translocation was not stated for most species but, for others, it included measures of population increase and persistence.

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust