The fitness consequences of wildlife conservation translocations: a meta‐analysis

ABSTRACT Conservation translocation is a common strategy to offset mounting rates of population declines through the transfer of captive‐ or wild‐origin organisms into areas where conspecific populations are imperilled or completely extirpated. Translocations that supplement existing populations are referred to as reinforcements and can be conducted using captive‐origin animals [ ex situ reinforcement (ESR)] or wild‐origin animals without any captive ancestry [ in situ reinforcement (ISR)]. These programs have been criticized for low success rates and husbandry practices that produce individuals with genetic and performance deficits, but the post‐release performance of captive‐origin or wild‐origin translocated groups has not been systematically reviewed to quantify success relative to wild‐resident control groups. To assess the disparity in post‐release performance of translocated organisms relative to wild‐resident conspecifics and examine the association of performance disparity with organismal and methodological factors across studies, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of 821 performance comparisons from 171 studies representing nine animal classes (101 species). We found that translocated organisms have 64% decreased odds of out‐performing their wild‐resident counterparts, supporting claims of systemic issues hampering conservation translocations. To help identify translocation practices that could maximize program success in the future, we further quantified the impact of broad organismal and methodological factors on the disparity between translocated and wild‐resident conspecific performance. Pre‐release animal enrichment significantly reduced performance disparities, whereas our results suggest no overall effects of taxonomic group, sex, captive generation time, or the type of fitness surrogate measured. This work is the most comprehensive systematic review to date of animal conservation translocations in which wild conspecifics were used as comparators, thereby facilitating an evaluation of the overall impact of this conservation strategy and identifying specific actions to increase success. Our review highlights the need for conservation managers to include both sympatric and allopatric wild‐reference groups to ensure the post‐release performance of translocated animals can be evaluated. Further, our analyses identify pre‐release animal enrichment as a particular strategy for improving the outcomes of animal conservation translocations, and demonstrate how meta‐analysis can be used to identify implementation choices that maximize translocated animal contributions to recipient population growth and viability.