Premium
Back home? Uncertainties for returning seized animals to the source‐areas under climate change
Author(s) -
Destro Guilherme Fernando Gomes,
Fernandes Virgínia,
Andrade André Felipe Alves,
De Marco Paulo,
Terribile Levi Carina
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
global change biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 4.146
H-Index - 255
eISSN - 1365-2486
pISSN - 1354-1013
DOI - 10.1111/gcb.14760
Subject(s) - climate change , population , geography , poaching , work (physics) , environmental resource management , environmental planning , environmental protection , ecology , environmental science , biology , engineering , mechanical engineering , sociology , demography
Regardless of the economic, social and environmental impacts caused by wild animal trafficking worldwide, the suitable destination of seized specimens is one of the main challenges faced by environmental managers and authorities. In Brazil, returning seized animals to the wild has been the most frequent path in population restoration programs, and has been carried out, as a priority, in areas where the animals were captured. However, in addition to the difficulty in identifying the locations of illegal captures, little scientific knowledge is available on the future viability of the source‐areas to global climate change. Thus, the current work aims to evaluate the impacts of climate change on the main source‐municipalities for animal trafficking in Brazil, referred to herein as source‐areas. For this, using ecological niche modeling, the environmental suitability of the source‐areas for illegal animal captures was evaluated in two scenarios at two different time horizons: optimistic (RCP 26) and pessimistic (RCP 85) emission scenarios in both 2050 and 2070 projections. Moreover, the source‐areas were compared with the Brazilian Federal protected areas, used here as the control group. According to the results, Brazilian source‐municipalities are not always the best option for maintaining the most seized species in the future simulations, and, therefore, seem not be the best option for projects that aim for the return of these animals to the wild. In this sense, despite the genetic and ecological issues inherent in translocation projects, our results suggest that population restoration programs for seized species need to be rethought, and furthermore other suitable areas could be considered for truly ensuring the survival and maintenance of overexploited populations in the long term.