Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss

ABSTRACT There is contentious debate surrounding the merits of de-extinction as a biodiversity conservation tool. Here, we use extant analogues to predict conservation actions for potential

de-extinction candidate species from New Zealand and the Australian state of New South Wales, and use a prioritization protocol to predict the impacts of reintroducing and maintaining

populations of these species on conservation of extant threatened species. Even using the optimistic assumptions that resurrection of species is externally sponsored, and that actions for

resurrected species can share costs with extant analogue species, public funding for conservation of resurrected species would lead to fewer extant species that could be conserved,

suggesting net biodiversity loss. If full costs of establishment and maintenance for resurrected species populations were publicly funded, there could be substantial sacrifices in extant

species conservation. If conservation of resurrected species populations could be fully externally sponsored, there could be benefits to extant threatened species. However, such benefits

would be outweighed by opportunity costs, assuming such discretionary money could directly fund conservation of extant species. Potential sacrifices in conservation of extant species should

be a crucial consideration in deciding whether to invest in de-extinction or focus our efforts on extant species. Access through your institution Buy or subscribe This is a preview of

subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value

online-access subscription $29.99 / 30 days cancel any time Learn more Subscribe to this journal Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles $119.00 per year only $9.92 per issue

Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL

ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS GLOBAL SHORTFALLS IN DOCUMENTED ACTIONS

TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY Article Open access 05 June 2024 HALF OF RESOURCES IN THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION PLANS ARE ALLOCATED TO RESEARCH AND MONITORING Article Open access 22 September

2020 THE COST OF RECOVERING AUSTRALIA’S THREATENED SPECIES Article 23 December 2024 REFERENCES * Folch, J. et al. First birth of an animal from an extinct subspecies (_Capra pyrenaica

pyrenaica_) by cloning. _Theriogenology_ 71, 1026–1034 (2009). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Callaway, E. Stem-cell plan aims to bring rhino back from brink of extinction. _Nature_

533, 20–21 (2016). Google Scholar  * Kumar, S. Extinction need not be forever. _Nature_ 492, 9 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Sherkow, J. S. & Greely, H. T. What if

extinction is not forever? _Science_ 340, 32–33 (2013). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Cohen, S. The ethics of de-extinction. _NanoEthics_ 8, 165–178 (2014). Article  Google Scholar

  * Shapiro, B. Mammoth 2.0: Will genome engineering resurrect extinct species? _Genome Biol._ 16, 228 (2015). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Seddon, P. J.,

Moehrenschlager, A. & Ewen, J. Reintroducing resurrected species: selecting DeExtinction candidates. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 29, 140–147 (2014). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Jones, K.

E. From dinosaurs to dodos: Who could and should we de-extinct? _Front. Biogeog_. 6, 20–24 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Weeks, A. R. et al. Assessing the benefits and risks of

translocations in changing environments: a genetic perspective. _Evol. Appl_. 4, 709–725 (2011). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Jenkins, C. N., Van Houtan, K. S., Pimm,

S. L. & Sexton, J. O. US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 112, 5081–5086 (2015). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  *

Peers, M. J. L. et al. De-extinction potential under climate change: extensive mismatch between historic and future habitat suitability for three candidate birds. _Biol. Cons._ 197, 164–170

(2016). Article  Google Scholar  * _IUCN/SSC Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit: Version 1.0_ (International Union for Conservation of Nature,

2016). * Camacho, A. E. Going the way of the dodo: de-extinction, dualisms, and reframing conservation. _Wash. Univ. Law Rev._ 92, 849–906 (2015). Google Scholar  * Shapiro, B. Pathways to

de-extinction: How close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species? _Funct. Ecol._ http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12705 (2016). * Bennett, J. R. et al. Balancing phylogenetic

diversity and species numbers in conservation prioritization, using a case study of threatened species in New Zealand. _Biol. Cons._ 174, 47–54 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Tulloch, A.

I. T. et al. Effect of risk aversion on prioritizing conservation projects. _Cons. Biol_. 29, 513–524 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * _More Plants and Animals to be Saved from

Extinction: Saving Our Species 2016–2021_ (New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritiage, 2016). * Wood, J. R. et al. Resolving lost herbivore community structure using coprolites of

four sympatric moa species (Aves: Dinornithiformes). _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 110, 16910–16915 (2013). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * McCauley, D. J.,

Hardesty-Moore, M., Halpern, B. S. & Young, H. S. A mammoth undertaking: harnessing insight from functional ecology to shape de-extinction priority setting. _Funct. Ecol._

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12728 (2016). * Minteer, B. A. Is it right to reverse extinction? _Nature_ 509, 261 (2014). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Nogués-Bravo, D.,

Simberloff, D., Rahbek, C. & Sanders, N. J. Rewilding is the new Pandora’s box in conservation. _Curr. Biol_. 26, R87–R91 (2016). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Restani, M. &

Marzluff, J. M. Funding extinction? Biological needs and political Realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery. _BioSci._ 52, 169–177 (2002). Article  Google

Scholar  * Martín-López, B., Montes, C., Ramírez, L. & Benayas, J. What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? _Biol. Cons._ 142, 1370–1380 (2009). Article 

Google Scholar  * McCarthy, D. P. et al. Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs. _Science_ 338, 946–949 (2012). Article  CAS 

PubMed  Google Scholar  * Wilson, K. A., Carwardine, J. & Possingham, H. P. Setting conservation priorities. _Ann. NY Acad. Sci_. 1162, 237–264 (2009). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Joseph, L. N., Maloney, R. F. & Possingham, H. P. Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. _Cons. Biol_. 23, 328–338 (2009). Article

  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS J.R.B. was supported the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Australian Research Council (ARC)

Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED). H.P.P. was funded by an ARC Laureate Fellowship and CEED. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Biology,

Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada Joseph R. Bennett * Department of Conservation, Science and Policy Group, 70 Moorhouse Avenue, Addington, 8011,

Christchurch, New Zealand Richard F. Maloney * School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand Tammy E. Steeves * New South Wales

Office of Environment and Heritage, 59 Goulburn Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2000, Australia James Brazill-Boast * University of Queensland, ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental

Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, St Lucia, 4072, Queensland, Australia Hugh P. Possingham * Conservation Science, The Nature Conservancy, 245 Riverside Drive, West End, 4101,

Queensland, Australia Hugh P. Possingham * Department of Zoology, University of Otago, 340 Great King Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand Philip J. Seddon Authors * Joseph R. Bennett View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Richard F. Maloney View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar *

Tammy E. Steeves View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * James Brazill-Boast View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * Hugh P. Possingham View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Philip J. Seddon View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS J.R.B., R.F.M. and P.J.S. designed the study. J.R.B., R.F.M. and J.B.-B. analysed the data. J.R.B. wrote the paper, with input

from all other authors. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Joseph R. Bennett. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing financial interests. SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Supplementary Tables 1,2; Supplementary Discussion (PDF 310 kb) RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE

Bennett, J., Maloney, R., Steeves, T. _et al._ Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss. _Nat Ecol Evol_ 1, 0053 (2017).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0053 Download citation * Received: 21 August 2016 * Accepted: 13 December 2016 * Published: 01 March 2017 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0053

SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to

clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative