Mitigation translocation for conservation of New Zealand skinks

<p>Worldwide, human development is leading to the expansion and intensification of land use, with increasing encroachment on natural habitats. A rising awareness of the deleterious effects of habitat destruction on species and ecosystems has increased the use of strategies intended to mitigate these negative impacts. One increasingly common strategy is mitigation translocation, the movement of living organisms from a future development site to another location in an effort to mitigate damage caused. Mitigation translocations may be implemented due to legislation or regulations in many jurisdictions, and in many instances command more resources than purely conservation-motivated translocations. Although they are intended to reduce or offset harm, the effectiveness of mitigation translocations as a conservation strategy has been questioned.   I investigated the effectiveness of mitigation translocations for achieving conservation outcomes, using the study system of endemic New Zealand skinks. New Zealand’s skinks show a high level of endemism, are threatened by habitat loss and predation by introduced mammals, and are increasingly subject to mitigation translocations, making them an ideal study system for investigating mitigation outcomes. I investigated: whether mitigation translocations are meeting conservation goals; how the implementation and legal requirements of mitigation translocation relate to conservation goals; and how mitigation translocation practices might be improved to achieve better conservation outcomes.  A technique used in mitigation translocations of lizards in New Zealand is the construction of rock piles as habitat enhancement at the receiving site. I developed a novel use of computer game physics software to model the three-dimensional interstitial spaces within such rock piles, and used this model to design rock piles with the aim of protecting translocated skinks from mice (Mus musculus), New Zealand’s smallest introduced mammalian predator. The protection is achieved by selecting rocks to optimise the size of interstitial spaces to be accessible to skinks but not to the larger mice (or other larger predators). This rock pile design could be used to improve survival of skinks both in translocations and other situations such as backyard conservation or restoration. The modelling technique I developed could be used for investigation of refuge space more widely, for instance in other terrestrial systems or aquatic systems. I also took part in a mitigation translocation of lizards at Transmission Gully near Wellington, New Zealand. I used this translocation to test my rock pile design, and as a case study of the challenges facing mitigation translocations and the barriers to conservation success. In addition, I revisited nine historical mitigation translocations of skinks (7–14 years post translocation), took surveys of current populations to assess their success at meeting conservation goals, and found a success rate of 22%, considerably lower than conservation translocations of New Zealand skinks (success rate of 88.9%). Despite this, all but one met their goals of fulfilling legislative requirements.  Mitigation translocations fail to result in conservation benefit due to their implementation and goals. The goals of mitigation translocations are rooted in legislation, and vary due to inconsistent application of relevant laws (in New Zealand, the Wildlife Act 1953 and the Resource Management Act 1991), and the fact that the requirements under these laws do not necessarily reflect conservation goals. Additionally, mitigation translocations may be undertaken even when evidence indicates that meaningful conservation outcomes are unlikely (as in the case of the translocation at Transmission Gully). Failure may also be due to poor implementation; examples from case studies here include failure to control predators, low standards of planting at receptor sites, and small founder populations. To improve conservation outcomes, legal requirements for mitigation translocations should be implemented to require biologically-relevant goals (including a no net loss of biodiversity standard) and management techniques, and alternative methods of meeting conservation goals should be considered where appropriate.</p>