Introduction

A balanced and healthy ecosystem requires the diversity and stability of many species that co-exist [1]. However, the local extinction of keystone, flagship, indicator, umbrella, and charismatic species may lead to cascading and profound ecological and social effects on the tangled web of species in ecosystems [2,3]. Such species may be repopulated and reintroduced through ecological interventions, although some species will grow unchecked, and often in excess [4]. This unintended consequence may be caused and reinforced by humans, sometimes under the guise of ecological preservation, with significant resources allocated.

The effectiveness of conservation is often evaluated by assessing biotic factors, such as key indicator species, and abiotic factors, such as soil and water conservation outcomes. When sound protection is offered, the number and quality of key indicator species will increase. However, the key indicator species is usually a community of species, and solely judging on the increase in the number of certain species may not necessarily point to conservation effectiveness. On the contrary, a more appropriate outcome reflects an ecosystem state that is constantly improving and ecologically balanced, characterized by rising biodiversity, improvement in the quality of ecological functions of the ecosystem, and increasing ecosystem stability [5]. Hence, improving and sustaining a balanced set of key indicator species and other related measures should be crucial for attaining a healthy and stable ecological environment, thereby avoiding the flagship species conservation conundrum [6].

Worldwide, there has been a focus on charismatic species conservation, with many successful attempts. For example, the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus), Yellowstone wolf (Canis lupus), and giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) are poster children of charismatic megafauna conservation, where wild and reintroduced populations have successfully rebounded after conservation intervention programs.

In recent years, China has dedicated extensive resources to conserving many key species (not just megafauna), at almost any cost. Unfortunately, many practitioners appear to unequivocally equate a large quantity of a charismatic species with a high-quality ecosystem. This oversimplification of conservation impact by considering a single outcome measure (i.e., maximizing the population of a charismatic species) has caused well-known problems for species such as the Chinese giant salamander (Andrias davidianus), crested ibis (Nipponia nippon), and Père David's deer (Elaphurus davidianus), to name just a few (see Box 1 for details). We need to tackle this entrenched problem of “overzealous” conservation in China and beyond.

Over-conservation using simplistic outcomes has led to several issues (Box 1), including the mixing of population admixtures of cryptic species from captive breeding programs, which can lead to genetic pollution [7,8]. The unlimited growth of a single protected species can cause problems such as high densities of populations, inbreeding depression, and increased mortality, as well as a growing need for more suitable habitat [10,11]. In addition, an artificially bred population can approach the upper limit of their carrying capacity in certain areas, necessitating the creation of artificial microhabitats suitable for the survival of the hyperabundant species [13]. In addition to the cases discussed in Box 1, there have been many other similar misguided conservation programs, where the blind pursuit of increasing populations of charismatic species as the main and only goal overshadowed scientific species conservation plans. Notably, domestication and artificial breeding do not necessarily lead to the recovery of wild populations, as we have already seen with the Saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica), Chinese alligator (Alligator sinensis), wild horse (Equus ferus), and sika deer (Cervus nippon), to name just a few.

Tackling the entrenched problem of maximizing population requires practitioners and authorities to grasp that a balanced ecological environment is shaped by the long-term adaptation of a complex system of multiple biotic and abiotic factors. As such, we should expect to have a dynamic and adaptive set of conservation goals, particularly in light of global change. For example, due to climate change, protected areas must account for alterations in the climate niche envelope as part of species conservation outcomes [14]. Although the goals of decision makers may be commendable, the effectiveness of ecological restoration should not be only measured by species abundance. Many instances are not backed by science, where the underlying concepts and approaches are often flawed. If this trend persists, they will significantly influence future conservation undertakings to adopt similar practices. Instead, we argue that the more appropriate approach is to allocate limited resources for the protection of the ecological environment and to mitigate excessive human interventions.

There is a seeming misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the integrity of the environment and charismatic species. Balancing an ecosystem is a relatively dynamic process. When a species becomes extinct or experiences a significant decline in population, a new equilibrium will be established through natural adaptation. Whether to reintroduce the charismatic species or not would then have to be backed by new evidence. Reintroduction should be prioritized in regions where the species formerly thrived but is now extinct, but high numbers of a single charismatic species in the original ecosystem should be avoided. One reason why this simple and misleading approach is quite prevalent in China is that there is relatively poor consensus as to what a comprehensive evaluation entails. In the absence of a scientific assessment of a population target outcome, most practitioners are likely to continue rely on an increasing population as the primary indicator of success for securing additional funding for subsequent conservation efforts, slipping into a positive feedback loop and exacerbating the over-conservation issue.

In a nutshell, the present measures used to evaluate conservation impacts are not ecologically meaningful or too simplistic at best. In fact, we would argue that the issue of flagship-focused conservation is a bit outdated, as recent conservation initiatives for biodiversity protection are increasingly emphasizing functional aspects and whole-ecosystem approaches. Current progress has been inconsistent with the scientific theory and practice of holistic ecological protection. It not only fails to restore long-term ecosystems and their functions in accordance with nature’s laws but also results in the ineffective use of resources for biodiversity conservation. Yet, it remains a challenge for conservation strategy to be adaptive and keep pace with the dramatic and rapid alterations of the environment, particularly when it keeps deteriorating at unprecedented rates.

Insights from China should inform future efforts worldwide. We would urge all stakeholders to consider the issue of excessive conservation of charismatic species and emphasize that conservation efforts must be grounded in the scientific concept of a conservation goal to maintain overall ecological equilibrium as practically and realistically as possible.