important considerations for intensive management of endangered

8/14/2019 Important Considerations for Intensive Management of Endangered

1/36

Important Considerations for Intensive

Management of Endangered SpeciesOften managers rush into intensive management for a

quick, high profile fix of a declining species

Before captive propagation, reintroduction, and

translocation are considered four general areas shouldbe addressed (Kleiman et al. 1994)

Condition of the Species

Environmental Conditions

Biopolitical Considerations

Biological Knowledge


2/36

Removing the Cause of Decline

This is really the crux of endangered species

conservation

Requires detailed observation and likely

experimentation to fully understand reason fordecline

Brown tree snake was not immediately recognized

Condor limiting factors required telemetry to ID

not 1080, not disturbance at nest, not shooting, likely lead

poison because Condors need open habitat to find food and

hunters/ranchers common there


3/36

Facing the Evil Quartet

Typically we are up against

habitat destruction/degradation

exotics

trophic cascades

overharvest

contaminants

Contaminants and overharvest are easiest to removeor reduce


4/36

Recovery after Agent of Decline

RemovedStop Over harvest

whales, alligator

Remove PesticidesPeregrine, Bald Eagle, Brown Pelican

Remove Pesticides and Modify Habitat Needs

Mauritius Kestrel (Jones et al. 1991)

1974-----4 birds

1991-----127-145 birds


5/36

Exotics are Very Difficult to

ControlDisease, Snakes

Technology not adequate to control

Buy time by marooning (Williams 1977) release small numbers of species with poor dispersal

ability in isolated habitat (typically islands)

700 islands off New Zealand

Saddleback, Kakapo (flightless parrot), Takahe (Rail)

Buys time until feral introduced mammals can be removed

Guam Rail released on Rota


6/36

Are We Treating the Symptom or

the Cause of the Problem?Often rush into captive propagation without addressinglimiting factor

Headstarting Sea Turtles (Tate 1990)

rear until old enough to avoid predation on nesting grounds

Better to protect nesting ground

Hatcheries and barges for Salmon

damns, habitat loss, fishing, etc are cause

May be justified to learn about propagation and control Mariana Crow


7/36

A Complex Example of

Addressing Limiting FactorsRhinos in Africa http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/Ted/RHINOBLK.HTM

Destruction of habitat, hunting, illegal trade in products (folk

medicine, dagger handles)

reduction in numbers from 65,000-100,000 in 1960s to ~3,000 today

regulations (CITES)

scientific study of medicinal effects

Leader of Yehman using agate handle dagger

shoot to kill poacher policy

De-horning

Ranching to flood market
http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/Ted/RHINOBLK.HTMhttp://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/Ted/RHINOBLK.HTMhttp://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/Ted/RHINOBLK.HTMhttp://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/Ted/RHINOBLK.HTMhttp://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/Ted/RHINOBLK.HTM


8/36


9/36

Hope with One-horned Rhinos

(Dinerstein 2003)

Rhinos in India-Nepal are increasing with creation of

Royal Chitwan National Park

Community pride, ecotourism, natural resource benefits to

residents, Royal family of Nepal leadershipGeneral approach

Design landscapes with large, protected cores

Introduce powerful economic incentives, legislation,awareness

Identify bold leadership to rally political will Translocation

Redistribution of park revenue to locals

Resettlement or land transfer


10/36

How Do We Protect or Restore

Enough Habitat?Biopolitical Considerations (Kleiman et al. 1994)No negative impact for locals

Community support exists

GOs and NGOs supportive/involvedBut what about when there is an obvious Economic

Cost?

Especially when habitat is already being used by humans

Salmon


11/36

Captive Breeding and Reintroduction

Once the limiting factors have been addressed it

might be time for intensive management

last resort

expensivedifficult to make succeed

Beck et al. 1994-- 11% successful

Griffith et al. 1989-- 19% successful

requires large, long-term effort in captivity and the wild


12/36

Typical Questions About Captive

PropagationIs it necessary?

Is it successful and worth it?

How do you do it?Technical questions about breeding, rearing,

and release


13/36

Intensive Management Programs

are Complex Example from MarianaCrow program on Guam

landowner coordination

monitoringpull eggsrear nestlings

translocate

hack to the wildcontrol predators


14/36

Why Captive Breed?

Produce stock for reintroduction (Wilson andStanley Price 1994)

Preserve genetic variabilityProduce stock for research

Produce animals for public education

Provide insurance against extinctionalala pva


15/36

What are We Breeding in

Captivity? (Ginsberg 1994, Canids)

Reviewed species bred in

captivity (N = 32) from

1971-1990.

Most are common species

Increase in vulnerable and

endangered species in late

1980s

3 endangered species account

for 95% of litters for V&E

species (Maned Wolf, Af. WildDog, and Bush Dog)

75% of all captive breeding is

done on 3 species (grey wolf,

red fox, dingo)


16/36

Criteria to Meet Prior to

Reintroduction (Kleiman et al. 1994)Already discussed environmental and

political considerations

Condition of the species

Is there a need to increase numbers, populations,

or genetic diversity of the species?Is appropriate stock available?

Will introduction jeopardize wild population?


17/36

Criteria to Meet Prior to

Reintroduction (Kleiman et al. 1994)Biological and Other Resources

Do we know how to rear and reintroduce the

species?Do we know enough about the biology of the

species to determine if we have been

successful?

Is funding for the long term available

includes monitoring success of reintroduction


18/36

Example of Meeting Criteria for

Tamarins (Kleiman et al. 1994)Golden Golden-headed

Condition of species

1. Need to augment wild pop.2. Available stock3. No jeopardy to wild pop.

Yes

Yes

?

No

Yes

?

Environmental conditions

1. Causes of decline removed2. Sufficient protected habitat3. Unsaturated habitat

?

Yes?

Yes

No

No

Yes?

Biopolitical conditions

1. No negative impacts for locals2. Community support exists3. GOs/NGOs supportive/involved4. Conformity with laws/regulations

No

5

Yes

Yes

?

2

Yes

?

Biological or other resources

1. Reintroduction technology known2. Knowledge of species' biology3. Sufficient resources exist for program

4

5

Yes

3

1.4

No

Recommend reintroduction/translocation? Yes No


19/36

Assessment of Reintroduction

Projects (Beck et al. 1994)

Reviewed projects from 1900 to 1993

N=145 projects, 13 million animals of 126 species

acclimate = hard vs. soft release

% of Projects


20/36

What Made Project Successful?

Successful if N=500 w/o human intervention or PVA looks good

16 (11%) successful

Training, local involvement, education, and duration are consistently important


21/36

Criteria for Success from Griffith

et al. (1989) Type of species (game more successful than threatened)Habitat quality (better success into good habitat)

Location of release (better in core of historic range)

Source of stock (Wild caught better than hand-reared) Food habits (herbivore better than carnivore or omnivore)

Duration of study (longer and more animals released

increased success)


22/36

Size and Persistence of Release

Matters (Ginsberg 1994) PVA model results (Kit

Foxes)

N=Starting pop size

SP=successive releases of

20 indiv/yr for 10 years

Huge increase in viability

with little increase in per

year release effort.

N=50

N=100

N=500

Successive Releases

N=50SP; N=100SP


23/36

Major Drawbacks to Success(Snyder et al. 1996)

Need to maintain a self sustaining captive population

Need to successfully reintroduce

May get domestication and disease in captivity

Need considerable funds and facilities

Diverts attention from long-term solution in the field

(easy to do quick fix)

Need consistent administration(Clark et al. 1994)


24/36

The Biology of Captive

Propagation and ReintroductionCaptive Breeding

zoo biology and husbandry

Manipulating Wild Pairs

pull clutch

Captive Rearing

considerations of diet, disease, training

Reintroductiontranslocation, fostering, hacking (soft release), hard

release


25/36

A General Captive Propagation

ProgramAplomado falcons (Cade et al. 1991) bring birds in from captivity

acclimate so they breed in captivity

increase productivity by food supplementation and clutch manipulation

hand rear young, experiment with parent rearing

manipulate wild pairs

clutch manipulation

hack out captive-reared birds

meet recovery goal for species 30-50 young released for 10-15 years require 15 pairs (35 individuals)


26/36

How to Incubate Eggs?

An example of figuring out one aspect of captivepropagation

Use of surrogate species

Need controlled experiments


27/36

Effects of Manipulating Wild

PairsBald Eagles (Wood and Collopy 1993)

78% renested within 1 month

subsequent reproduction within the year may be reduced

this was modeled with RAMAS age model and was estimated not to affectviability of donor population

Corvids (Marzluff et al. 1994)

69% renested

reduced clutch size on renesting and slightly lower number offledglings

occupancy and productivity at manipulated sites was same as

controls next year


28/36

Hand-rearing May Produce

Undersized Young for ReleaseGrowth is usually faster innature and may produce light-

weight young (magpies)

Growth in captivity may be

compensatory (crows)

If dominance is related to size,

then survival or breeding may

be reduced

Whitmore and Marzluff 1998


29/36

Raising Mammals in Captivity

Hand-rearing diets for

wild ungulate neonates

used ad lib feeding of

evaporated milk

easy and growth

similar to wild

Wild et al. 1994.

Elk

Big-horn

Pronghorn


30/36

Practice Makes More Perfect

Mortality of pups is

reduced with

increasing number of

litters produced for a

species

3 outliers were

removed from

analysis??)

Ginsberg 1994


31/36

Ferret Predatory Behavior Is

Influenced by Rearing Vargas 1994

% of ferrets that killed PDs at 16.5 weeks

Group I

cage-raised, no exposure to live prey

Group II

Cage-raised, exposed to live hamsters--

went for back of neck, not throat

Group III

Cage-raised, exposed to live Prairie Dogs

Group IV

Outdoor raised, exposed to PDs


32/36

Survival of Released Foxes is

Affected by Method of ReleaseKit Foxes (in Ginsberg1994)

Wild caught

translocated (hardrelease) did best in

short term

Hard versus Soft

Release were similarafter 2 years

Wild Caught,

Hard-release

All Soft Releases

All Hard

Releases

Captive Reared, Hard-release


33/36

Sometimes Younger is Better!(Valutis 1997)

Post-release survival of

American Crows was better

if we released them young

less dispersal

gradual integration into wild

flocks may be better

wild birds may be more

receptive to new birds during

breeding season

Assume missing

birds were alive

Assume missing

birds were dead


34/36

References

Vargas, A. 1994. Ontogeny of the endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela

nigripes) and effects of rearing conditions on predatory behavior and post-

release survival. PhD. Diss. U. Wyoming

Ginsberg, JR. 1994. Captive breeding, reintroduction and the conservation of

canids. PP. 365-383. In. Olney et al. (eds.). Creative Conservation. Chapmanand Hall, London.

Valutis, LL. 1997. Reintroduction of captive-reared birds. MSc. BSU. Boise, ID.

Wild, MA. Et al. 1994. Comparing growth rates of dam- and hand-raised

Bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and elk neonates. J W M 58:340-347.

Whitmore, KD and JM Marzluff. 1998. Hand-rearing corvids for reintroduction:

importance of feeding regime, nestling growth, and dominance. JWM 62:1460-1479.


35/36

More References

Wilson, AC and MR Stanley Price. 1994. Reintroduction as a reason for captive

breeding. PP 243-264. In. Olney et al. (eds.). Creative Conservation. Chapman and

Hall, London.

Kleiman, DG et al. 1994. Criteria for reintroductions. PP 287-303. In. Olney et al.

(eds.). Creative Conservation. Chapman and Hall, London.

Beck, B.B., et al. 1994. Reintroduction of captive-born animals. PP 265-286. In.

Olney et al. (eds.). Creative Conservation. Chapman and Hall, London.

Griffith, B. Et al. 1989. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and

strategy. Science 245:477-480.

Cade, TJ et al. 1991. Efforts to restore the northern aplomado falcon by captive

breeding and reintroduction. Dodo 27:71-81. Williams, GR. 1977. Marooning--a technique for saving threatened species from

extinction. International Zoo Yearbook 17:102-106.


36/36

Yet More References

Jones, CG. Et al. 1991. A summary of the conservation management of the

mauritius kestrel Falco punctatus 1973-1991. Dodo 27:81-99.

Rachlow, JL. And J. Berger. 1997. Conservation implications of patterns

of horn regeneration in dehorned white rhinos. Conservation Biology

11:84-91. Berger, J. 1996. Animal behaviour and plundered mammals: Is the study

of mating systems a scientific luxury or a conservation necessity? Oikos

77:207-216.

Wood, PB. And MW Collopy. 1993. Effects of egg removal on bald eagle

productivity in northern Florida. JWM 57:1-9. Marzluff, JM et al. 1994.Captive propagation and reintroduction of social

birds. Annual Report. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Meridian, ID.

important considerations for intensive management of endangered

Documents