Captive Breeding and Reintroduction

Once the limiting factors have been addressed it might be time for intensive management– last resort– expensive– difficult 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

Typical Questions About Captive Propagation Is it necessary? Is it successful and worth it? How do you do it?

– Technical questions about breeding, rearing, and release

Intensive Management Programs are Complex

Example from MarianaCrow program on Guam

•landowner coordination•monitoring•pull eggs•rear nestlings

•translocate•hack to the wild

•control predators

Why Captive Breed?

Produce stock for reintroduction (Wilson and Stanley Price 1994)

Preserve genetic variability Produce stock for research Produce animals for public education Provide insurance against extinction

– alala pva

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

Example of Meeting Criteria for Tamarins (Kleiman et al. 1994)

Golden Golden-headed

Condition of species1. Need to augment wild pop.2. Available stock3. No jeopardy to wild pop.

YesYes?

NoYes?

Environmental conditions1. Causes of decline removed2. Sufficient protected habitat3. Unsaturated habitat

?Yes?Yes

NoNoYes?

Biopolitical conditions1. No negative impacts for locals2. Community support exists3. GOs/NGOs supportive/involved4. Conformity with laws/regulations

No5YesYes

?2Yes?

Biological or other resources1. Reintroduction technology known2. Knowledge of species' biology3. Sufficient resources exist for program

45Yes

31.4No

Recommend reintroduction/translocation? Yes No

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

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

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)

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 ReleasesN=50SP; N=100SP

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)

The Biology of Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Captive Breeding

– zoo biology and husbandry

Manipulating Wild Pairs– pull clutch

Captive Rearing– considerations of diet, disease, training

Reintroduction– translocation, fostering, hacking (soft release), hard

release

A General Captive Propagation Program Aplomado 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)

How to Incubate Eggs?

An example of figuring out one aspect of captive propagation

Use of surrogate species Need controlled experiments

Effects of Manipulating Wild Pairs Bald 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

affect viability of “donor” population

Corvids (Marzluff et al. 1994)

– 69% renested

– reduced clutch size on renesting and slightly lower number of fledglings

– occupancy and productivity at manipulated sites was same as controls next year

Hand-rearing May Produce Undersized Young for Release

Growth is usually faster in nature 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

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

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

Survival of Released Foxes is Affected by Method of Release

Kit Foxes (in Ginsberg 1994)

Wild caught translocated (hard release) did best in short term

Hard versus Soft Release were similar after 2 years

Wild Caught, Hard-release

All Soft Releases

All Hard Releases

Captive Reared, Hard-release

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 missingbirds were alive

Assume missingbirds were dead

Recent Thoughts About Reintroduction Red and Mexican Wolves

– Politics and Biology– Guard Donkeys?

Grizzlies Lynx Whooping Cranes

– Western and Eastern Efforts

Red Wolves

1970’s few wolves left in Texas and Louisiana All that could be found (N = 17) were

captured by late 1970’s and brought in for captive breeding (Point Defiance Zoo initially then 20+ zoos)

Bred wolves in captivity successfully (300 + were produced at 30+ facilities)

Began reintroduction in 1987

Red Wolf Reintroduction Areas

Red Wolf Reintroduction Stats First releases at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge

(1992: 30 animals roam free) 1988-90 marooned species on 3 islands

– 10 on Bulls Island (2 survived through 1990)

• Ended 2005

– 9 on Horn Island (5 survived through 1990)

• None currently

– 4 on St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (all surviving)

• Minimal efforts now, but captives at visitor facility

– Goal was to produce wild-reared young wolves for reintroduction

2006: 100 in wild (20 packs, 1.7 mil. Acres in NC), 184 in captivity

Reintroduction Strategies Pre-release training

– minimum human contact– varied feeding regime (boom bust)– weaned from dog food to all meat– exposed to live prey

10(j) status– hunting and trapping of game allowed in release area to

get sportsmen behind the program– can kill if threatening humans, but not livestock or pets

Reintroduction Success ARNWR---1987-90--released 29 captive born wolves (19

adults, 10 pups) were released on 13 occasions– 6 pups born in the wild– mid Oct. 1990--->19 free-ranging– 17 animals recaptured on 29 occasions

• 1 animal had to be returned to zoo– 15 died

• 5 vehicle; 2 killed by other wolves; 2 infections; 1 choked on a coon kidney; 1 drowned in leghold; 4 drowned crossing river

– This is now the center of the reintroduction efforts and an increasing wild population is distributed in 20 packs across 5 NC counties

Why No Losses to Human Hatred?

Pre-release public education campaign– briefed enviros, congress, governor, local officials and local

landowners

– briefed navy and airforce which train next to refuge

– focused on hunters and trappers at public meetings prior to release

10(j) status Post-release press

– 22 mags, 24 newspapers, 5 national news broadcasts, 4 documentaries

New landowner agreements

Humans Benefited From Release

Post-release press increased tourism Portrayed the region as unaffected by

increase in human population where natural resources are still thriving– helped attract recreation

Other Spinoffs

Additional land for conservation– Conservation Fund bought 47,000 ha next to

ARNWR– 33 private citizens donated 10,000 ha to the

project

Civic groups got involved– Rotary Club gave conservation internships

Not So Good in Smokies 1990 reintroductions began in Great Smoky

Mountains National Park– 500,000 acre park (NC and Tenn)– 1.5 mill acres of national forest adjoining with inholdings– 37 wolves released

• many strayed from park and were recaptured– like beef--$7,900 paid for 24 cows killed– liked people (taking handouts from tourists)– 6 killed by cars, poison, shooting

– 33 pups born• 4 survived through 1998

Lack of Food Important

Movements out of park were apparently in response to lack of big game

Parvovirus also got some pups 4 remaining animals (2 adults and 2 pups)

were removed

Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Sites

5 release areas in Apache National Forest

Soft releases of family groups Various degree of switch to

natural prey Vehicles are mortality source

as is shooting Ranch dogs and livestock

have been injured or killed– Defenders paid full market value

Mexican Wolves

Captive propagation for release First releases March 29-30 1998 (New Mexico and

Arizona) on NWR and USFS lands– Recent info from Arizona Game and Fish

Public not happy– New Mexico cattle growers have sued

– Mortalities from autos and shooting

– 5 of first 11 released were shot

– 2005 Recovery Planning on hold, reintroductions continue

Perseverance is the Key

Babbitt was committed– “release … is to send a message that this is

public land…..Americans support this effort…I’ve got my instructions from the American people”

As of 2013– 83 wolves with 5 breeding pairs in AZ and NM– ~300 in captivity (including wolf haven)

Flexible Releases

Lightweight pens– take into backcountry– electrify soft mesh– soft releases will continue to be used

• little room for error

Reducing Wolf Encounters with Lifestock (M. Jimenez (PhD work)

Trials with Montana’s Ninemile Pack– Cracker shells

• very short term deterrence

– Country Music• music played at night by a crippled cow--kept wolves away

– Flags• flags on fences keep wolves out

– Guard Donkeys• burros with cattle--increase aggressiveness of the prey

– worked with coyotes

End of 2012: >1674 wolves in 321 packs with 103 breeding pairs

Grizzly Tales Yellowstone Griz (Kaiser 1999)

– USFWS delisted, court vacated, appeal partially supported, as of 2011 reinstated as “threatened” pending evaluation of impact of white-barked pine decline

Conflict over assessing the rate of population growth– Pease and Mattson 1999--1% per year increase – NPS 5% per year increase

1800---100,000 bears; 1975--<1000; 2004---580; range-wide in 2013 there are 1400-1700 bears

Grizzly Reintroduction?

USFWS proposes reintroduction into Northern Rockies– would use 10(j) status

Good support in Montana, not so in Idaho

– “Bringing back bears is nothing but a polite form of genocide” L. Barrett, Idaho State Rep.

– “I’m less scared of grizzlies than I am of the Endangered Species Act” D. Burtenshaw, Idaho State Senate

Threatened Lynx?

Listed as threatened in 2004

As of 2006, recovery outline completed– Interim, no

authority, guidelines

Lynx Reintroduction Stats

Reintroduction occurring in Colorado– winter 1999--11 Lynx brought to San Juans from Canada

– hard release

– plan for 110 to be released over next 2 years

– cost = $1.4 million (for first 3 years)

Initial Poor Success was questioned– 2 of first 5 died of starvation

Later reintroductions went well• 2010 deemed a success after >200 animals released

Whooping Cranes

Early efforts in western US– 1975--early 1990s whoopers cross fostered under Sandhill Cranes– Migrated and survived ok, but no breeding– 1992--cross fostered whooper bred with a female sandhill– 1993--cross fostered group down to 8 from high of 30 in 1980– Guide-bird program initiated

• incubate and hatch in captivity• house chicks with cross fostered whoopers held in cages on breeding

grounds• bond with whoopers to learn migration route• imprint on whoopers to learn sexual preference

– 2005 efforts in west essentially halted

Changing Focus to Eastern US

Use of ultralights and direct reintroduction to re-establish the eastern flyway population of Whooping Cranes

Population is growing– 5 young in 2002– 64 in 2006

2005 saw first breeding 2006 first migration onown by cranes initiallyled by ultralight

References

Phillips, M. K. 1990a. The red wolf: recovery of an endangered species. Endangered Species Update 8:79-81.

Phillips, M. K. 1990b. Measures of the value and success of a reintroduction project: red wolf reintroduction in Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Endangered Species Update 8:24-26.

Kaiser, J. 1999. Study sounds alarm on Yellowstone Grizzlies. Science 284:568.

Davis, T. 1997. Agencies dunk endangered songbird. High Country News Sept. 15, 1997

Drewien, R. C. 1993. Guide bird program holds promise for whoopers. Habitat.

More References

Borenstein, S. 1999. The bald eagle to be taken off endangered list. Seattle Times. June 17, 1999.

Weller, R. 1999. Lynx reintroduced to Colorado. Seattle Times February 4, 1999.

London, J. 1996. Red Wolf Country. Penguin Books, New York.

Miller, E. 1997. Salmon says no bears, no way. High Country News. October 27, 1997

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. Chapman and 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.

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.

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.

References Haig, SM and JC Avise. 1996. Avian conservation genetics. PP160-189 In. JC Avise and

JL Hamrick (ed.) Conservation genetics. Chapman & Hall. New York. Lynch, M. 1996. A quantitative-genetic perspective on conservation issues. PP 471-501

In. JC Avise and JL Hamrick (ed.) Conservation genetics. Chapman & Hall. New York. Britten, HB. Meta-analyses of the association between multilocus heterozygosity and

fitness. Evolution 50:2158-2164. Fleischer, RC. 1998. Genetics and avian conservation. PP 29-47 In. JM Marzluff and R

Sallabanks (eds.) Avian Conservation. Island Press. Covelo, CA. Mitton, JB. 1994. Molecular approaches to population biology. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

25:45-69 Lynch, M. R. Burger, D. Butcher, and W. Gabriel. 1993. The mutational meltdown in

asexual populations. J. Heredity 84:339-344. Westemeier, R. L., Brawn, J. D., Simpson, S. A., Esker, T. L., Jansen, R. W., Walk, J.

W., Kershner, E. L., Bouzat, J. L., and K. N. Paige. 1998. Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science 282:1695-1698.

More References Ardern, S. L. and D. M. Lambert. 1997. Is the black robin in genetic peril?

Molecular Ecology 6:21-28 Caro, T. M. and M. K. Laurenson. 1994. Ecological and genetic factors in

conservation: a cautionary tale. Science 263:485-486. Jimenez, J. A., K. A. Hughes, G. Alaks, L. Graham, and R. C. Lacy. 1994. An

experimental study of inbreeding depression in a natural habitat. Science 266:271-273.

O’Brien, S.J., Roelke, M. E., Marker, L., Newman, A., Winkler, C. A., Meltzer, D., Colly, L., Evermann, J. F., Bush, M., and D. E. Wildt. 1985. Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the Cheetah. Science 227:1428-1434.

Roy, M. S., E. Geffen, D. Smith, and R. K. Wayne. 1996. Molecular genetics of pre-1940 red wolves. Conservation Biology 10:1413-1424.

Vrijenhoek, R. C., M. E. Douglas, and G. K. Meffe. 1985. Conservation genetics of endangered fish populations in Arizona. Science 229:400-402.

Still More Refs Hale, ML, Lurz, PWW, Shirley, MDF, Rushton, S., Fuller, RM, and K. Wolff. 2001.

Impact of landscape management on the genetic structure of red squirrel populations. Science 293:2246-2248.

Caro, T. 2000. Controversy over behavior and genetics in Cheetah conservation. In. LM Gosling and WJ Sutherland, eds. Behavior and Conservation.

Keller, LF and DM Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:230-241.

Lande, R. 1999. Extinction risks from anthropogenic, ecological, and genetic factors. Pp 1-22. In Genetics and the Extinction of Species (Landweber, LF and AP Dobson, eds.). Princeton University Press

Nicholl, M.A.C. Jones, C.G., and K. Norris. 2003. Declining survival rates in a reintroduced population of the Mauritius kestrel: evidence for non-linear density dependence and environmental stochasticity. J. Anim. Ecol. 72:917-926.

Nichols, R. A., Bruford, M. W., and J. J. Groombridge. 2001. Sustaining genetic variation in a small population: evidence from the Mauritius kestrel. Molecular Ecology 10:593-602.

Mandel, J. T., Donlan,C. J., and J. Armstrong. 2010. A derivative approach to endangered species conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 8:44-49.