Global Re-introduction
Perspectives: 2013
Further case-studies from around the globe
Edited by Pritpal S. Soorae

Global Re-introduction
Perspectives: 2013
Further case-studies from around the globe
Edited by Pritpal S. Soorae

IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group (RSG)i

ii

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material,
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or any of thefunding organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Published by: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group & Environment Agency-ABU
DHABICopyright:© 2013 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources

Citation:

Soorae, P. S. (ed.) (2013). Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2013.
Further case studies from around the globe. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group and Abu Dhabi, UAE: Environment
Agency-Abu Dhabi. xiv + 282 pp.

ISBN:

978-2-8317-1633-6

Cover photo: Clockwise starting from top-left:
i. Fen Raft Spider, UK © Helen Smithii. Manglietia longipedunculata © Late Prof. Qingwen Zeng
iii. European Tree Frog, Latvia © Andris Eglitis
iv. Red Wolf © USA John Froschauer/PDZA
v. Hungarian Meadow Viper © Tamás Péchy
vi. Westslope Cutthroat Trout, USA © Carter Kruse, Turner Enterprises,
Inc./Turner Endangered Species Fundvii. Oriental White Stork, Japan © Yoko Mitsuhashi
Cover design& layout by:
Pritpal S. Soorae, IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group
Produced by: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group & Environment Agency-ABU
DHABI
Download at: www.iucnsscrsg.org / www.iucn.org

iii

iv

IUCN
IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic
solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges. IUCN’s
work focuses on valuing and conserving nature, ensuring effective and equitable
governance of its use, and deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges inclimate, food and development. IUCN supports scientific research, manages fieldprojects all over the world, and brings governments, NGOs, the UN and companies
together to develop policy, laws and best practice. IUCN is the world’s oldest andlargest global environmental organization, with more than 1,200 government andNGO Members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s
work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of partners in public,
NGO and private sectors around the world.
IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC)
The SSC is a science-based network of close to 8,000 volunteer experts from almost
every country of the world, all working together towards achieving the vision of, “Aworld that values and conserves present levels of biodiversity.”
Environment Agency - ABU DHABI (EAD)
The EAD was established in 1996 to preserve Abu Dhabi’s natural heritage, protect
our future, and raise awareness about environmental issues. EAD is Abu Dhabi’s
environmental regulator and advises the government on environmental policy. It
works to create sustainable communities, and protect and conserve wildlife andnatural resources. EAD also works to ensure integrated and sustainable water
resources management, and to ensure clean air and minimize climate change and its
impacts.
Denver Zoological Foundation (DZF)
The DZF is a non-profit organization whose mission is to “secure a better world foranimals through human understanding”. DZF oversees Denver Zoo and conducts
conservation education and biological conservation programs at the zoo, in thegreater Denver area, and worldwide. Over 3,800 animals representing more than 650
species call Denver Zoo home. A member of the World Association of Zoos andAquariums (WAZA), Denver Zoo’s accreditation from the Association of Zoos andAquariums (AZA) assures the highest standards of animal care. A leader inenvironmental action, Denver Zoo was the first U.S. zoo to receive ISO 14001
sustainability certification for its entire facility and operations and in 2011 was voted
the greenest zoo in the country. The ISO 14001 international certification ensures thezoo attains the highest environmental standards. Since 1996, Denver Zoo has
participated in over 590 conservation projects in 62 countries. In 2011 alone, Denver
Zoo participated in 102 projects in 18 countries and spent well over $1.5 million to
support of wildlife conservation in the field.
Re-introduction Specialist Group (RSG)
The RSG is a network of specialists whose aim is to combat the ongoing andmassive loss of biodiversity by using re-introductions as a responsible tool for the
management and restoration of biodiversity. It does this by actively developing andpromoting sound inter-disciplinary scientific information, policy, and practice toestablish viable wild populations in their natural habitats.

v

CONTENTS
Letter from Shaikha Al Dhaheri, EAD ..................................................... viii
Letter from Richard Reading, DZF .......................................................... ix
Letter from Simon Stuart, SSC ............................................................... x
Letter from Frederic Launay, RSG .......................................................... xi
Overview and analysis of re-introduction case-studies ........................... xii
Invertebrates ......................................................................................... 1
Fen raft spider in the UK ......................................................................... 1
Red barbed ant in the UK ....................................................................... 6
Fish ........................................................................................................ 10
Slimy sculpin in the USA ......................................................................... 10
European mudminnow in Hungary ......................................................... 15
Eagle Lake rainbow trout in the USA ...................................................... 21
Cutthroat trout in the USA ....................................................................... 26
Amphibians ........................................................................................... 33
European tree frog in Latvia ................................................................... 33
Reptiles .................................................................................................. 37
Indigo snakes in the USA ....................................................................... 37
Hermann’s tortoise in France .................................................................. 42
Hungarian meadow viper in Hungary ...................................................... 47
Birds ...................................................................................................... 53
Amazon parrots in Brazil ......................................................................... 53
Crested ibis in Japan .............................................................................. 58
Brown-headed nuthatch and eastern bluebird in the USA ...................... 63
Hihi (stitchbird) in New Zealand .............................................................. 68
Puaiohi (small Kauai thrush) in Hawaii, USA .......................................... 74
Eastern loggerhead shrike in Canada ..................................................... 80
Oriental white stork in Japan .................................................................. 85
Red-billed oxpecker in Zimbabwe ........................................................... 90
Brown treecreeper in Australia ............................................................... 95
Western bluebird in the USA .................................................................. 102vi

Mammals ............................................................................................... 107
Red wolf in the USA ................................................................................ 107
Mexican wolves in Mexico ...................................................................... 116
Iberian lynx in Spain ............................................................................... 120
Brown bear in Italy .................................................................................. 125
Hawaiian monk seals in the Hawaiian Archipelago &Johnson Atoll, USA ................................................................................. 131
Large antelopes in Zimbabwe ................................................................. 137
Milu deer in China ................................................................................... 143
Lichenstein’s hartebeest in Zimbabwe .................................................... 148
Swift fox, California Channel Island fox & San Joaquin kit fox
In USA and Canada ................................................................................ 152
European mink in Estonia ....................................................................... 159
One-horned rhino in India ....................................................................... 164
Tule elk in the USA ................................................................................. 168
Arabian gazelles in Saudi Arabia ............................................................ 174
Elk in Canada ......................................................................................... 180
Bison in the USA ..................................................................................... 186
European bison in the Carpathian Region, Europe ................................ 190
Wood bison in Russia ............................................................................. 194
Desert bighorn sheep in the USA ........................................................... 198
Eastern barred bandicoot in Australia ..................................................... 204
Black-tailed prairie dogs in the USA ....................................................... 210
Bornean orangutans in Malaysia ............................................................ 215
Chimpanzees in Guinea, West Africa ..................................................... 222
Humboldt’s woolly monkey in Colombia ................................................. 229
Bobcats in Georgia, USA ........................................................................ 235
Plants ..................................................................................................... 241
Manglistia longipedaculata in China ....................................................... 241
Mangroves in Pakistan ........................................................................... 246
Rhizophora mucronata in the UAE ......................................................... 252
Betic alder in Spain ................................................................................. 257
Corunna daisy in Australia ...................................................................... 263
Peep Hill hop bush in Australia ............................................................... 267
Large-headed daisy in Australia ............................................................. 272
Bakersfield cactus in the USA ................................................................ 277

vii

Shaikha Al Dhaheri,
Executive Director,
Terrestrial & Marine Biodiversity Sector,
Environment Agency - ABU DHABI

It gives us great pleasure and honor in supporting
the production of the 4th issue of the Global Reintroduction Perspectives 2013. It is exciting to knowthat those 236 case studies will be read by morethan 300 members, practitioners and decision
makers throughout the RSG network and beyond,
who will get the advantage to use it as a tool and reference for future
programs and projects that will combat the continuous loss of species
through re-introductions and translocation.
Small or big, success or failure, all these case-studies have surely made a
difference in regard to the targeted species. This has been achieved byvarious means such as stabilizing populations, or re-establishing them,increasing their numbers in ex situ collections as they have sufferedsignificant declines or even extinction in the wild.
Species re-introductions are an important feature of global conservation
efforts and for the newly developed IUCN Guidelines for Re-introduction
and Other Conservation Translocations along with this RSG edition will act
as a powerful reference worldwide and especially to us in the Environment
Agency embarking into new initiatives of re-introduction andtranslocations.
Finally, I would like to thank all practitioners and conservationists whoshared their case-studies with us in this edition for their commitment,
dedication and passion towards conserving species. Also I thank Denver
Zoological Foundation for supporting RSG efforts, the editor of this edition
Mr. Pritpal Soorae, Dr. Frédéric Launay, RSG Chair and Dr. Simon Stuart
Chair IUCN Survival Commission for their continued devotion andcontribution to species conservation worldwide.

viii

Richard P. Reading,Vice President for Conservation,
Denver Zoological Foundation

I am honored to have the opportunity to provide aforward to Global Re-introduction Perspectives:
2013: Further case studies from around the globe
published by the IUCN Re-introduction Specialist
Groups (RSG) and edited by Pritpal Soorae. Within
this four volume set, Pritpal has pulled together anamazing 236 case studies on a wide variety of taxa from plant to
invertebrates to vertebrates from all over the world.
Through these case studies and the recently released Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations by the Reintroduction and Invasive Species Specialist Groups’ Task Force forMoving Plants and Animals for Conservation Purposes, the RSG has
produced a valuable set of references for current and future translocation
practitioners as they strive to restore populations of species depleted by
the growing human footprint on our planet and finite resources.
The Denver Zoological Foundation is proud to support this publication andother RSG efforts to improve re-introduction success throughout the
globe. We congratulate Pritpal Soorae on this fine accomplishment andextend our thanks to Dr. Frédéric Launay and the RSG for supporting thisimportant publication, Dr. Simon Stuart and the IUCN Species Survival
Commission, The Environment Agency – ABU DHABI, and especially tothe contributors to this volume for their excellent summaries of reintroduction case studies from around the world.

ix

Simon Stuart,
Chair,IUCN Species Survival Commission

It seems like yesterday that I wrote the foreword forthe third edition of Global Reintroduction
Perspectives. Such is the pace of re-introduction
efforts that another volume with 52 case studies is
now available to inform and guide reintroduction
practitioners worldwide. We now have an impressive
236 case studies from the four volumes of Global Re-introduction Perspectives published so far. In my previous foreword I
recommended setting up a searchable database on the RSG website
comprising all the case studies. I understand that steps are now being
taken to implement this suggestion, and this will, I am sure, make theinformation in this excellent series much more broadly available to support
the work of practitioners.
As in previous volumes, there is impressive taxonomic and geographic
coverage in this latest edition. This ability to collect information on reintroductions worldwide is only possible because of the long-term focus
and activity of the Re-introduction Specialist Group (RSG) of the IUCN
Species Survival Commission. While this fourth edition was being
prepared, the RSG completed the new IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations, which will provide
further impetus to the efforts to return species to parts of their native
ranges from which they had been lost.
As with the previous issue, I thank: the Environment Agency Abu Dhabi(EAD), in particular its Secretary General H.E. Razan Khalifa Al Mubarak,for the EAD’s long-term and most generous support of the RSG; theDenver Zoological Foundation, in particular Dr Richard Reading, forsupporting this publication; the RSG Chair, Dr Frédéric Launay; and the
RSG’s Programme Officer and editor of Global Re-introduction
Perspectives, Mr Pritpal Singh Soorae. Without these people, Global Reintroduction Perspectives would not be possible.

xFrédéric Launay,
Chair,
IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist GroupThe IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group is
glad to present the 4th Issue of Global Reintroduction Perspectives 2013. The series isreceiving very good feedback and is gathering
momentum under the capable hands of Pritpal
Soorae.
A total of 236 case studies of various type of re-introduction, successful ornot, have been collected and summarized in the four publications showing
the relevance of re-introduction to species conservation. Actually the
number of re-introduction projects, feasibility or research/trials isincreasing in all taxa.
Whilst it is encouraging to see that re-introductions and translocations arewidely used as a conservation tools for many taxa, it is also an indicationthat the pressure on species is increasing and that quality habitats andspace available for species for is decreasing either through directcompetition from alternatives land-use or through climate change and its
associated effects.
The newly released 2013 IUCN Guidelines for Re-introduction and Other
Conservation Translocations are addressing this increased reliance and/or
application of translocations for species conservation and include
reflection and guidance on controversial and debated issues as assistedcolonization and ecological replacement. These guidelines are a muchneeded addition for practitioners and are very fitted for many of the casestudies mentioned in this 4th Edition.
The new Guidelines and the cases studies highlighted in that publication
are, we hope, a welcome contribution from the Re-introduction Specialist
Group to the species conservation array of knowledge tools and prove
useful to the practitioners, policy-makers and decision-makers.
I would like to conclude by thanking all the people that contributed casestudies, not only for their contributions, but more importantly for their
dedication and efforts in working on conserving species worldwide.

xi

An overview and analysis of the re-introduction
project case studies
Pritpal S. Soorae, Editor
Introduction
This is the fourth issue in the Global Re-introduction Perspectives
series and has been produced in the same standardized format as
the previous three to maintain the style and quality. The casestudies are arranged in the following order: Introduction, Goals,
Success Indicators, Project Summary, Major Difficulties Faced,
Major Lessons Learned, Success of Project with reasons for
success or failure. For the first issue I managed to collect 62 casestudies, the second issue 72 case-studies, the third issue 50 casestudies and this one 52 case-studies.
These case studies in this issue cover the following taxa as follows:x Invertebrates - 2
x Fish - 4x Amphibians - 1
x Reptiles - 3
x Birds - 10x Mammals - 24x Plants - 8
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the various authors
for their patience and willingness to submit information on theirprojects and in many cases with a tight deadline. A few promised
articles were not submitted by the last deadline and hopefully if we
do another issue we can present them there. We hope theinformation presented in this book will provide a broad global
perspective on challenges facing re-introduction projects trying torestore biodiversity.
IUCN Statutory Regions
The IUCN statues have established a total of 8 global regions forthe purposes of its representation in council. The IUCN’s “statutory
regions” are a list of States by Region, as per article 16 and 17 of
the Statutes and Regulation 36 of the Regulations.
xii

All eight global regions are represented within these case studies
and the regions are as follows:
1. North America & Caribbean - 18
2. West Europe - 6
3. South & East Asia - 7
4. Oceania - 6
5. West Asia - 2
6. Africa - 4
7. Meso & South America - 3
8. East Europe, North & Central Asia - 6
Success/Failure of Projects
The projects presented here were ranked as Highly Successful,
Successful, Partially Successful and Failure. Out of the 52 casestudies there
Fig. 1. Success/Failure of re-introduction projects
were a total of 67
releases. In
some cases
there were
multiple rankings
as releases wereconducted atmore then one
site or country. In
some cases
multiple species
were released in
more than one
country. This
made analysis
difficult but in
total the rankings
can be seen in
figure 1, 13
projects were Highly Successful, 28 were Successful, 25 were
Partially Successful and 1 was a Failure.
Success according to the taxa
An analysis was done to gauge the three different levels of success(highly successful, successful, partially successful) and failurexiiiFig. 2. Success/Failure of re-introduction projects according to major taxa

against the seven major taxa i.e. invertebrates, fish, amphibians,
reptiles, birds, mammals and plants as can be seen in figure 2. Outof the seven major taxa only invertebrates did not have a project
ranked as highly successful. There was only one amphibian casestudy and this was ranked as highly successful. The bird projects
had all four rankings. The majority of plant and mammal projects
were successful and the birds had a majority of partially successfulprojects.
Future issues of Global Re-introduction Perspectives
If you need any further information on future issues issue pleasecontact me for further details. We would also appreciate any
feedback you may have from this book. The Editor can be contacted
at: iucnrsg@gmail.com

xiv

Inver tebrates

Translocation and augmentation of the fen raftspider populations in the UK
Helen Smith1, Dave Clarke2, David Heaver3, Ian Hughes4, Paul Pearce-Kelly5& Tony Sainsbury6
1- Project Coordinator, UK helen.smith@wavcott.org.uk- Team Leader, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London,
NW1 4RY, UK Dave.clarke@zsl.org
3- Senior Invertebrate Specialist, Natural England, Spur 2, Block B, Government
Buildings, Whittington Road, Worcester, WR5 2LQ, UK
David.Heaver@naturalengland.org.uk
4- Dudley Zoological Gardens (coordinating captive rearing) ichuges@hotmail.co.uk
5- Senior Curator, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park,
London, NW1 4RY, UK ppk@zsl.org
6- Zoological Society of London Tony.Sainsbury@ioz.ac.uk
2

Introduction
The fen raft spider (Dolomedes plantarius) is one of Britain’s largest, mostspectacular and rarest spiders. Thought to be confined to just three lowland
wetland sites (two in England, one in Wales) its UK distribution is highly disjunct.
Because of degradation and loss of wetland habitat over much of its range it is
the only European spider species to be listed as internationally Vulnerable (IUCN,
1996), as well as being Red Listed by many European countries. In the UK it isregionally listed as Endangered (Bratton, 1991) and is one of only two spider
species fully protected by law (Wildlife and the Countryside Act 1981) and is listed
under Section 41, NERC Act 2006. It has been the subject of a Natural EnglandSpecies Recovery Program (SRP) since 1991, and a Species Action Plan since1999. One of the SRP targets in England is to establish additional populations bytranslocation. This was considered necessary because of the small number of
unconnected populations(one of which is extremely
vulnerable: Smith, 2000 &2013), a propensity for low
dispersal (Pearson, 2008),
and fragmented
distribution of suitable
habitat. This target
augments and influences
habitat management work
to secure the existing
populations.

Goals
x Goal 1: The overall
goal is to secure thefuture of D. plantarius

Adult fen raft spider in natural habitat © Helen Smith

1Inver tebrates
as a UK species by
increasing the number ofsustainable populations
from the current three to
12 by 2020. This to berealized by a combinationof direct translocations
and captive rearing
initiatives.
x Goal 2: Identify themost appropriate
provenance of UK stock
for release at new sites
over two successive years
to create populations witha natural age structure.
Fen raft spider release in 2012 © Ian Hughesx Goal 3: Identify new
receptor sites, withappropriate management of suitable habitat already in place, that also havehigh levels of landscape-scale connectivity to allow natural expansion of new
populations.
x Goal 4: Consider impacts of climate change in the selection of new sites. The
previous UK range of this species is not known (it was not described in the UK
until 1956). New host sites are being considered not only within the range
described by existing populations but also further north; the UK is midlatitudinal range for this species.
x Goal 5: Subsequently monitor population size, range increase and genetic
diversity. This involves convening a steering group of stakeholders andexperts to advise on and oversee this process.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Pre-program work confirms understanding of this species current
status.
x Indicator 2: Identification of sufficient host sites with both appropriate
connected habitat and guaranteed continuity of sympathetic management andownership, in appropriate geographical areas.
x Indicator 3: Collaboration between all relevant government agencies, NGOs,
landowners and other stakeholders including establishment of a multidisciplinary steering group.
x Indicator 4: Assurance of ability of largest surviving UK population to sustain
annual harvesting of 10 - 20 adult females for direct release and of smallest
population to sustain removal of 5 - 10 adult females for the ex situ rearing
program with associated protocols for ex situ biosecurity and pre- and postrelease disease monitoring.
x Indicator 5: Appropriate post-release monitoring program in place to ensure
long term target of self-sustaining populations expanding in range on 12 UK
sites.

2

Inver tebrates
Project Summary
Feasibility: Field surveys by British Arachnological Society volunteers,
initiated three years before the recovery began, confirmed the current status ofD. plantarius and identified potential new English receptor sites. Confirmation of
species’ status also came from checking records of its congener D. fimbriatus,with which it is easily confused, and from a public appeal for Dolomedes
sightings. Field survey work is ongoing.
Implementation phase: By 2010 receptor sites had been identified andprioritized, and work undertaken to establish appropriate provenance of stock.
The priority sites were on the same river system as the most vulnerable extant
population but with habitat much more similar to that of the more distant English
population. Although these two populations differed genetically, no evidence wasfound of either inbreeding depression or hybrid vigor when they were crossed in
captivity (Smith, 2011). It was therefore decided to stock new sites from both
populations to maximize genetic diversity. Introductions to new sites of spiders
from the smaller and more vulnerable of the English populations (Smith, 2000)
used three-month-old spiderlings that had been captive-reared in individual test
tubes. With mean brood size of over 500 and survival to three months in captivityof >80%, large numbers of spiderlings were available for release from relatively
small numbers of wild-caught females. These females were also retained in
captivity until they produced second broods (this species stores sperm) before rerelease at their point of capture. Successful second brood production issignificantly greater in captivity than in the wild and so this method helped tooffset depletion of the source population. Females from the larger English
population were also caught from the wild carrying egg sacs and were retained in
captivity until their broods hatched. They were then released to new sites with
their broods (this species shows maternal care), removing the risk of predation of
the female and her egg sac.
As well as establishing new site populations, the translocation program sought toexpedite recolonization ofrecently restored habitat
within the more vulnerable
English site. The
population there had
become confined to two
small areas and had
undergone a sharp decline
in genetic diversity over a
20 year period (Holmes,
2008). Captive reared
stock from these residual
areas was released into
two areas of restored
habitat between 2010 and2012 and a chain of new
ponds excavated to help
Spider release into the wild © Sheila Tilmouth

3Inver tebrates
restore hydrological connectivity between them. A conservative approach was
adopted, using stock only of local provenance for these re-introductions.
Much of the captive rearing of spiderlings was undertaken by a consortium of UK
zoos and collections recruited through the British and Irish Association of Zoos
and Aquaria Terrestrial Invertebrate Working Group, operating under a biosecurity
protocol developed by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) (Hopkins &Sainsbury, 2013). An ongoing pathological study by ZSL of unusual mortality
events during captive-rearing is informing further development of the rearing
protocol. All of the work on this species is subject to license in the UK under the
Wildlife and the Countryside Act 1981 and all aspects of sourcing and releasing
the spiders on sites designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest areconditional on formal Natural England consents under this Act and theCountryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
Post release monitoring: By 2012, introductions had been made in two
successive years at two sites on the same river system and a first introduction
had been made at one more distant site. Successful breeding was confirmed at
the first two sites, from spiders released in 2010, with nursery web densities
similar to the highest encountered in the source populations. Because of this,
there are no current plans for augmentation at these sites. The process of site
assessment and translocations is ongoing with monitoring results informing
development of the methodology. If the new populations continue to thrive,
captive rearing from the fragile population is likely to be a short-lived phase.
Subject to the results of genetic monitoring, future stock for translocation is likely
to be harvested from the new populations. Successful breeding has also been
confirmed in the releases at the most vulnerable natural site but quantitative
assessment of success is more problematic because the habitat is much moredifficult to monitor. This species always attracts a high level of UK media
attention and the breeding and release program gained extensive national andinternational media coverage. The involvement of 10 UK zoos in 2012 alsobrought the work to the attention of a large new audience. The public profile of the
project is being used to promote awareness not only of the plight of this species
but also of the many other rare species suffering from the loss of lowland wetland
habitats. In addition, the work has provided a focal point for those working on theconservation of this species throughout its European range. It continues toincrease understanding of the species’ biology that unpins effective conservationdelivery.

Major difficulties facedx The captive rearing work was initially undertaken only by the project
coordinator but the increasing participation of UK zoos and collections madethis labor-intensive aspect of the program much more viable, with groups of
100 – 200 spiderlings being taken per institution.
x Problems with generating an appropriate food supply for the captive-reared
spiders without resort to buying-in from the live-food industry withaccompanying pathogen/parasite risks.

4Inver tebratesx Problems with annual funding uncertainties for the longer-term program,particularly for the critical post-translocation monitoring phase.
x Lack of funding for monitoring necessitates dependence on volunteers. The
difficulties both of recruiting sufficient volunteers, and of designing robust
protocols that can be delivered reliably, threaten effective delivery of theoriginal monitoring goals.

Major lessons learnedx Ease of post-translocation monitoring, and consequent likelihood of detectionof successful establishment, is highly dependent on habitat accessibility.
Because of this the program is now concentrating on habitat where success iseasily proven before moving on to habitat in which success is also likely but
where detection is more difficult.
x Although spiders are often recipients of negative press coverage, the huge
media and public response to this translocation program was overwhelmingly
positive and an excellent platform for promoting wider issues around theconservation of spiders and other invertebrates.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The D. plantarius translocation program is at a relatively early stage andongoing. Preliminary indications are that the introductions are highly
successful on some sites but more difficult to assess on others.ȱ
x Any success is due to adherence of the program plan, protocols andassociated funding support.

References
Bratton J. H. (Ed.) 1991. British Red Data Book 3 Invertebrates other than Insects. JNCC,Peterborough.
Holmes, A (2008) The Conservation and Genetics of the Fen Raft Spider. Thesis submitted to the
University of Nottingham for the degree of Master of Research.ȱ
Hopkins, T. and Sainsbury, T (2013) Disease Risk Management for the fen raft spider (Dolomedes
planarius). Zoological Society of London.ȱ
Pearson. P.I. (2008) The ecology and conservation of the Fen Raft Spider (Dolomedes plantarius) in
the UK, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of East Anglia.ȱ
Smith, H. (2000) The status and conservation of the fen raft spider (Dolomedes plantarius) at
Redgrave and Lopham Fen National Nature Reserve, England. Biological Conservation, 95, 153-164.ȱ
Smith, H. (2011) Fen Raft Spider Translocation Project Report 2010. Unpublished Suffolk Wildlife
Trust report.
Smith, H. (2013). The fen raft spider web site. http://www.dolomedes.org.uk/conservation/index.html.
26/06/13

5

Inver tebrates

The translocation of the red barbed ant from theIsles of Scilly to Chobham Common National
Nature Reserve, Surrey, UK
Scotty Dodd1, Nicola Gammons2, Dave Clarke3 & Paul Pearce-Kelly4
1- Invertebrate Ecologist, Surrey Wildlife Trust, School Lane, Pirbright,
Surrey GU24 0JN, UK scott.dodd@surreywt.org.uk
2- Rufa Gammans Consultancy, 92 Imperial Way, Ashford, Kent TN23 5HU, UK
nicolagammans@hotmail.com
3- Team Leader, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London,
NW1 4RY, UK Dave.clarke@zsl.org
4- Senior Curator, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London,
NW1 4RY, UK ppk@zsl.org

Introduction
The red barbed ant (Formica rufibarbis) RDB1 UKBAP/SPI (S41) is possibly therarest resident animal in mainland Britain (Pontin, 2005). Known from two lowland
heath nest sites at Chobham Common in Surrey on the mainland, with a strong
but much localized population extant at St. Martins, Isles of Scilly. Extensive
restoration work was completed at the release site prior to the ants return. This
Heritage Lottery Fund supported project enabled Chobham Common sitemanagement and collection of freshly mated F. rufibarbis queens from the St.
Martins population for translocation to their National Nature Reserve Chobham
Common release site in Surrey. The translocation plan necessitated an interim ex
situ rearing element to enable the young queens to produce initial attendant
workers to improve colony establishment chances. Although the projectsuccessfully realized it’s technical remit components through to field release,greater than envisaged competitor ant pressure, especially Lasius niger,
compromised the fledgling released F. rufibarbis colonies. This demonstrated aneed for release larger colonies to enable release colonies to repel the competitor
species. This requirement likely necessitates whole nest translocations. Genetic
analysis conducted as part of the project confirmed the closest related European
populations for future translocation initiatives.

Goals

Red barbed ant © Richard Alan

6x Goal 1: Establish selfsustainable populations within
historic range of Surrey.
x Goal 2: Realize a
successful captive
maintenance regime fortemporarily maintaining exsitu ant colonies prior torelease, along with healthscreening protocols.

Inver tebratesx Goal 3: Conduct longterm monitoring of
extant and introduced
populations, including
targeted surveys toidentify new, previously
undetected colonies.
x Goal 4: Continue
research into
autecology andgenetics.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Long-term
establishment of
introduced nests at
Red barbed ant colony at ZSL
target sites.
x Indicator 2: Introduced
nests producing sexuals, which successfully mate and go on to produce newnests.
x Indicator 3: Successful healthy captive maintenance between initial colony
collection and release into selected sites.
x Indicator 4: Publish survey and monitoring results as annual online reports.
x Indicator 5: Publication of research reports, academic dissertations and peerreviewed papers.

Project Summary
Feasibility: A fairly common species throughout Europe. Apparently
declined to only two nests at a single heathland site, Chobham Common, on
mainland Britain. In Britain there is a strong association with heathland habitat,
though found to be more catholic in rest of range. Open, early successional
habitat with dry, light soils and bare patches appears to be essential.
Implementation: Mated dealate queens harvested from Isles of Scilly oversuccessive summers and taken to isolated quarantine facilities at ZoologicalSociety of London (ZSL) London Zoo for health checks, maintenance and rearingof colonies for release. Rearing of this species had not been achieved in a zoo
before, so protocols had to be developed from previous amateur rearing efforts. A
full quarantine protocol was implemented to minimize disease and screen forpathogens pre-release. Early successional habitat creation implemented at
Chobham Common to act as receptor sites for new colonies. Staggered releaseof small colonies over several summers.
Post-release monitoring: As far as limited annual field visits for monitoringof released colonies, extant nests and up until 2011 disease risk assessment
checks with ZSL vets. Monitoring consists of visual searches for foraging workers
at release sites and checking under nest tiles, recording all ant species present.
After initial positive results there has been no target species activity recorded at

7

Inver tebrates
release sites for over two
years, suggesting thereleases may have failed
or that nests have moved
out of the survey areas.
Monitoring also
incorporates mapping andsurveillance of slavemaker ant (Formica
sanguinea) nests toensure that the 100m
buffer zone aroundrelease sites and extant
nests is not breached.
Results suggest that
although still a potential
threat slave-makers pose
Releasing ex situ reared red barbed ant
colonies near Surrey in 2008 © Paul Pearce-Kelly a lower risk than thecommon black ant (Lasius
niger), which is abundant at the site and quick to colonise bare ground patches
created for the target species. Slave-makers appear to be less abundant at
Chobham Common than on other nearby heathland sites.

Major difficulties facedx Rearing sufficiently large F. rufibarbis colonies from mated Queens in captivity
over short time (i.e. single season) periods.ȱ
x Establishing nests in wild due to heavy completion from Lasius niger and, to alesser degree, F. sanguinea.
x Post-release monitoring funding in the long-term (i.e. post HLF funding).

Major lessons learnedx Queen F. rufibarbis ants and young workers can be successfully kept in ex situ
conditions. However, population growth was minimal due to the constraints ofsame season release schedules.
x Formica sanguinea was believed to be the biggest threat to fledgling releasedcolonies - however, the common black ant (Lasius niger) proved to be thegreatest threat. Because of the difficulties associated with rearing the larger F.
rufibarbis colonies necessary to repel aggressive ant species it is felt thatwhole nest translocations are a better option for the future.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Partially Successful

Successful¥
Reason(s) for success/failure:x Small colony size released.
x Unexpected competition/aggression from Lasius niger.

8

FailureInver tebratesx Limited resources forpost-release
monitoring.

References
Pontin, J. (2005) The Antsof Surrey. Surrey Wildlife
Atlas Project. Pirbright.ȱ
Gammans, N. (2008)
Conserving the red-barbed
ant (Formica rufibarbis) in
the United Kingdom.
Zoological Society of
London, Surrey Wildlife
Trust and Heritage Lottery
Fund.ȱ

Overview of release site © Paul Pearce-Kelly

Gammans, N. (2012) Procedures for the reintroduction of Formica rufibarbis to
the UK. Surrey Wildlife Trust and Zoological Society of London.ȱ

9Inver tebrates

Fish

Examining genetic diversity, outbreeding
depression, and local adaptation with slimy
sculpin re-introductions in the southeast
Minnesota Driftless Region, USA
David D. Huff
Research Scholar, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California,
110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA ddhuff@ucsc.edu

Introduction
The slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) is a small fish that occupies benthic, coldwater habitats in small streams of the Driftless Region in Minnesota, USA. They
are often locally abundant where they are present and are considered an
important component of the ecosystems in which they are native. Populations ofslimy sculpin were present in this region historically, but many were extirpated asa result of poor land use practices. This re-introduction project aimed to reestablish the slimy sculpin to a portion of its former range in the Driftless Region,
but the re-introduction environments, although they were improved, have been
substantially modified by humans. A challenge was to decide whether the existing
genetically distinct source populations should be matched to a set of local
conditions at the re-introduction sites or be mixed to provide greater geneticallybased adaptive potential inanthropogenically affected (disturbed)
environments (Huff et al., 2010).
Mixed-source re-introductions are thought
to be advantageous in disturbed
environments, but they have drawbacks
because unique evolutionary lineages
should be preserved as much as possible
to preserve genetic diversity. Our research
investigated the persistence and fitnessrelated traits of multi-source re-introduced
populations of slimy sculpin in the Driftless
Region (Huff et al., 2011).

Goals

Close-up of a slimy sculpinx Goal 1: Re-establish the slimy sculpin tonine isolated locations within its former
range in the Driftless Region of southeast
Minnesota and ensure population viability,
long-term persistence in the face of© David Huff / Lorissa Fujishin

10

Fish

Inver tebrates

environmental change and preserve the evolutionary processes that sustain
genetic diversity.ȱ
x Goal 2: Characterize patterns of success or failure in re-introduced populations
to identify conditions that lead to successful population establishment.ȱ
x Goal 3: Evaluate allelic richness and heterozygosity in the re-introduced
populations relative to computer simulated expectations.ȱ
x Goal 4: Examine how fitness surrogates such as body size, growth rate andbody condition differ by ancestral origin in the re-introduced populations andinvestigate the consequences of outbreeding in first- and second-generationinter-source hybrids.ȱ

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Establishment of slimy sculpins at all sites for at least three
generations and substantial expansion of each population’s range away fromthe re-introduction location.ȱ
x Indicator 2: Characterize habitat at each re-introduction site and compare
population size estimates with different habitat features such as stream
temperature, substrate type, etc.ȱ
x Indicator 3: Evaluate the allelic richness and heterozygosity in the reintroduced populations relative to computer simulated expectations.ȱ
x Indicator 4: Document how fitness surrogates such as body size, growth rate
and body condition differ by ancestral origin in the re-introduced populations
and investigate the consequences of outbreeding in first- and secondgeneration inter-source hybrids.ȱ

Project Summary
Feasibility: Brynildson and Brynildson (1978) demonstrated the feasibility of
sculpin re-introductions by documenting the establishment and dispersal of
sculpins in a Southwest Wisconsin stream. Following a one-time stocking of 500
individuals, stocked sculpins gradually expanded throughout the suitable areas ofthe stream over the course of eight years. In recent years, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) and other organizations completedmany stream habitat improvement projects that stabilized eroding banks,
improved substrate, increased fish cover, and increased riparian tree abundance
to provide shade in the summer. The recipient streams were chosen from among
these restored sites because they comprised suitable habitat (coarse-substrate,
plentiful riffles and groundwater input) and were repeatedly sampled and verified
not to have any sculpin species present. Most of the recipient sites were locatedon private land; therefore, we contacted landowners and coordinated access for
repeated research and monitoring site visits. All of the landowners were amicableand some were interested in the research and also wished to accompany
researchers during site visits. Several cold-water streams with abundant sculpin
populations were identified as potential donor sources. These locations weresurveyed for at least three consecutive years to verify that source populations
would not be detrimentally affected by removal of sculpins for stocking. Disease
testing was necessary to verify that sculpins to be translocated would not transmit
any pathogens to organisms in recipient streams. The MNDNR required three11

Inver tebrates

Fishyears of negative tests
from the donor streams
before sculpins could betranslocated.
Implementation: To
avoid disrupting spawningor stressful handling andtransport during hot
weather, we collectedsculpins for translocationin late October. Sculpins
were collected from anestablished set of
locations at each of thethree donor streams bybackpack electrofishing.
Slimy sculpin showing coded tag © David Huff
The entire designateddonor stream reach was sampled at each collection event to provide data for
population assessments. Each sculpin was weighed, measured, and marked byclipping a pelvic fin so that stocked fish could be distinguished from naturally
reproduced fish. We also tagged several hundred of the sculpins in each of therecipient sites with unique identifiers to collect information about growth, survival,
and movement of individual fish. Approximately 150 fish with roughly equal
proportions from source streams were translocated in each year from 2003 - 2005
to nine different recipient sites. Specific quantities and timing of translocation
activities may be found in Huff et al. (2010).
Post-release monitoring: We monitored the establishment of sculpins at
each of the recipient sites by sampling sculpins at least once per year in theautumn through 2009. We collected data for population estimates and we tracked
the expansion of sculpin presence away from the original re-introduction location.
Sculpins spawn once per year in the spring, so we monitored these re-introduced
populations for at least four generations. We documented established sculpin
populations at all re-introduction sites (Huff, 2010). In 2009 population estimates
ranged from 200 to 3,100 sculpins across all nine sites. In some cases the rangeof the re-introduced sculpins expanded to the extent of the local drainage basin
and in other cases sculpin presence remained highly localized near the original
stocking site.
We completed habitat surveys at the source and recipient sites in which we
characterized substrate type, aquatic macroinvertebrate (an important sculpinprey) abundance and composition, water velocity, water temperature (using datarecording temperature probes), and other habitat features. Based on our results
we hypothesized that thermal regime differences between the source habitats
provided potential mechanisms for local adaptation development among source
populations. Dissimilar optimal growth temperature ranges or maximum growthrate differences may have arisen between source populations as a compensatory

12

Fish

Inver tebrates
response to different temperaturesand growing season lengths (Huff,
2010 & Huff et al., 2011). We
evaluated allelic richness andheterozygosity in the re-introduced
populations relative to computer
simulated expectations. Sculpins in
re-introduced populations exhibited
higher levels of heterozygosity andallelic richness than any single
source, but only slightly higher than
the single most genetically diverse
source population (Huff et al.,2010).

We inferred the relative fitness ofdifferent pure strain and hybridRe-introduction site showing restored
cross descendants in the reriparian corridor © David Huff
introduced populations bycomparing their growth rate, length, weight, body condition and persistence in reintroduced populations. Pure strain descendants from a single source population
persisted in a greater proportion than expected in the re-introduced populations.
Length, weight and growth rate were lower for second-generation intra-population
hybrid descendants than for pure strain and first-generation hybrids (Huff et al.,2011).

Major difficulties facedx This project was difficult to fund because the purpose of the re-introduction
was to restore ecological integrity to streams and to potentially provide forage
for game fish (trout), rather than to establish a threatened species.
x It was often problematic to recruit and organize volunteers to complete themajority of the field work.
x Because the slimy sculpin was a poorly understood species, we found it
initially challenging obtain consistent and reliable information regarding its lifehistory and species identification.
x For genetic analyses, new microsatellite markers for slimy sculpins had to be
developed for the first time by our research team (Fujishin et al., 2009).
x It was difficult to identify enough re-introduction sites to meet our researchneeds.

Major lessons learnedx If feasible, the genetic and ecological distinctiveness of candidate source
populations should be evaluated prior to re-introduction.
x Computer simulations may allow the genetic diversity benefits of mixing
populations to be weighed against the risks of outbreeding depression in reintroduced and nearby populations.
x Given the absence of information regarding deep phylogenetic separation
among populations, the high degree of genetic differentiation, the potential for

13

Inver tebrates

Fishdisrupting beneficial adaptations, and the lack of evidence that genetic rescue
is necessary, the most conservative option available for future re-introductionsof slimy sculpin in the Driftless Region would be to use a single source
population.
x Single-source re-introductions may be carried out on a trial basis using local
strains that maximize the likelihood of genetic and ecological similarity toinhabitants of the surrounding area.
x Monitoring the populations may identify the need to supplement the reintroduced populations with individuals from different strains if it is warranted.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x We devised thorough plans for re-introducing the sculpins and kept detailed
records regarding how many fish were re-introduced, where they came fromoriginally, when and where they were translocated, and we designed acomprehensive population monitoring plan.
x We were careful to translocate fish when the weather was cool and we took
other measures to minimize stress on the sculpins.
x We carefully selected re-introduction sites that utilized data from detailed
habitat surveys.
x We solicited information and suggestions from local fisheries professionals
and academics that significantly improved our project.

References
Huff, D. D., Miller, L. M. & Vondracek, B. (2010) Patterns of ancestry and genetic
diversity in re-introduced populations of the slimy sculpin: implications forconservation. Conservation Genetics 11: 2379 - 2391.
Huff, D. D., Miller, L. M., Chizinski, C.J. & Vondracek, B. (2011) Mixed-source reintroductions lead to outbreeding depression in second-generation descendants
of a native North American fish. Molecular Ecology 20: 4246 - 4258.
Brynildson, O. & Brynildson, C. (1978) Distribution and density of sculpins in a
Wisconsin coulee stream. Page 5pp. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Huff, D. D. (2010) Examining genetic diversity, hybrid fitness, and local adaptation
in a native fish re-introduction program. Dissertation. University of Minnesota,
Saint Paul.
Fujishin, L. M., Barker, F. K., Huff, D. D. & Miller, L. M. (2009) Isolation of 13
polymorphic microsatellite loci for slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). Conservation
Genetics Resources 1:429-432.

14

Fish

Captive-breeding, re-introduction andsupplementation of the European mudminnow
in Hungary
Bálint Bajomi*1, Sándor Tatár*2,3, Balázs Tóth4, Ferenc Demény5, Magdolna Müllerné
Trenovszki5, Béla Urbányi5 & Tamás Müller*5
1- PhD candidate, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, Eötvös
Loránd University, Pázmány P. s. 1/A, Budapest, H-1117, Hungary bb@greenfo.hu
2- PhD candidate, Doctoral School of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University ofPécs, Ifjúság útja 6, H-7624, Pécs, Hungary tatarsandor@invitel.hu
3- Vice-president, Tavirózsa Association for Environmental Protection and Nature
Conservation, Huba u. 43., H-2112, Veresegyház, Hungary
4- Referee of hydro-ecology, Danube-Ipoly National Park Directorate, KöltĘ u. 21,
Budapest, H-1121, Hungary zingelzingel@gmail.com
5- Department of Aquaculture, Institute of Environmental and LandscapeManagement, Szent István University, Páter Károly u. 1., GödöllĘ, H-2103, Hungary
Muller.Tamas@mkk.szie.hu(* These authors have contributed to the results presented in this paper equally)

Introduction
The European mudminnow (Umbra krameri, Walbaum 1792: Actinopterygii:
Esociformes: Umbridae) is a relict and endemic species living mainly in marshes
and fens in the catchment area of the Danube and Dniester (Tatár et al., 2012).
The species is categorized as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2012) andis listed on the Annex II of the European Union Council Directive on theConservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Appendix II of theBern Convention and the
Red List of many
European countries
including Hungary. In thelatter country the species
is listed as strictly
protected.
The European
Mudminnow Conservation
Program is taking placemainly near Szada, a little
village 25 km from
Budapest. Between 2008
and 2012, we createdseven isolated little ponds
fed by groundwater (“Illés
Ponds”, GPS: N 47° 37’
37,02”; E 19° 17’ 31,83”)

European mudminnow© Csaba Posztós/Photomania

15

Fish
with irregular shores and bottoms in the area (volumes: 50 - 60 m3, surfaces: 30 40 m2, mean depths: 1 - 1.5 m, max. depth: 2.5 m.) at locations where thevegetation was degraded (so we did not alter important habitat).

Goals
x Goal 1: To investigate natural habitats and ecological needs of the European
mudminnow.ȱ
x Goal 2: Creation and monitoring of new habitats (ponds) with regard to theresults of Goal 1.ȱ
x Goal 3: To create European mudminnow breeding stock in the new habitats
with the release of captive bred individuals (in situ and ex situ conservation).ȱ
x Goal 4: Supplementation at historic and recent natural habitats with therelease of captive bred individuals.ȱ
x Goal 5: Cryopreservation of European mudminnow sperm for later breeding(ex situ conservation).ȱ

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Creation of new habitats (“Illés’ Ponds”) in the Model Area of
Szada and complex monitoring of new and natural habitats.
x Indicator 2: Artificial propagation of the European mudminnow andcryopreservation of sperm.
x Indicator 3: Survival of the captive bred and released individuals in new
habitats.
x Indicator 4: Breeding of the released individuals in the new habitats.
x Indicator 5: Releases to supplement natural populations with captive bred
individuals and with those born in the new habitats.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The species is known to have been extirpated from many of its
original habitats. It is estimated that mudminnow populations have declined bymore than 30% in the past 10 years. The main reason for this decline isconsidered to be habitat destruction, especially channelization followed by thedestruction of river and stream floodplains (Wanzenböck, 1996). Recently, theinvasive and aggressive Amur sleeper (Perccottus glenii, Dybowski, 1877)
supplants U. krameri in Hungarian waters. For instance three original European
mudminnow habitats were monitored in Hungary in 2010 and in two of them we
could catch only Amur sleepers and no U. krameri. Systematic stockings ofmudminnows into adjacent streams, canals and still waters might help to develop
self-sustaining populations of U. krameri in places where the species disappearedor occurs only sparsely. The best method for the maintenance of populations
would be the preservation of a variety of suitable micro-habitats. Furthermore,
artificial propagation of mudminnow could also help to increase its stocks (Bíró &Paulovits, 1995).
The main objectives of the European Mudminnow Conservation Program are thein situ and ex situ protection of Umbra krameri in order to preserve and increase
natural stocks.

16

Fish
Long-term goals of the
program:x Reconstruction of
wetlands and creationof still waters to
improve ecologicalconditions andincrease the number ofmudminnow habitats in
Hungary and othercountries.
x Sperm
cryopreservation forgene bank and artificial
propagation forstocking to sites in
Hungary and other
Release in the Model Area of Szada © Bálint Bajomi
countries.
x Genetic research on different populations in the distribution area of genus
Umbra.
x Monitoring of water quality, zooplankton, macro-invertebrate, macrophyte andfish populations in natural habitats of mudminnow and Amur sleeper (P. glenii).
x Monitoring in reconstructed and new (artificially created) habitats.
x Developing a method for the control of spreading of the invasive Amur sleeper.
x Developing Model Area of Szada: creating further separated ponds for U.
krameri and other endangered marsh fish populations (e.g. Misgurnus fossilis,
Carassius carassius & Leucaspius delineatus).
Implementation
Results of the first five years (2008 - 2012):x Seven new ponds (“Illés” ponds) fed by groundwater were created in the
Model Area of Szada (average sizes of water surfaces and mean depths 30 40 m2, 1 - 1.5 m).
x The majority of water quality indicators of three years old ponds has reached
the characteristic values experienced in natural habitats of the mudminnow.
x The majority of the quantities and numbers of zooplankton and macroinvertebrate species of Illés’ ponds have reached the characteristic values
experienced in natural habitats of mudminnow in two years.
x Reproduction in captivity, embryo and larva development of European
mudminnow were investigated in the labs of the Department of Aquaculture,
Szent István University, GödöllĘ. Apart from them, the possibilities of prenursring and rearing were investigated in controlled condition and artificial
pond.
x Propagation and larvae rearing may help in strengthening populationconsiderably, thus supplementing decreased stocks and ponds of Model Areaof Szada.

17

Fish
x Stocking ofbroodfishes innatural habitats andModel Area of
Szada (stockedfishes grew fasterin the artificiallycreated ponds thanliterature sources
describe).
x We have threedifferent rescued
stocks of Umbra
krameri in four
Captive bred juvenile © Csaba Posztós / Photomania
ponds of Model
Area of Szada (these separated ponds serve as refuges of endangered
Hungarian mudminnow populations).
x Stocked mudminnows spawned in two years old ponds in spring 2011 and2012.
x We created a European Mudminnow Database which contains biological andecological data about mudminnow and its habitats.
Post-release monitoring
Results of the post-release monitoring:x Indicator 1: Physio-chemical, hydrobiological fish fauna and botanical data inseven new ponds and 10 natural habitats.
x Indicator 2: A total of 42 female mudminnows saved from endangered habitats
and 864 reared individuals.
x Indicator 3: The population persisted in all four new water bodies where
releases took place.
x Indicator 4: Breeding occurred at three release areas among four.
x Indicator 5: We supplemented populations at three natural habitats with 864
captive-bred individuals and 257 fish coming from the wild-born generation of
the 3rd Illés pond. They had altogether a conservation value of about US$
1,225,181 (In Hungary, individuals of species protected under national law
have a conservation value in money fixed by law. This is used e.g. when
punishing people killing protected animals. The value of one mudminnow
individual is US$ 405).

Major difficulties facedx Fundraising is a difficult issue, so the long term planning and implementationof the project is uncertain (there are no funding opportunities in the public
sector giving bigger amounts for several years in Hungary). We tried to apply
for international funds, but we did not succeed because our project wasconsidered as of local importance.
x The long process of applying for permits cause difficulties, because we canrun out of time at the end of the breeding period.

18

Fish
x Local inhabitants have released Cyprinidae spp. and a predatory European
perch (Perca fluviatilis) into one of the new ponds at Model Area of Szada. We
could not catch the latter fish, so it has damaged the European mudminnow
and Crucian carp (C. carassius) populations of the pond. Wide information
dissemination among local inhabitants is not necessarily a good solution to thisproblem - if more people know about the ponds, more can harm them.
x Reproduction strategy of U. krameri is to rear relatively small amount of larvae(100 - 250/female). Contrary to other fish species the artificial propagation
methods (for instance using hormone administration for induction of ovulation)
are not effective with this fish species so we had to develop new captive
breeding methods.

Major lessons learnedx The Model Area of Szada chosen for creating new habitats was ideal, because
it is not under legal protection, so applying for permits was easier. It is in
vicinity of a species-rich Natura 2000 protected area, with an existing
population of the European mudminnow.
x Creating several little habitats instead of one big increased the success of the
project. Despite the fact that some of the ponds are close to each other (within
25 m), they all provide different conditions for life, so we could choose thosewhich had high potential for fish survival. Moreover in little ponds monitoring ismore efficient, has lower costs and removal of potentially establishing invasivefish species is cheaper. The natural self-purification potential of the createdwater bodies was high already after a short period of time: in the ponds withhigh nitrogen compounds (nitrate, nitrite & ammonium) concentration, thenutrient concentration decreased from 97.4% to 76% in 3 years.
x The European mudminnow has an opportunistic alimentation and wide
tolerance to water quality. Its decline is due mainly to the draining of fens andmarshes, so its populations can be increased with the creation of new water
bodies. In 14 - 22 months after the creation of the ponds, the European
mudminnow can be released in security, because a suitable food basebecomes available. The year after release the fish can already breed.
x According to our studies and other Hungarian and foreign investigations, theinvasive and predatory Amur sleeper is a major danger to the mudminnow
populations. To make it more difficult for the establishment of invasive fish
species, the ponds at the Model Area of Szada are fed by ground water andthey do not have connections with each other and different surface water
bodies.
x The advantage of captive breeding is the possibility to raise more healthyjuveniles and release them to several habitats. The disadvantage is that inorder to preserve genetic diversity it is possible to release many juveniles
descending from a few parents only at a young age (adaptation, selection), or
only a few individuals at older age to avoid potential inbreeding depression.
This area needs further study in the near future.

19

Fish
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Extensive collaboration among different NGOs (e.g. Tavirózsa and Nimfea
Associations - Hungary, Umbra Association - Slovakia), Directorates of
National Parks, Universities, authorities and Government Institutes, Local
government of Szada village, “VITUKI” Institute (ceased operation from 2012)and media (national and local TVs, radios, gazettes etc.).ȱ
x Organization of field and lab work (ex situ and in situ conservation) in harmony
with the life cycle of the European mudminnow.ȱ
x According to Seddon (1999), “we could consider any re-introduction ascomprising a sequence of three objectives: the survival of the releasegeneration; breeding by the release generation and their offspring; andpersistence of the re-established population, perhaps assessed throughextinction probability modelling.” The first elements of this definition is alreadyaccomplished: the released generation has survived. The second element
partly came true (breeding by the release generation). More time is needed toevaluate further criteria (breeding of the offspring and persistence of the
population), so long-term success of the program will be known only a few
years later.
Acknowledgements: This work was supported by Magyar Telekom Nyrt., Ministry for
Environment and Water and Ministry of Rural Development (“Zöld Forrás /Green source/
Program 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012”) and Bolyai János research grant by the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences (BO/00054/12/4).

References
Bíró, P., Paulovits G. (1995) Distribution and status of Umbra krameri (Walbaum1972) in the drainage of Lake Balaton, 1st Int. Workshop on Umbra krameri, Annalen
des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 97B: 470-477.
IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available atwww.iucnredlist.org Downloaded on 25 April 2013.
Seddon, P. J. (1999) Persistence without intervention: assessing success in wildlife re-introductions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14: 503.
Tatár, S., B. Bajomi, B. Balován, B. Tóth, Z. Sallai, F. Demény, B. Urbányi, & T.
Müller. (2012) Habitat reconstruction for marshland fish species. Természetvédelmi
Közlemények 18:487-498. In Hungarian, with English abstract. Available at http://mbtktv.mbt-biologia.hu/tvk/2012/Tatar_MTBK18_2012.pdf downloaded on 9th
September 2013.
Wanzenböck J. (1996) Workshop II. Conversation of European mudminnow, Umbra
krameri. P. 339. In: Conservation of endangered freshwater fish in Europe. Eds.
Kirhhofer, A.; Hefti, D. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser.

20

Fish

Re-establishment of the natural life histories ofEagle Lake rainbow trout, USA
Gerard Carmona-Catot1 & Peter B. Moyle2
1- Institute of Aquatic Ecology, University of Girona, E-17071 Girona,
Catalonia, Spain carmona.catot@gmail.com
2- Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, University ofCalifornia–Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616, USA
pbmoyle@ucdavis.edu

Introduction
Eagle Lake rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum), is endemic to Eagle
Lake and its main tributary Pine Creek of northeastern California, USA. Eagle
Lake rainbow trout (ELRT) spend most of their life in Eagle Lake, a large highly
alkaline lake. The lake consists of two basins averaging 5 - 6 m deep and thethird averaging 10 - 20 m, although lake levels may drop further during drought
periods. The shallow basins are uniform in their limnology and watertemperatures can exceed 20°C in the summer. The deep basin stratifies, so inlate summer most of the trout are in the deeper, cooler water of this basin. Pine
Creek is the major tributary to Eagle Lake, is approximately 60 km long, of which
about 10 km are perennial. During the summer, upper Pine Creek is a cold spring-fed trout stream, flowing through meadows and open forest, with modest
gradients.
ELRT is currently listed as a Species of Special Concern by California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The American Fisheries Society
considers ELRT to be a threatened species and NatureServe has listed it as“critically imperiled’. The ELRT fits the definition of a threatened species under
U.S. Endangered Species Act because it is in danger of extinction throughout its
native range as a wild, self-sustaining species.

Goals
Goal 1: Restoration of a wild, naturally-spawning population.
Goal 2:Modification of
the weir/dam at
the bottom of themain tributary
stream to allow
free passage.
Goal 3:
Improvements tothe watershed
habitat.
Eagle Lake rainbow trout

21

Fish
Goal 4: Removal of alienfish in spawning streams.
Goal 5: Reach an
agreement with all theagencies and stakeholder
groups on the restoration
actions.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Reintroduced fish spawn
naturally in native
streams.
x Indicator 2: Part of the
fish run pass through theweir and reach theElectro-fishing for Eagle Lake rainbow trout
historically spawning
grounds.
x Indicator 3: Water diversions are stopped and habitat restoration actions
continue.
x Indicator 4: Alien trout are eradicated from Pine Creek watershed.
x Indicator 5: Agencies and stakeholders group are involved in the project andactively work on the restoration project.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The focus of this project is the restoration of the natural
spawning run of ELRT to its historic spawning tributary Pine Creek. ELRT are
important to the regional economy where this species lives; the trophy fishery inEagle Lake attracts anglers, providing significant income to local businesses. The
trout are also an important cultural resource for the native Paiute people.
However, ELRT have not been able to sustain their populations for more than 60
years because of inaccessible spawning areas, competition from alien trout inperennial spawning and rearing areas, and decreased habitat quality of Pine
Creek. The major spawning reaches in Pine Creek have been inaccessible due tohabitat degradation and barriers, but restoration actions have considerably
improved both upstream habitat and access to spawning areas. However, alienbrook trout dominate the headwater spawning and rearing streams and it isunlikely ELRT can persist as natural spawners without eradication of the brooktrout. The restoration of the natural life history should bring back wild spawning
populations of ERLT, and also a run of considerable cultural importance andgreatly benefiting the fishery in Eagle Lake. Likelihood of restoration has been
greatly increased in recent years by cooperative efforts of CDFW, US Forest
Service, Susanville Indian Rancheria, University of California, Davis, and various
stakeholders.
Implementation: For the past 25 years, a Cooperative Resource
Management Program has resulted in major improvements to the Pine Creekwatershed, greatly reducing the impacts of livestock grazing, eliminating passage

22

Fish
barriers, and reducing diversion of water. In 2012, CDFW modified the weir at themouth of Pine Creek to allow volitional passage of ELRT under high winter/springflows, while also allowing continued take of spawning fish to support the hatchery
program. Movement of fish along 50 km of stream is being monitoring through theuse of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. Experimental transport of adultfish to spawning areas has demonstrated that successful spawning is possible,
especially in Bogard Spring Creek, a tributary to Pine Creek, where the brooktrout population has been largely eliminated through annual electrofishing.
Successful rearing of juvenile ELRT has been observed in the creek although
successful return to the lake has not yet been demonstrated. Some ELRT allowed
passage over the weir spawned in the intermittent reaches of Pine Creek andsmall young of year were observed moving over the weir towards the lake asflows dropped.
Post-release monitoring: The project has shown that fish transported to theupper watershed have spawned and reared successfully. The study has also
demonstrated that despite 60 years in captivity, ELRT are still capable ofmigrating upstream to spawn and of rearing in Pine Creek. These results also
indicate that trapping and trucking is a viable option for helping to recreate anaturally reproducing population in dry years when stream flows reaching the lake
are not sufficient for migration from the mouth of the stream. The biggest single
factor that limits potential for full recovery of a self-sustaining population is thepresence of abundant brook trout in the headwaters. The brook trout will have tobe eradicated for complete recovery of ELRT.

Major difficulties facedx The coordination and dialog among agencies and stakeholder groups to reachagreement about restoration goals, including modifying the Pine Creek weir toallow passage.
x Changing the perception that fish used for restoration purposes will negatively
affect the fishery inEagle Lake andelsewhere.
x Implementing a
research program toshow successful
migration andspawning of ELRT cantake place.
x Demonstrating theimportance of brooktrout eradication andfinding a way toimplement aneradication program.

PIT tag antennae

23

Fish
Major lessons learnedx Although ELRT havemore than 60 years of
total dependence on
hatcheries, the ELRT still
can complete its natural
life cycle. However, thefishery will likely tocontinue to depend on
hatchery productionindefinitely.
x Success depends on
close cooperation among
diverse agencies andstakeholders, who agree
on common goals. Such
Overview of Eagle Lake rainbow trout habitat
cooperation develops
slowly and depends on a
few individuals from each agency or group to make sure it works.
x Research is essential to demonstrate that proposed management actions canwork.
x Involvement of the local Paiute people (Susanville Indian Rancheria) greatly
increased the interest in and likelihood of restoration of natural population.
x Complete restoration of a naturally spawning population is likely many years
away because of the difficulties of dealing with alien species and long-term
drought.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x There is now widespread agreement among agencies and stakeholders that
restoration of a natural population is possible, if difficult to implement.
x ELRT spawned successfully at historical spawning grounds, followed byrearing of young.
x Modifications to the weir at the mouth of Pine Creek has allowed for natural
passage of fish.
x Successful spawning has been recorded only in a tributary from which alien
trout have been eliminated.ȱ
x Upstream habitat in the perennial reaches of Pine Creek as been greatly
improved.ȱ
x Complete success will depend on brook trout eradication from Pine Creek
using piscicides, which is difficult, expensive, and unpopular. ȱx Persistence of ELRT still depends on hatchery production. ȱ

24

Fish
References
Carmona-Catot, G., Moyle, P. B., Aparicio, E., Crain, P. K., Thompson, L. C. &García-Berthou, E. (2010) Brook trout removal as a conservation tool to restore
Eagle Lake rainbow trout. North American Journal Fisheries Management
30:1315 - 1323ȱ
Carmona-Catot, G., Moyle, P. B. & Simmons, R. E. (2011) Long-term captive
breeding does not necessarily prevent reestablishment: lessons learned from
Eagle Lake rainbow trout. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 22: 325 - 342ȱMoyle, P. B. (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press,
Berkeley, USAȱMoyle, P. B., Quinones, R. M., Katz, J. V. E. & Weaver, J. (in press) Fish Speciesof Special Concern for California. 3rd edition. Sacramento: California Departmentof Fish and Wildlife.ȱ
Pustejovsky, T. (2007) A conservation plan for Pine Creek and Eagle Lake
rainbow trout. Lassen County Resource Advisory Council. Susanville, California,
USA, pp 90

25

Fish

Setting the stage for conservation success: largescale watershed renovation and re-introduction of
cutthroat trout in the Rocky Mountain region of
the USA
Carter G. Kruse1, Pat Clancey2, Scott Barndt3, Kirk Patten4 & Bradley Shepard5
1- Aquatic Resource Coordinator, Turner Enterprises, Inc./Turner Endangered
Species Fund, 1123 Research Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718, USA
carter.kruse@retranches.com
2- Fisheries Biologist, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, PO Box 1336, Ennis, MT
59729, USA pclancey@mt.gov
3- Ecosystem Staff Officer, Custer and Gallatin National Forests, PO Box 130,
Bozeman, MT 59771, USA sbarndt@fs.fed.us4- Assistant Chief, Research and Management, New Mexico Department of Gameand Fish, 1 Wildlife Way, Santa Fe, NM 87507, USA kirk.patten@state.nm.us
5- Senior Aquatics Scientist, Wildlife Conservation Society, 65 9th Street Island
Drive, Livingston, MT 59047, USA bshepard@wcs.org

Introduction
The cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) is native to the Rocky Mountain andcoastal areas of the western United States (US) and is classified into as many as
14 subspecies (e.g., Behnke, 1992). Seven major inland subspecies of cutthroat
trout historically occupied most accessible cold water environments from Canada
to southern New Mexico. However, all subspecies have incurred significant range
reductions primarily due to competition and introgression with introduced
salmonids, but also from habitat degradation and exploitation (Young, 1995;
Shepard et al., 2005; Pritchard & Cowley, 2006). Lahontan (O. c. henshawi) andgreenback (O. c. stomias) cutthroat trout are listed as threatened under the US
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the other inland subspecies have either been
petitioned for listing under the ESA or are considered species of concern by stateand federal agencies.
We focus on the northern- and southernmost inland subspecies, althoughconsiderations are likely
similar for all subspecies.
Westslope cutthroat trout(WCT, O. c. lewisi) were
historically the mostwidespread subspecies occupying an estimated
90,800 km of streams andrivers throughout the
Columbia and Missouri
Released westslope cutthroat trout inbasins headwaters - but
Cherry Creek - September 2012
the range of genetically

26

Fish
pure populations has been reduced by 76% (Shepard et al., 2005). On the eastside of the Continental Divide occupied habitat reduction has been even more
dramatic, exceeding 95%. WCT were petitioned for listing under ESA in 1997 but
determined not warranted for listing in 2003. Rio Grande cutthroat trout (RGCT,
O. c. virginalis) were historically found in about 10,700 km of habitat in the upper
Rio Grande basin of Colorado and New Mexico, however the distribution ofgenetically pure populations of this more arid climate subspecies has been
reduced by 92% (Pritchard & Cowley, 2006; Alves, 2008). This subspecies waspetitioned for listing in 1998 and was added to the candidate list in 2008. BothWCT and RGCT are given special status recognizing their conservation need by
the states in which they are found and by federal land management agencies(e.g., a species of special concern by Colorado, and a sensitive species by the
US Forest Service). As such, range-wide conservation agreements are in place toguide conservation and restoration activities for WCT and RGCT. Priorities
include protecting existing populations and establishing new ones (Montana
Cutthroat Trout Working Group 2007; RGCT Conservation Team 2009).

Goals
x Goal 1: Develop a project working group that collaboratively defines leadershiproles and responsibilities for all aspects of project coordination, planning,
implementation, research and monitoring.
x Goal 2: Select a re-introduction site encompassing a large geographic areawith high quality and diverse habitats to support a robust cutthroat trout
population with diverse life-history strategies able to resist threats such as
climate change, catastrophic events, and invasive species.
x Goal 3: Eliminate non-native competitors in the re-introduction site (watershedor portion thereof) through physical and/or chemical renovation, and prevent
their recolonization.
x Goal 4: Establish a self-sustaining population of cutthroat trout large enough towithstand environmental and demographic stochasticity and likely to persist
over the long-term (>100 years) with little or no human intervention.
x Goal 5: Establish a monitoring strategy, including relevant research
partnerships, that evaluates key project aspects and allows adaptive
management of all strategies and methods as the project unfolds, and to
improve and guide future efforts.
x Goal 6: Provide the public with opportunity to experience the restored cutthroat
trout population.

Success Indicators:x Indicator 1: A functional working group with effective leadership that provides aregular forum for professional discussion, project planning, delegation ofduties, risk-benefit analyses, project implementation, monitoring and adaptive
management, and dispute resolution.
x Indicator 2: Complete removal of targeted non-native species from the reintroduction site.
x Indicator 3: Establishment of a genetically pure, consistently reproducing (e.g.,multiple age classes) cutthroat trout population that persists without chronic
management or intervention.

27

Fish

Temporary fish movement barrier on
Cherry Creekx Indicator 4: A robust
cutthroat trout populationthat supports recreational(e.g., angling) use andprovides genetically puregametes and individuals insupport of other regional
cutthroat trout restoration
and re-introduction
projects.
x Indicator 5: Monitoring
and research insights
published in peer
reviewed literature andadaptively integrated into
project implementation
allowing the project toproceed more effectively
and inform future

restoration efforts.

Project Summary
We review case studies of two of the largest cutthroat trout restoration projects
ever undertaken in the United States. These case studies embody the goals andchallenges inherent in other cutthroat trout recovery projects.
Case Study 1 - Cherry Creek Native WCT Project, Madison River Drainage,
Montana (MT): This project encompasses approximately 100 km of stream
habitat and 3 hectares of lake habitat suitable for cutthroat trout, and is the largest
piscicide renovation project ever completed for the purpose of cutthroat trout
conservation. The majority of the project is on private lands and is a collaborative
effort among the private land owner - Turner Enterprises, Inc. - and publicresource management agencies - MT Fish Wildlife and Parks and the US Forest
Service. The Cherry Creek project began with establishment of a collaborative
working group, feasibility analyses, and environmental planning in 1997.
Opposition to the use of piscicides and non-native fish removal, through a seriesof legal and administrative challenges, delayed initial piscicide application until
2003. Because of the large spatial scale of the project, the watershed was treatedin four “phases”, with each phase treated on at least two separate occasions.
The piscicide antimycin was applied at a targeted rate of 10 ppb (active
ingredient) to remove rainbow (O. mykiss), brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), andYellowstone cutthroat (O. c. bouvieri, stocked in Cherry Lake in the 1920’s) trout
from phases 1 and 2. Rotenone (50 ppb a.i.) was used to eliminate the non-native
trout in phases 3 and 4. While phases were isolated from recolonization during
treatment by natural or temporary man-made fish movement barriers, the entire
project area is protected from reinvasion by an 8 m waterfall at the downstream
end of phase 4. Piscicide applications were completed in 2010.

28

Fish
In 2006, WCT introductions began in phase 1 via remote stream-side egg
incubators and were completed by stocking young of year fish in phase 4 in 2012.
Approximately 37,000 eyed eggs and 8,500 young of year fish from multiple wild
populations and a hatchery conservation broodstock were introduced. All
temporary fish barriers were removed in 2011 to reconnect the phases. Posttreatment monitoring documented WCT throughout the mainstream project areaby 2012 and at least two years of natural reproduction, while finding no remaining
non-native salmonids. Throughout the project researchers and managers
collaborated on project implementation and evaluation, which most efficiently
used available resources. Research and monitoring will continue to follow
population recovery, comparative survival and fitness of the source stocks,
movement into vacant habitats, and impacts to non-target organisms. The Cherry
Creek project is a significant conservation achievement for WCT on the east sideof the continental divide. This project increases the stream km occupied by WCT
in the Madison River basin from 7 km to over 100 km or from 0.3% of historicaloccupancy to almost 5%. Perhaps more importantly the success of the Cherry
Creek project, and lessons learned from, has catalyzed several other cutthroat
trout re-introduction projects in southwestern MT. It is important to note that due
to the large barrier falls, the Cherry Creek project area was historically fishless.
Thus, this project is actually a novel introduction of WCT to a previously
inaccessible area within the subspecies historic range.
Case Study 2 - Costilla Creek Native RGCT Project, Rio Grande River
Drainage, New Mexico (NM) and Colorado (CO): The most ambitious
watershed renovation project ever initiated on behalf of cutthroat trout, theCostilla Creek project encompasses approximately 190 km of stream habitat and20 lakes. A collaborative effort among Vermejo Park Ranch, NM Department ofGame and Fish, CO Parks and Wildlife, US Forest Service, and Trout Unlimited,
this project was initially designed to include only 22 km of stream and four lakes
protected by a man-madefish migration barrier.
Project planning was
initiated in 1998 andpiscicide (antimycin) was
first applied in 2002 toremove non-native brook,rainbow, and brown(Salmo trutta) trout from
historical RGCT habitat in
the headwaters of Costilla
Creek. RGCT were reintroduced by stocking
9,500 young of year fishfrom CO Parks andWildlife RGCT hatcherybroodstock into therenovated stream habitat
Crew member applying piscicide in a tributary
for three consecutive
to Costilla Creek - August 2011

29

Fish
years (2002 - 2004). By 2005 the posttreatment RGCT population was similar
in average size and overall abundance
to the pre-treatment non-native trout
population. Unfortunately during a
2004 lake restocking event, rainbow
trout were inadvertently introduced
back into the project area.
Administrative and regulatory
resistance prevented immediate
localized (to stocking sites) retreatment
to remove the non-natives and by 2007
hybrid rainbow-RGCT trout were
captured. In 2008 a large portion of the
project area was successfully retreatedwith rotenone (50 ppb a.i.) to remove
these hybrids. This time, mixed-aged
individuals from the NM Department ofGame and Fish RGCT hatchery
Costilla Creek project notificationbroodstock were introduced (1,900 in2008 and 10,200 in 2009) and the population recovered by 2010, with noevidence of hybrids or other non-natives remaining. A 2007 environmental
assessment proposed expanding the project area to its current size. Watershedrenovation is currently ongoing in phases, but the project is complicated due to its
size; regulatory requirements; the need for at least seven man-made, temporary
fish movement barriers; a 15,700 AF reservoir, and public resistance. To dateover 100 km of stream (50% on private land) and 10 lakes have beensuccessfully chemically renovated and restocked with RGCT. If this project is fullycompleted by 2020 as scheduled it will represent a 20% increase in the amount of
stream RGCT currently occupy within their historical range. This project is theflagship restoration effort on behalf of RGCT for the NM Department of Game andFish. Planning and implementation of the Costilla Project is largely responsible forthe development of consistent NM state guidelines regarding the use ofpiscicides, and for re-development of the Department’s native cutthroat trout
hatchery broodstock; both important steps for range-wide restoration andconservation of the species.

Major difficulties facedx Selecting restoration and re-introduction sites of suitable conservation scale,where both landowners and managers will participate, with sufficient habitat
quality to allow long term persistence of re-introduced populations.
x Regulatory requirements, administrative processes, and public resistance tothe use of fish toxicants (piscicides) requires a significant investment of time,
resources, and emotional energy prior to project implementation in the field.
x Locating accessible temporary and permanent barrier sites suitable fordesigns that are affordable, removable, and functional to keep non-native trout
from reinvading the project site during and after piscicide application.

30

Fish
x Finding suitable donor populations for re-introduction when there are few
remaining wild sources or hatchery sources that may not meet genetic
objectives or withstand removal of individuals or gametes.
x Assurance that all non-native fish have been removed typically requires atleast one piscicide application where no mortalities are observed.
x Minimizing the loss of recreational opportunities (e.g. angling or hiking) within
the project area, especially on publicly owned reaches of water.

Major lessons learnedx It is critical to establish an effective collaborative project working group thatmeets regularly to define project goals, assigns organizational responsibilities,
conducts project planning, develops annual work plans, handles public
outreach, facilitates frank discussion, and flexibility is key.
x Committed project personnel can and need to be consistent and persuasivewith agency and organizational administrators to overcome the social, political,
and logistical challenges these types of projects inevitably encounter.
x Designing restoration and re-introduction projects within an experimental or
research framework provides an opportunity to collect real-time informationthat can inform ongoing as well as future projects regarding implementation,
methodologies, impacts, and population recovery, among other things.
x Removal of non-native fishes and re-introduction of native fish can be
successful over relatively large spatial scales and in complex, diverse habitats
if implemented methodically across the landscape.

Success of project
Cherry Creek Westslope Cutthroat Trout Project:
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Costilla Creek Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Project:
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Implementation of a systematic approach to completely remove non-nativecompetitors over a large scale was instrumental in achieving successful
eradication.
x An effective collaborative partnership between private conservation
organizations and public resource management agencies created a sharedvision, spread financial obligations, and pooled resources.
x Using the best available science and a real-time experimental framework
informed project planning, implementation, and cutthroat trout re-introduction

31

Fish
in an adaptive manner and led to improvements and increased efficiency on
the project.
x Selection of re-introduction sites with high quality and diverse habitat at ascale appropriate to support all life stages of native cutthroat trout has allowed
the re-introduced population to persist.
x Persistence and mutual support of project partners through significant social,political and logistical challenges maintained the cohesion and will to complete
the project.
x A conservation minded private landowner willing to withstand the risk of failure.

References
Behnke, R. J. (1992) Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries
Society Monograph 6. Bethesda, Maryland. 275 p.
Montana Cutthroat Trout Working Group (2007) Memorandum of understanding
and conservation agreement for westslope cutthroat trout and Yellowstone
cutthroat trout in Montana. Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks,
Helena. 34 p.
Pritchard, V. L. & D. E. Cowley (2006) Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarki virginalis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/
assessments/riograndecutthroattrout.pdf.
RGCT Conservation Team (2009) Conservation Agreement for Rio Grande
Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis) in the states of Colorado and New
Mexico. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. 24 p.
Shepard, B. B., B. E. May & Urie, W. (2005) Status and conservation of westslope
cutthroat trout within the western United States. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 25: 1426 - 1440.
Young, M. K., tech. ed. (1995) Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout.
General Technical Report RM-256. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 61 p.

32

Amphbians

Re-introduction of European tree frog in Latvia
Ilze Dunce
Curator of Amphibians, Riga Zoo, Meza av.1, LV1014, Riga, Latvia
ilzedunce@gmail.com

Introduction
European tree frog was considered as extinct in Latvia since last decades of the20th century. Data on the former distribution of this species are rather incomplete.
Several faunists of German origin (Fischer, Seidlitz and Schweder) havementioned the species as being present in Latvia in the 18th - 19th centuries (Silins& Lamsters,1934). Several reports have even been received in the 1980s(Zvirgzds et al., 1995). Intensive agriculture, rapid deterioration in total area
covered mainly by wetlands, and extinction of beaver (Castor fiber) in Latvia inthe end of 19th century, could be the main factors, which could cause thevanishing of Hyla arborea from Latvia. The re-introduction program was started by
Riga Zoo in 1987, and a total of 4,110 juveniles in total were released in SW
Latvia (Liepaja district), where protected area with total area of 350 ha wasestablished in 1999. The area accommodates a large number of ponds,
considerably changed by beavers. Before the re-introduction started, theEuropean tree frog was listed in Red Data Book of Latvia under Category I(endangered species) (Latvijas PSR Sarkana gramata, 1985), at meantime
Category II (vulnerable species) (Latvijas Sarkana gramata, 2003). The European
tree frog is included in Appendix II of the Bern Convention.

Goals
x Goal 1:ȱCreating sustainable populations of European tree frog in Latvia.
x Goal 2:ȱProving that creating sustainable populations of amphibians in nature
is possible by releasing of specimens, bred under laboratory conditions.
x Goal 3:ȱProving that
Hyla arborea cansurvive Latvia climaticconditions, therefore
this species most likely
was a natural part ofLatvia nature during
past centuries.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1:ȱSelfsustaining population
established at reintroduction site, withmore than 10
generations developed
naturally.

European tree frog © Sergey Cicagov33

Amphibiansx Indicator 2:ȱThe
distribution of the
population around the reintroduction site, as far as
the suitable environmentis available.

Project Summary
Feasibility:ȱLaboratory of

Typical pond habitat © Andris Eglitis

Ecology (Amphibian
Department since 2006)
was founded in Riga Zooin 1987 with its main task
to re-introduce theEuropean tree frog in
Latvia. The re-introduction
was planned with captivebred tree frog youngsters

in their first year of life.
The considerations were as follows:x The translocation of a larger amount of adult specimens from other natural
populations could place the donor population at risk, even if the population isconsiderably stable.
x The youngsters would have a considerably higher ability to adapt to wildconditions than adults, if captive bred specimens are released into wild (Dunce& Zvirgzds, 2005).
x The adult specimens for captive breeding were caught in Southern Belarus,
near the confluence of Goryn and Pripyat rivers, what is geographically closest
stable population (there is also small population in Lithuania).
Implementation: The adults were kept in outdoor terrariums and fed withartificially bred insects as well as meadow sweeps. At the end of October andearly November the frogs were placed in wooden boxes, filled with sphagnum,
and boxes were kept in refrigerator for hibernation (average temperature 5°C) till
the end of January and early February. Later it was found out that an old cellar asa hibernation place is better for the amphibians welfare, despite greaterfluctuations of temperatures (from 1°C - 7°C). After hibernation the temperature
was raised gradually, and the artificial daylight period gradually lengthened,
imitating the day length of the breeding period. The frogs were fed intensively andbreeding was stimulated with hormone injections, using Surphagon, a synthetic
analogue of Luliberin (produced by Bapex Co., Latvia). During the first year of
breeding effort the hormone treatment was given in the beginning of May, in otheryears during the beginning of March. In both cases the results were virtually
identical.
Two males and one female were usually placed in a 35 liter aquarium with awater level of about 5 cm and several plants. Each female produced 200 - 1,000

34

Amphbians
or even more eggs.
Hatching usually started
on the 8th - 10th day ofdevelopment. The larvae
were placed in aquariums
with aerated water;
temperature wasmaintained 24°C - 27°C at
day, 20°C - 23°C at night.
The density of tadpoles
never exceeded 2 - 3
larvae per liter. Tadpoles
were fed with dried andboiled nettles, meat,aquarium fish food (Tetra)and pollen. The natural
photoperiod was simulated
Amphibian experts at a potential release site inusing luminescent lamps.
Latvia during 2004 © Elvira Hrscenovica
The average amount ofanimals thatmetamorphosed was 60% - 70% of the initial larvae; in some cases it evenexceeded 90% (Zvirgzds et al., 1995). The metamorphosis took 30 - 60 days (inthe wild it usually takes 90 days). Froglets were fed with meadow sweeps andcaptive bred insects. About 2 - 6 weeks after metamorphosis the froglets weretaken to the re-introduction site.
During 1988 - 1992 a total number of 4,110 juveniles, progeny from 14 - 17
breeding pairs, were released. All releases were conducted in one locality,
enabling accurate further monitoring of population dispersal.
Post-release monitoring: The release site was chosen in SW Latvia (Liepaja
district, ca. 56°30’ N 21°42’E) where a protected area was established with total
area of 350 ha. The first vocalizations of adult tree frog male in the re-introduction
site were recorded in 1990 - two years since the start of the re-introduction
program. This confirms that under particular conditions males can reach sexual
maturity in 2 years. The first tadpoles in the wild were found in 1991, at therelease site. The first calling males outside the release site were recorded in
1993. Further distribution progressed even faster and up to 2002, tree frogs wererecorded already in 110 localities.
The distribution of the newly created population was monitored mainly on thebasis of the spring mating calls. All new-recorded localities were registered by
GPS and mapped till 2005. The local communities were informed about the
project by dispersing booklets, giving lectures in schools, as well as cooperatingwith media (TV, radio). In later years the area of the population reached the size
what made it practically impossible for accurate monitoring and further dispersalof tree frogs is followed up by reports of local people.

35

Amphibians
Major difficulties facedx It is difficult to estimate the present size of population because of extended
area. Despite of informational work with local people the reports about treefrogs are occasional and do not show the full picture of species occurrence.

Major lessons learnedx Under laboratory conditions the breeding can be effected to happen earlier
than in the wild, and the larvae develop faster. Thus, the released froglets
have more time to adapt to natural conditions as well as for feeding andgrowing. We hypothesize that it could result in a much higher survival rateduring the first winter.
x Despite that the breeding of tree frogs was stimulated by hormonal injections
in all cases, we did not face any problems regarding tadpole or froglet survival
or growing rates.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x After 14 of initiating the re-introduction program, monitoring data showed that
total area of population dispersal covered 800 - 900 km2 (Dunce & Zvirgzds,2005). As it could be inferred from later reports, it continues to expand.

References
Dunce, I. & Zvirgzds, J. (2005) The European Tree Frog re-introduction in Latvia.
Herpetologia Petropolitana 138-139.ȱ
Latvijas PSR Sarkana gramata (1985) Zinatne, Riga.ȱ
Latvijas Sarkana gramata (2003) LU Biologijas instituts, Riga.
Silins V. & Lamsters V. (1934) Latvijas rapuli un abinieki, A/S Valters un Rapa,
Riga, 72-73.ȱ
Zvirgzds J., Stasuls M. & Vilnitis V. (1995) Re-introduction of the European Tree
Frog (Hyla arborea) in Latvia. Memoranda Soc.Fauna Flora fennica 71:139-142.ȱ

36

Reptiles

Repatriation of eastern indigo snakes toconservation lands in South Alabama, USA
Sierra Stiles1, James Stiles2, James C. Godwin3, Christopher Jenkins4,
Elizabeth M. Rush5, Brad Lock6, Valerie M. Johnson7, Michael Wines8 & Craig Guyer91- Graduate Assistant, Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University,
Auburn, AL 36849, USA stilesh@auburn.edu
2- Graduate Assistant, Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University,
Auburn, AL 36849, USA, stileja@auburn.edu
3- Advisor II, Environmental Institute, Auburn University, Auburn,AL 36849 USA jcg0001@auburn.edu
4- Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, The Orianne Society, 579 Highway
441 South, Clayton Georgia 30520, USA cljenkins@oriannesociety.org
5- Associate Professor and Project Veterinarian, School of Veterinary Medicine, St.
Georges University, University Centre, Grenada, West Indies zuvet9@yahoo.com
6- Assistant Curator of Herpetology, Zoo Atlanta, 800 Cherokee Avenue, Atlanta,
Georgia 30315, USA block@zooatlanta.org
7- Research Assistant I, Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University,
Auburn, AL 36849, USA johnsvm@auburn.edu
8- Research Assistant I, Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University,
Auburn, AL 36849, USA mpw0005@auburn.edu
9- Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL
36849, USA guyercr@auburn.edu

Introduction
The eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), historically, ranged across the
Coastal Plain of the United States from southeastern Georgia, south throughFlorida, and west across southern Alabama and Mississippi (Conant & Collins,1998). But, these large predators likely never were abundant and populations ofthem were vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation, mortality associated withincreased roads andvehicle traffic, andcollection for the pet trade.
In 1978, eastern indigo
snakes were listed as
Threatened under thefederal Endangered
Species Act, and, more
recently, were classified
by IUCN as Least
Concern. Wild populationsof eastern indigo snakes
currently are known only
from southeastern
Georgia and Florida. Here,
we describe an attempt torepatriate eastern indigo
Eastern indigo snake

37

Reptiles
snakes to the Conecuh National Forest, in south-central Alabama. We build on
previous repatriation efforts by Speake (1990), who demonstrated how to rearyoung for release, but who failed to establish breeding populations at 36 sites
chosen for repatriation (Hart, 2002). Our project focuses on a single site, where aminimum of 300 one to two-year old snakes will be released. Within the context ofrepatriating this species to Alabama, we assess the utility of soft releases as arepatriation strategy for large snakes.

Goals
x Goal 1: Assess utility of soft releases for large snakes.
x Goal 2: Compare movement patterns of repatriated snakes to those published
for free-ranging individuals in native habitats.
x Goal 3: Compare habitat selection of repatriated snakes to that published forfree-ranging individuals in native habitats.
x Goal 4: Establish reproduction of free-ranging snakes at a repatriation site.
x Goal 5: Document spread of a population from the release site.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Reduced home range size and increased home range overlap forsoft released individuals relative to those that are hard released.
x Indicator 2: Home range size of repatriated males and females are within
range of values published for Georgia source populations.
x Indicator 3: Patterns of habitat selection of repatriated males and females arewithin range of values published for Georgia source populations.
x Indicator 4: Production of viable offspring from at least one repatriated female.
x Indicator 5: Discovery of at least one unmarked individual captured at a
distance from the release site that is longer than the diameter of an average
adult male home range.

Project Summary
Feasibility: Three main questions determined whether this project was
feasible? i) can we find a reasonable repatriation site?, ii) can we generate stock
for repatriation at this site while minimizing effects on source populations?, and iii)
can we raise sufficient offspring to generate stock for repatriation?
Implementation
Question 1: We selected the Conecuh National Forest as the release site. The
last known occurrence of eastern indigo snakes in this region was made by Neill(1954). The area has received two decades of restoration of longleaf pine forests,
transforming the landscape into one that mimics the structural features of oldgrowth forest. Growing populations of gopher tortoises are present and provide
vital refugia for released snakes. The custom of local snake hunters, who usedgasoline fumes delivered to the bottom of gopher tortoise burrows to drive out
eastern diamondback rattlesnakes, has been outlawed, removing one source ofmortality for released indigo snakes. Finally, the site has a similar road density tothat of source populations, limiting a second source of mortality to reasonablelevels.

38

Reptiles
Question 2: We
established a cooperative
effort with the following
agencies: Auburn
University, Alabama
Department ofConservation and Natural
Resources, Georgia
Department of Natural
Resources, The Orianne
Society, United States
Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Forest
Service, and Zoo Atlanta
to conform to state andfederal laws and toestablish consistent
Snake release pen
funding for the expected
10 year life span of the project. We limited removal from source populations togravid females that were retained in captivity until each produced a clutch of
eggs; this was followed by release of each adult female back to its source
population. A maximum of two individuals were used per source site per year tominimize our effect on the demography of the source populations. We required 6 8 gravid females per year over a four-year period to produce stock for a Florida
breeding facility (to be used for future repatriation projects) and to produce anaverage of 30 offspring per year for repatriation to Alabama.
Question 3: Collaboration with Zoo Atlanta was a vital component of the project.
This allowed us to raise large cohorts of offspring in controlled environments overtwo growth years. These offspring were then maintained at Auburn University inoutdoor enclosures for 2 - 4 weeks prior to release in the spring. This final stage
allowed us to acclimatize snakes to field conditions by giving them access to sun
and shade provided by a variety of shelters, as well as training them to seek
appropriate live prey.
Post-release monitoring: Initial three cohorts (hatched 2008 - 2010 andreleased 2010 - 2012) included an average of 20 snakes per year with radiotransmitters implanted. Individuals were monitored 3 - 5 times per week during
spring and summer and once per week during fall and winter. Locations wererecorded by GPS and mapped to GIS layers for the release area. Most of theyear, snakes used xeric longleaf pine and mixed pine-hardwood sandhills and theadjacent riparian zones of blackwater creeks and other wetlands. Shelters used
included primarily gopher tortoise burrows and stumpholes, but also included
armadillo and small mammal burrows and downed woody debris. In winter,snakes remained in upland habitats, where a majority of individuals occupied
gopher tortoise burrows. Home ranges of males were larger than home ranges offemales. Movement patterns, habitat use and home range sizes observed postrelease were similar to descriptions published previously for free-ranging

39

Reptiles
individuals studied near the source
population sites (Hyslop, 2007).
Females established relatively small
home ranges near the release site
regardless of whether they were soft
released or hard released. Soft released
males had home ranges of similar size
to those that were hard released but
retained those home ranges near the
release site so that soft released males
had increased home range overlap withfemales compared to overlap patterns
associated with hard released males.
Survival was not significantly different for
hard and soft released snakes. Multiple
females were observed to spend
significant portions of the breeding
season cohabiting refugia with males.
One young female, captured in 2011
and refitted with a radio-transmitter, wasgravid but had unviable eggs. Two
additional females captured in 2012 laid
eggs that produced 9 offspring. No
Eastern indigo snakes inunmarked individuals have yet beenrelease pen
captured. Continued post-release
monitoring will be important to the assessment of Indicator 5 and the evaluation ofother project goals.

Major difficulties facedx Novel disease issues for captive snakes (new species of Fusarium;
developmental anomalies).
x Behavioral differences between snakes retained only in indoor cages andthose that experience outdoor cages before release.
x Early escape from pens through underground root channels and mammal
burrows.
x Long distance dispersal of males and emigration to private lands.
x Road mortality difficult to prevent, even in areas with low road density and low
traffic.

Major lessons learnedx Soft release may be an effective release strategy for minimizing excessive
dispersal.
x Females establish stable home ranges more readily than males.
x Soft release improves reproductive opportunities for females.
x Education can help prevent intentional harm and garner community support.

40

Reptiles
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Home range size and habitat use are comparable to values from source areas.
x Soft release snakes had decreased home range size and dispersal relative to
hard release.
x Home range overlap documents opportunities for reproduction by repatriatedsnakes are improved by use of soft release.
x Successful production of viable offspring was documented for two repatriatedfemales.
x An additional seven years of releases are required to assess whether the
population is spreading.

References
Conant, R. & J. T. Collins. (1998) Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern/Central
North America. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Hart, B. (2002) Status survey of the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi
Holbrook), black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Blanchard), andsouthern hognose snake (Heterodon simus Linneaus) in Alabama. Unpublishedreport submitted to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources.
Hyslop, N. (2007) Movements, habitat use, and survival of the threatened easternindigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) in Georgia. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofGeorgia
Neill, W. T. (1954) Ranges and taxonomic allocations of amphibians and reptiles
in the southeastern United States. Pub. Res. Div. Ross Allen's Rept. Inst. 7:75–
96.
Speake, D. W. (1990) Evaluation of eastern indigo snakes restocking attempts.
Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson,
Mississippi.

41

Reptiles

Experimental translocation (re-inforcement) of
the Hermann’s tortoise, Var, France
Sébastien Caron1, Jean-Marie Ballouard1, Oriane Lepeigneul1 & Xavier Bonnet2
1- Station d'Observation et de Protection des Tortues et de leurs Milieux, Chelonian
Conservation and Research Center, PO Box 24, 83590 Gonfaron, France
sebastien.caron@soptom.fr & jean-marie.ballouard@soptom.fr
2- Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chize, CNRS-UPR 1934, 79360 Villiers en Bois,
France bonnet@cebc.cnrs.fr

Introduction
Hermann’s tortoise (Testudo hermanni hermanni, Gmelin 1789) is one of the mostthreatened reptiles in Europe. The decline began in 1910s in Western Europe
distribution (Italy, France, Spain and some Mediterranean islands) and its future isseriously jeopardized. The subspecies is the only terrestrial chelonian in mainland
France. This subspecies has totally disappeared from Eastern Pyrenees aroundthe 1960s - 1970s. Fragmented populations remain in the Var, mainly in the Plainand the Massif of the Maures. Since 20 years conservation measures have been
undertaken. Although the total area of distribution of the species remains
unchanged, populations are particularly vulnerable due to habitat loss, forest fire,illegal collection and use of heavy machines for agriculture and forestry.
This species is listed on the Appendix II (A) of the CITES and is classified as"almost threatened" on the World Red List and as "Vulnerable" on the national
Red List. The Var populations is “in danger" according to the IUCN terminology.
Conservation projects (e.g. translocation) should protect and facilitate thereconnection of the twenty reproductive fragments identified (Livoreil, 2009). It
might be a suitable tool to re-enforce the most weakened populations living in the“Plaine des Maures” (Var).

Goals
x Goal 1: Replace
tortoises in a favorable
new environment rather
than release them into
their original but degradedlandscape or maintaining
them in a care center.
x Goal 2: Identification ofpotential translocationsites in the species’
historic range.
x Goal 3: Determining
which individuals torelease according tosanitary conditions,

Hermann’s tortoise42

Reptiles
genetic profiles and life story. These tortoises are wild animals from rescue
operations or those found wounded.
x Goal 4: Determination of the best season of releasing (spring vs. autumn)
considering survival and site fidelity.
x Goal 5: Annual monitoring of individuals (both wild and translocated).
x Goal 6: Re-inforcement of populations in protected area with suitable habitatand low predation risk but weakened by forest fires.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Get a national and ministerial agreement for a translocation plan.
x Indicator 2: Establishment of pre- and post-release monitoring program.
x Indicator 3: Measurement of survival, settlement/dispersal and ecophysiological state of the released tortoises; comparison between released
and wild tortoises.
x Indicator 4: Self-sustaining populations established at local site.

Project Summary
Feasibility: Despite conservation measures, every year several wild
specimens of Hermann's tortoise are displaced from their natural habitat (rescue
operations or found wounded). The rescued tortoises are brought back to
SOPTOM but cannot be kept indefinitely. After genetics and sanitary tests, wild
native tortoises are maintained temporarily in the breeding facilities. The releaseof individuals may help to restore native population impacted by a fire (Lecq et al.,submitted) but such events lead to a high mortality rate (50% - 70 %) andpopulations need several decades to re-establish themselves. However, suchactions face several complications such as homing behavior, and is one of themain elements, that could compromise the establishment and the survival of thereleased tortoises. Conditions of release may improve the chance of success, but
experiments are lacking. Within the framework of the conservation Life+ program(2010 - 2014), we aim to evaluate the effect of season (spring vs. autumn) on therelease success (dispersal, survival, reproduction etc.). A translocation plan was
accepted at the national and ministerial level in 2012.
A feasibility study focused on the biology of the species was undertaken in 2011
(origin of the individuals, genetics, sanitary, knowledge of the native populationetc.). An assessment of potential translocation sites was made by evaluating
criteria of eligibility according to IUCN recommendations. Two sites located in thearea of historic distribution were chosen. First site is in the National Nature
Reserve of the Maures’ Plain, second is located in a national forest managed by
French government. The first site was damaged by a fire in 1979 and was theplace of reforestation. The second was impacted by forestry operations during 30
years (1960 - 1990) and a fire in 1990. We evaluated a group of important criteria
for the survival of released tortoises. They were developed from the experience ofthe Hermann's tortoise re-introduction project in Spain (Bertolero et al., 2007). On
both sites, previous counting indicates a very low density of native tortoises andeffects of predation were unknown. These sites provide suitable habitat for foodresource, thermoregulation, water etc. Long-term protection and control of thesites are effective.

43

Reptiles
Implementation: We did an initial survey in 2012 on the two sites, one year
before translocation, in order to collect ecological (spatial movements, habitatuse) and physiological data (survival, thermoregulation and sanitary condition).
On both release sites, we followed one pool of tortoise from the native population(“resident group”) and one from an adjacent population (“control group”). This
allows us to control the possible effect of site, and interaction between thereleased tortoises and the native population (USFWS, 2011). During this initial
survey, we noticed on the second site a strong predation pressure; probably abadger (Meles meles) which killed a third of the wild radio-tracked tortoises (3/9).
In 2011 - 2012, with growing concerns about the global impact of emerging
infectious diseases, an extensive health screening program of wild origin tortoises
held in captivity was established. Because Mycoplasma agassizii and tortoise
herpesvirus are important pathogens (Salinas et al., 2011), tortoises underwent
viral, parasitological, morphological and blood screening prior to release. We
chose healthy tortoises from Var origin (genetic).
Post-release monitoring: We decided to implement the experimental design
only on the first site exempted from predation. We hard-released 12 individuals
within a host population during the 2013 spring (after hibernation emergence).
Each pool of released tortoises is followed during the two years in order toquantify dispersion, site fidelity, micro-habitat use, survival, reproduction, etc.
Qualitative data relying on thermal behavior, body and sanitary condition,
physiology are measured (stress, metabolites, etc.) by blood sampling and dataloggers. In parallel, similar measurements are done on both groups of tortoises:
native and control. The expected outcome of short term successful translocation
could be: high level of survival, stable body condition, low baseline stress levels,
similar habitat used by native and released tortoises, easy thermoregulation
behavior, etc. The success of the action will be evaluated in the mid-term (3 to 15
years after release) and in the long-term by Capture-Mark-Recapture study.
We radio-tracked both translocated in 2013 and resident/control individuals in2012 and 2013. More than four months after the spring translocation, the tortoises
did not exhibit short-term costs (e.g. decrease in body condition); resident
individuals did not display any sign of perturbation caused by the introduction ofnovel individuals. No mortality was noticed, the tortoises did not scatter more than
the resident tortoises (no homing behavior). Movement patterns were typical of
the species, with males travelling longer daily distances than females. Shelltemperature was highly dependent on environmental temperature, and generally
higher, suggesting an active thermoregulation behavior. From a conservation
perspective, our results are encouraging for the expected settlement oftranslocated individuals. Although, it has been suggested that soft-release might
be preferable over a hard-release to limit dispersal risk (Attum et al., 2011); ourresults favor a direct, hence simple approach. This specific question will be tested
in autumn 2013 by releasing individuals just before hibernation.

44

Reptiles
Major difficulties
facedx Selection of healthy(absence of
mycoplasma) andgenetically clean
individuals of wild
origin (from South ofFrance) - few
individuals areavailable after
selection.
x Predators - notably
the wild boar (Sus
scrofa) and theRadio-tracking Hermann’s tortoisebadger remainwidespread and avery significant threat and are difficult to control.
x Because of the two points mentioned above it is impossible to completely
implement the experiment on both sites. As the number of available individuals
is restricted after health and genetic selection (twice lower than what wasplanned), we decided to implement the experiment only in one site.
x No difficulties faced during the first four months of post-release.

Major lessons learnedx Future health screening programs should take into account that Mycoplasma
are present in the wild population. We are implementing a parallel sanitary
survey in wild populations and we have at present a reliable method for thedetection of Mycoplasma, an emerging infectious disease known to impact
gopher tortoises in North America, Testudo graeca in both wild and captive
populations and Testudo hermanni in captivity. We do not know the effect of
this disease on Hermann’s tortoise wild populations.
x All translocated tortoises are from sites more than 10 km of the release site.
As a potential consequence, no homing behavior was observed during the firsttwo months of post-release.
x We did not notice any short-term effects associated to the translocation (e.g.
decrease in body condition or mortality).
x Careful field monitoring and the measurement of both movement andecophysiological parameters help to better evaluate the translocation successin a short term period.

45

Reptiles
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Tortoises were able to find appropriate micro-habitats and adequately adjusted
their thermoregulation strategy to local conditions.
x The short-term success of the experience was possibly influenced by the highquality of the habitat, particularly heterogeneous with abundant natural
resources.
x Resident individuals did not show any sign of perturbation caused by the
introduction of novel individuals. Instead, we observed mating between
resident and translocated tortoises, several females were observed laying.
x Long term monitoring is required to better assess the establishment of theindividuals in the resident population.

References
Attum, O., Otoum, M., Amr, Z. & B.,Tietjen (2011) Movement patterns and habitat
use of soft released translocated spur-thighed tortoises Testudo graeca.
European Journal of Wildlife Research, 57: 251 - 258.
Bertolero A., Oro D., & A., Besnard (2007) Assessing the efficacy of
reintroduction programmes by modeling adults survival: the example ofHermann’s tortoise. Animal Conservation, 10: 360 - 368.
Lecq S., Ballouard J.M., Caron S., Livoreil B., Seynaeve V., Matthieu L.-A. & X.,
Bonnet. Long-term impact of fire on habitat and body condition in the Hermann’s
tortoise (unpublished).
Livoreil (2009) Distribution of the endangered Hermann's tortoise Testudo
hermanni hermanni in Var, France, and recommendations for its conservation.
Oryx, 43(2): 299 - 305.
Salinas, M., Francino, O., Sanchez,A. & L., Altet (2011) Mycoplasma andHerpesvirus PCR Detection in Tortoises with Rhinitis-stomatitis Complex in Spain.
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 47(1): 195 - 200.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011) Translocation of desert tortoises (Mojave
population) from project sites: plan development guidance. April 2011, 11 p.

46

Reptiles

Re-introduction of Hungarian meadow viper in
Hungary
Bálint Halpern1 & Tamás Péchy2
1- LIFE-program manager, MME BirdLife Hungary, H-1121 KöltĘ u. 21.,
Budapest, Hungary balint.halpern@mme.hu
2- Head of Hungarian Meadow Viper Conservation Centre, MME BirdLife Hungary,
H-1121 KöltĘ u. 21., Budapest, Hungary tamas.pechy@mme.hu

Introduction
Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis Méhely, 1893) is aninhabitant of steppe remnants. Recent populations occur on grasslands formed bya mosaic of drying marsh-meadows and sandy pastures, where the relatively
diverse features of terrain and grass cover provides high prey-abundance andseveral different microclimatic options. Recent populations only occur on twoplaces in Hungary: two populations in Hanság and less than 10 in Kiskunság. The
total population was estimated under 500 individuals. Hungarian meadow viper isprotected in Hungary since 1974, strictly protected since 1988, and was raised tothe highest conservation category since 1992, with a conservation value of
1,000,000 Ft (approx. US$ 4,660). Its critical situation was recognizedinternationally as well, as it had been included in Bern Convention Appendix II, it
is listed in CITES Annex I and IUCN categorized as ‘threatened’ The Bern
Convention approved a European Action Plan on Vipera ursinii in 2005. The
species is listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive therefore all occurrenceswere included into Natura 2000 Network. A Species Conservation Plan wasapproved in 2004 in Hungary and complex conservation project was started cofunded by European Commission’s LIFE and LIFE+ funds.

Goals
x Goal 1: Cover locationsof all surviving
populations anddescribe them,estimating their size,
demography anddescribing genetic
background, habitat
characteristics andlocal threats. All theseinformation were
included in the Species
Conservation Plan.
x Goal 2: Secure longterm survival of thespecies on known
habitats, by applying

Hungarian meadow viper

47

Reptiles

Juveniles marked for outdoor terrarium releaseappropriate management
and increase of suitable
habitats through landpurchase and grassland
reconstruction.
x Goal 3: Start captive
breeding of the species in2004 with the aim of future
re-introduction andpopulation re-inforcement.
Techniques were
described in the so called
Breeding Protocol. The
aim was to build up a
breeding stock of several
generations throughsuccessful breeding,which will reliably provide

annual needs of re-introduction effort.
x Goal 4: At the start of the re-introduction in 2010, the so called Reintroduction
Protocol set a target of altogether 400 released vipers on two sites over a four
year period on reconstructed grassland in Kiskunság. The possible release in
Hanság by the end of the period, depending on the state of the reconstructedgrassland by that time.
x Goal 5: Learn information on the fate of the released individuals with
continuous monitoring on release sites, through regular surveys and use of
remote sensing tracking.ȱ

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Size of known viper habitats and spatial information on their
management.
x Indicator 2: Size of increase and reconnection of fragmented viper habitats
with grassland reconstruction on hills, providing hibernation sites safe fromhigh water-table in winter.
x Indicator 3: Number of vipers born in successful breeding of multiple
generations following pedigree and genetic screening.
x Indicator 4: Number of individuals released per site or over years.
x Indicator 5: Number of re-introduced or reinforced populations with estimatedsurviving number of released individuals. Successful overwintering, breeding
and recruitment can be considered as milestones and final proof ofconservation effort’s success.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The severe decline of the species was mainly caused by habitatloss. Previously unpredictable water movements were diminished by building ofdrainage canals, making those sites suitable for agricultural cultivation, meaning
ploughing of most of the grasslands. Remaining grasslands were mowed
intensively, which was intolerable for the species. Collection for trade purposes

48

Reptiles
and intentional killings further reduced its numbers. Remaining small andfragmented populations became vulnerable and small, local catastrophes could
fully destroy them (Nilson & Andrén, 2001; Újváry et al., 2001). A Population and
Habitat Viability Assessment organized by IUCN Captive Breeding Specialist
Group and Budapest Zoo in 2001, the approved Species Conservation Plan
(Dankovics et al., 2004) and the European Action Plan (Edgar & Bird, 2005) all
came to the conclusion that complex conservation effort is needed with inclusionof additional elements to ongoing conservation measures, like habitatreconstruction and enlargement and captive breeding and re-introduction.
Implementation: In 2004 the systematic and conceptual conservation
program, running since 1993, has opened a new chapter in the story of Hungarian
meadow viper with the start of a four-year LIFE-project named as “Establishing
the background of saving the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis)
from extinction”, led by Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation
Society (MME BirdLife Hungary) with participation of Directorate of Kiskunság
National Park (KNPI) and Directorate of Duna-Ipoly National Park (DINPI). The
conservation effort was secured for the period between 2009 and 2013 thanks tofunding by LIFE+ Fund. Beneficiaries of the “Conservation of Hungarian meadow
viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis) in the Carpathian-basin” are MME, KNPI,
Directorate of FertĘ-Hanság National Park (FHNPI), Budapest Zoo (FÁNK),Compound Eye Film (T.HU), and from Austria Nationalpark Neusiedler-see undSeewinkel (NNSS), Schönbrunn Zoo Vienna (TSV) and Research Institute ofWildlife Ecology, Vienna (FIWI). The set of actions implemented in theconservation program can be categorized into four major groups: monitoring of
the species and its habitats; defragmentation and enlargement of recent habitats
through grassland reconstruction; captive breeding and re-introduction of thespecies; information of the public and public awareness campaign (Halpern,2007).
The Hungarian Meadow Viper Conservation Centre was created in 2004 on aremote farmhouse in Kiskunság. The breeding of the snakes was started with 10
animals, which were collected from four different habitats of Kiskunság in 2004.
During 2007 - 2008 we captured a further six snakes, representing otherpopulations, including the two in Hanság. Vipers were placed in pairs or breedinggroups in outdoor terraria, providing semi-natural conditions, each equipped withartificial burrows. These burrows were developed in the program, in order toprovide safe hiding place and winter hibernacula for the vipers.
Through successful reproduction in each year since the start of captive breeding,until 2012 overall 1,392 vipers were born. Young vipers born at the Centre thanks to prey-abundance and lack of predators - are reaching maturity in higher
percentage than those in natural populations. Until 2008, newborn vipers spent
their first winter in separate indoor terrariums, with continuous feeding. On
average an annual mortality of 10% was observed in these cohorts. Since 2008,
when we were able to include captive raised individuals in the breeding, number
of offspring increased significantly. Meanwhile the testing of artificial burrows
ensured us about its safe use for wintering of juveniles, therefore since the 200949

Reptiles
cohort the juveniles are also
wintering in outdoor enclosures. In
these cohorts a higher first year
mortality was observed (20% 30%), which was compensated by
the increase of breeding pairs, inorder to ensure the possible
release of 100 - 150 vipers of eachcohorts when they reach the age of3 - 4 years.
The first re-introduction took placein 2010, when 30 vipers werereleased to reconstructedgrassland in Kiskunság, in thevicinity of the breeding centre.
During three re-introductions
altogether, a total of 142 vipers
were released to this site andanother 45 to another site nearbyin 2012. Artificial burrows wereused as mediums for release, inorder to provide the vipers safeand known hiding places, and achance for a step-by-step
Meadow viper in natural habitat
discovery of their new home.
Timing of the release was chosenwith similar aim, speculating as after the end of winter, vipers generally spend
time basking close to their burrow.
Post-release monitoring: Regular surveys were limited to once a week, inorder to minimize disturbance. During 2010 and 2011, about 50 - 55 vipers werespotted using different methods. Most of the vipers were seen close to artificial
burrows, checked visually by using a pipe-camera. Vipers spotted were nothandled, just photos was taken for identification purpose. There were nine
individuals identified in 2010 and further eight vipers in 2011, with observations ofgravid females and births. The last released group contained six vipers that werepreviously implanted with VHF-tags, enabling their tracking over a period of 6 - 8months. To monitor predator presence camera-traps were used in 2012.

Major difficulties facedx Lack of information about optimal breeding conditions for the species.
x Grassland reconstruction was delayed significantly as removal of planted
forests had to overcome many bureaucratic obstacles.
x Effective ways of removal of invasive and alien plant species (Robinia
pseudoacacia, Solidago canadensis & Pinus nigra) had to be tested first.

50

Reptilesx Small enough VHFtags with long enoughbattery life wereneeded for tracking
vipers. After many
tested solutions, finallya technician at FIWI
developed the ones weare using now.
x High densities ofpossible predators likewild-boar, fox andbadger.

Major lessons learnedx Grassland
reconstruction seems
Baiting of rodent traps
simple when planningand proved really complex and difficult in the implementation phase.
x Despite some fears of genetic problems, Hungarian meadow vipers canreproduce annually with an average clutch size of 11, with a record of 27.
x Artificial burrows can be useful tool in providing semi-natural conditions andchance for regular checks. Even they can be used in translocating animals to
new sites.
x Post-release monitoring needs reliable remote tracking technique. Cameratraps can provide additional information on presence of predators.
x Although the target species is a venomous creature, general public is neutralor supporting the project.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The complex approach of conservation effort tried to tackle each element thatmight be responsible for the detected decline of the target species, involving
all stake-holders, NGOs, National Parks and state authorities who haveconnection to the subject. This effort was awarded by the European
Commission by naming the LIFE-project as “Best of the Best” in 2009.
x Captive breeding technique of Hungarian meadow vipers evolved during the
project to a level, that planning of any current or future repatriation can rely on.
x Habitat reconstruction effort and recent changes in management of viper
habitats influenced positively overall state of remaining viper inhabited sites.
x It would be too early to claim re-introduction effort totally successful, but there
are positive signs like observed reproduction in the wild. Hopefully in a few

51

Reptiles
years time we will have more proof of success in this field, and we can claim
the project “Highly successful”.
x Public opinion is rather positive about the conservation effort, thanks to careful
but widespread communication of project goals and results, e.g.. the regularly
updated website of the project: www.rakosivipera.hu/en/

References
Dankovics, R., Halpern, B., Pellinger, A., Péchy, T., Somlai, T., Sós E., Szövényi,G. & Takács, G. (2004) Rákosi vipera (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis) FajmegĘrzési
Terv (Hungarian Meadow Viper - Species Conservation Plan) - KvVM
Természetvédelmi Hivatala (Ministry of Environment and Water Affairs), 22 pp.
Edgar, P. & Bird, D. (2005) Action Plan for the Conservation of the Meadow Viper(Vipera ursinii) in Europe. Bern Convention European Action Plan, 32 pp.
Halpern, B. (ed.) (2007) A rákosi vipera védelme. (Studies on the conservation of
the Hungarian Meadow Viper.), Rosalia, Duna–Ipoly Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság
tanulmánykötetei 3., Budapest, 194 pp. ISBN 978 963 87687 3 5Nilson G. & Andrén C. (2001). The meadow and steppe vipers of Europe andAsia - the Vipera (Acridophaga) ursinii complex. Acta Zoologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 47: 87 - 267.
Újvári B., Korsós Z., Péchy T. (2000). Life history, population characteristics andconservation of the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis).
Amphibia-Reptilia 21: 267 - 278.

52

BirdsRe-introduction of vinaceous Amazon parrots inthe state of Sao Paulo, Brazil
André Becker Saidenberg1, Linda Wittkoff2 & William K. Wittkoff2
1- Epidemiology Department, University of Sao Paulo, World Parrot Trust, Brazil
andresaidenberg@usp.br
2- Lymington Foundation, Sao Paulo, Brazil fund.lymington@gmail.com

Introduction
The vinaceous Amazon (Amazona vinacea) is an endemic species of the Atlantic
rainforest and submontane mixed regions. In the past it was widespread througheastern South America, and now isolated in small islands of habitat due to heavy
deforestation coupled with capture for the illegal trade. An approximate number ofless than 2,000 individuals remain in Brazil, and populations in several states areclose to extinction (Birdlife International, 2013). The species is classified as
CITES I and listed globally Endangered by the IUCN as well as nationally andcritically endangered in the state of Sao Paulo (Birdlife International, 2013; Livro
Vermelho, 2008). From July 2011 to the present moment groups of vinaceous
Amazons were selected to participate in a re-introduction in a private protectedarea in the Atlantic Rainforest, at the state of Sao Paulo, Southeast Brazil. In thisarea the species had been declared extinct for at least 30 years and an effort forre-establishing it in its historical range is being carried on. Birds were chosen
according to their ability to fly, behavior, physical and health screening. All wereconfiscated and previously maintained as illegal pets having undetermined ages,
although considered as adults based on their sexual behavior.

Goals
x Goal 1: Re-introduction of the species in its historical range.
x Goal 2: Gradual
adaptation ofindividuals that would
remain long enougharound the release
area receiving
supplemental food inorder to be selfsustainable in the wild.
x Goal 3: Birds forming a
local population andremaining in the area
long enough to form
flocks before migrating
to other regions of theAtlantic Rainforest.
Released bird in the wild © Wallace & Wittkoff

53

Birdsx Goal 4: Formation ofpairs and breedingattempts.

Success Indicators

Pair inspecting a nestbox © Wallace & Wittkoffx Indicator 1: Survival of
most released individuals
forming an independent
flock.
x Indicator 2: Use of wild
food sources
demonstrating not being
dependent of
supplemental feeding.
x Indicator 3: Proof of
successful fledging ofoffsprings in the wild.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The chosen region for the re-introduction is located inside the
Lymington Foundation a 36 ha property of protected restored habitat which
promotes captive breeding of endangered parrot species as well as conservation
initiatives at this area and elsewhere. The Foundation area is also located within
the original distribution range for the species. The surrounding areas are notsubjected to agricultural or increased human expansion pressures and a good
relationship with the neighboring communities is maintained.
Implementation: Birds were subjected to a quarantine period and healthexams and later gradually installed in groups in a intermediate sized flight (3 m2)
in order to get used to the temperature, sights and sounds of the area as well as
to observe their behavior (pair formation and antagonistic interactions that would
need intervention). Once observed they were adapted and passed through a newseries of health checks, the groups were installed in a large suspended flight (12m long) for flight training and presentation of wild food types found in the region.
Branches of local trees with fruits and pods with varying diameters and with theirrespective leaves are offered frequently and set up in a way to force birds to fly tothem and use as perches. This is especially important for heavier birds ofAmazon parrot size and up to learn how to select an appropriate branch that will
support their weight in order to land safely and how to reach food in thin/hard toreach braches.
Observation of each individual’s behavior, weight and breast muscle development
checking allowed selection and release groups of 3 to 4 birds each time for easierfollow up instead of releasing many birds at once which could create somedifficulties on visual monitoring. These birds are closed in a 3 m section of theflight for a few days before opening the release hatch in the early morning offering
food at this platform as well on elevated feeders set in front of the flight path exit.

54

BirdsThe door is closed at night(to avoid the entrance of
predators) with any birds
that wish to come back tosleep inside and opened
the next morning. Whenthe group seems to beadapted, another isprepared also taking into
account the climate
conditions (not heavy
rainfalls or release in atime where wild foodsources might be scarcesuch as winter in thisregion). Artificial
nestboxes were also set
Release flight and habitat © Andre & Saidenberg
up around the release
area and immediately called the bird’s attention.
Post-release monitoring: Visual monitoring is done daily especially during
feeding times (morning and late afternoon) and birds are usually first located by
vocalization. More intensive searches are performed especially on the third day if
a new bird has not returned to feed. Since the ex-pet background creates some
additional difficulties on some individual’s adaptation, any bird that seems to havedifficulty to come back is offered food by the means of a mobile feeder locatedclose to the tree where it stays or if necessary the bird is captured and broughtback to the release area until it gets used to the surroundings and know when tocome back for supplemental feeding if necessary. A fact which usually does nothave to be repeated more than twice. Since distinctive color markings cannot beeasily used for this species to identify each bird individually (e.g. feather color
combinations) every individual can be identified by color marked with imping of acentral tail feather from a different species (e.g. golden conure, white swan, etc.)
as well as with stainless steel leg band (although of difficult identification fromdistance). Anodized aluminum colored bands were employed recently in a
number of birds with success. Monitoring includes the immediate vicinity of theproperty as well as reports from neighbors and inhabitants of the closest village (7km away). After one and a half year post release (June 2012), 16 out of 21
released birds could be accounted at the area on certain days although they havebeen seen more and more infrequently. The individuals have either joined a large
flock or stay in small groups visiting the release area only occasionally and being
seen eating wild food sources with no dependency on the supplemental feeders.
Breeding activity (copulation) was frequently observed with three pairs during thestart of the breeding season (September until March) and one pair laid three eggs
in an artificial nestbox with one embryo not developing more than one week, one
broken, and one infertile. Another pair laid fertile eggs in a dead palm tree hollow
successfully raising 3 fledglings.

55

BirdsMajor difficulties facedx Intensive pre-release preparation as well as the need to evaluate each bird’s
necessities considering their ex-pet background requiring intensive follow up
post release to intervene if necessary to guarantee a high percentage ofsurvivability.
x Keeping track of newly released birds on heavily forested and steep terrain
with no available open tracks.
x Territorial aggression by established birds toward new candidates during
breeding season required to temporarily recapture of a few previously released
birds until the new ones had adapted and could be part of the flock.
x Political obstacles created by colleagues and groups who disregard previous
re-introduction examples all around the world and consider it as a “novelty”
and therefore impractical carrying too many risks.
x Interference by other species such as invasion of nestboxes by Africanizedbees and wasps requiring removal and use of safe insecticides. Nocturnal
predation of at least one parrot by a big-eared opossum (Didelphis aurita), andthe presence of crab eating foxes (Cerdocyon thous) around the area
predating other free ranging birds in the property during the day. These latter
species currently lack their own predators for population control due past
extinctions and have become extremely common as the new top predators.

Major lessons learnedx For some birds it was found useful to temporarily limit the complete flight ability
to fly too far from the release area in the first days where some might get
disoriented by plucking two inner flight feathers from each wing which stillleaves plenty of flight ability. These grow back within a month when the bird isfully adapted to the surroundings.
x Necessity to prevent access and control common predators by the means ofadding plastic sacs wrapped around tree trunks and supplemental feeder’spoles covered with grease to prevent climbing predators.
x Importance of habituating parrots in captivity not to perch or forage close to theground (high perches and suspended feeders in the acclimation flight).
x Capturing and relocation of these common predators.
x Necessity of educating local people to the importance of the release andgetting their cooperation.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Successful establishment of the species in the area with reported breedingattempts as well as fledging of offsprings.
x Careful pre release preparation (flight training, health checks, and wild foodpresentation) as well as attention on each individual’s necessities (removing
birds from the main flight that are not being able to compete with stronger/56

Birdsmore aggressive ones, and re evaluation to add them back to the main flight at
a later stage).
x Guaranteeing that for the critical first 3 days after the release the birds are able
to have access to food and water and learn their way from the property area
back to the feeders.
x Attention to predator control.
x Training in captivity to be able to be competent in flight abilities, recognizing
wild food types as well as not to look for food at the ground level.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the help provided by the World Parrot
Trust, IBAMA-SP, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, Alessandro
D'angieri, and FAPESP grant 2010/51015-0.

References
Birdlife International. 2013. Species factsheet: Amazona vinacea.
<www.birdlife.org> 04/16/2013.
Machado, A. B. M., Moreira Drummond, G. M. & Paglia, A. P. (2008) Livro
Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameacada de Extincao, 1.ed., Brasília, DF:MMA;
Belo Horizonte, MG : Fundação Biodiversitas, 2v. 1420 p.

57

BirdsRe-introduction of crested ibis on Sado Island,Japan
Hisashi Nagata1 & Satoshi Yamagish,2,31- Associate Professor, Center for Toki and Ecological Restoration,
Niigata University, 8050 Ninocho, Nishi-Ku, Niigata, 950-2181, Japanhnagata@gs.niigata-u.ac.jp
2- Director, Hyogo Prefectural Park of Oriental White Stork, Sho-un-ji 128,
Toyo-oka, Hyogo, 668-0814 Japan3- Honorary Director General, Yamashina Institute for Ornithology, 115 Konoyama,
Abiko, Chiba, 270-1145, Japan yamagishi@yamashina.or.jp

Introduction
The crested ibis (Nipponia nippon), is endemic to east Asia and was historicallywidespread from Russia, China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan. The Japanese
population went finally extinct in the wild in 1981, when last 5 birds were captured
on Sado Island and were brought into a captive breeding program. Sado Island
has 855 km2 in area, and located at 40 km offshore from Honshu mainland, whereis situated at 280 km north of Tokyo. Seven birds were rediscovered in Shaanxi
Province, China, in 1981 after extinction of Japanese population. The crested ibis
is listed as Endangered in IUCN Red List and is in CITES Appendix I. The ibis has
been protected as a special natural treasure since 1952, and has been protected
as national endangered species since 1993 by Japanese Government. The
captive breeding attempt from Japan origin birds ended in failure when the last
bird died in 2003. However, the program has been sustained using birds broughtfrom China, and successful captive breeding has enabled implementation of plansto re-introduce the species to the wild. In order to re-establish a wild population are-introduction has
conducted on Sado Island
since September 2008.

Goals
x Main Goal: To establish
a self-sustained
population of crested ibis
coexisting with humanbeings on Sado Island.
x In order to achieve themain goal of reintroduction of crested ibis
on Sado Island thefollowings steps areimportant:
Crested Ibis (M67) foraging a loach in a
set-aside paddy

58

Birdsx Sub-Goal 1: To keep a
captive population of
ca. 220 ibises with highgenetic diversity forensuring re-introduced
individuals.
x Sub-Goal 2: To restore
the ecological food web
in which crested ibis
are positioned as
higher predators andumbrella species, byreducing pesticide orchemical fertilizer in the
agricultural ecosystem.
x Sub-Goal 3: To
maintain ‘Satoyama’
A foraging Ibis (F03) and a working farmer
landscape which will be(April 2011 before planting rice)
characterized bysustainable natural
resource management based on the benefits of living in harmony with nature.
This kind of landscape is preferable habitat for the crested ibis.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Released individual should be settled on Sado Island, and morethan 60% of individuals should survive until the following year.
x Indicator 2: Mean annual survival rate of adult birds should be better than
71%, which is identical to the Chinese wild population.
x Indicator 3: Re-introduced birds should produce viable offspring. Reproductive
success should exceed 57%, and it will be improved to 67%, which is identicalto the Chinese wild population.
x Indicator 4: Re-established population should maintain more than 60
individuals on Sado Island, which should include viable offspring.
x Indicator 5: Re-introduced population should be self-sustaining and show
gradual increase without releasing any additional birds.ȱ

Project Summary
Feasibility: The captive breeding program using Japanese origin birds ended in
failure when the last bird died in 2003. The captive breeding program has been
now sustained using birds brought to Japan from China since 1999. Japaneseand Chinese populations of the crested ibis have been confirmed to almost
identical by comparing whole mt-DNA sequences (Yamamoto, 2009). The lastcrested ibis inhabited mountain area before extinction (Yamashina & Nakanishi,1983). The previous range is protected as ‘Ko-sado’ National Wildlife Reserve,
which is 12,620 ha in area. The ibis foraged loaches, frogs, and invertebrates atterraced paddies and small streams, and nested mainly on pine trees (Yamashina& Nakanishi, 1983). Terraced paddies have been abandoned by population
decrease and population ageing on Sado Island because there is insufficient59Birdsfarmland for ricecultivation. Streams weremodified and werecovered in concrete.
Moreover, 90% of pinetrees were dead becauseof spreading pine wilt
disease. Japanese marten(Martes melampus
melampus) has been
introduced from themainland to control hare
population on Sado Island
in 1950s, which became apotential predator for theibis. Then, foraging andbreeding habitats for the
Fishway system installed at a paddy inibis have drastically
Kuninaka Plain - person with a straw hat is one
changed over the last 30of the authors - Dr. S. Yamagishi
years. People havelegends that the ibis washarmful for rice cultivation because of trampling on shoots just after rice planting.
Japan and local governments repeatedly gave local people environmental
education to build a consensus with farmers before re-introduction.
Implementation: In order to re-establish a wild population, the re-introduction
program of the crested ibis was announced by the Japanese Government, and it
has been implemented by The ministry of Environment, Japan, since 2005. The
ministry has established a Re-introduction Center for Crested Ibis equipped with alarge training aviary since 2007. In order to increase prey species, the local
government of Sado City, also encourages farmers to cultivate organic rice byreducing pesticides and/or chemical fertilizers. The local government hasestablished a certification system for organic rice which will require more than
50% reduction of pesticide and chemical fertilizer use with biodiversity enhanced
activities. These activities are installation of fishways, arranging biotopes, making
water channels within paddies, or flooding in winter. First release of the ibis
commenced on 25th September 2008, and 10 birds were ‘hard’ released, when
the captive population exceed 100 birds. In order to minimize conflict with
farmers, the first release was conducted after the harvesting of rice in fall. Anypair bonds did not establish in 2009 because only males settled on Sado Island
and all females dispersed to Honshu mainland. To promote quick settlement andflocking, birds have been ‘soft’ released since 2009. So far, 107 birds were reintroduced in 7 releases between 2008 and 2012. All re-introduced individuals
came from captive-bred stocks, which is maintaining almost 200 birds and isscattered in six facilities within Japan to minimize risk of infection.
Post-release monitoring: One-third of released birds were fitted with solarpowered Argos/GPS PTTs and locations are recorded every 3 hours in the60

Birdsdaytime. All individuals were also tagged with a bio-tip, uniquely color-ringed, andbanded with numbered rings. All birds staying on Sado Island were detected byintensive monitoring after the releases, even though PTTs were not fitted.
Information of birds detected by local residents has been also accumulated
through public phone call or web sites. Information of birds dispersed to the
Honshu mainland was also gathered through local branches of the Ministry ofEnvironment. Only four dead ibis were found and several birds disappeared
shortly after the release. We operationally treated birds as dead in the wild if there
were no sighting records for longer than 12 months. Nest locations, breedingschedules, individuals involved and nesting success have been recorded for all
nesting attempts since 2010. The causes of nesting failure have also beenrecorded, if identified. Only eight chicks out of three nests have fledged in 2012,
so far.

Major difficulties facedx Released individuals from the captive reared population showed a low
reproductive success. Hatching failure or infertility might be major causes of
low reproductive success.
x Many nests suffered from predation by crows and martens. Nine birds werealso killed by a marten which entered a large aviary while training for the third
release in 2010. Females fitted with PTTs were attacked by goshawks only insevere winter. Predation pressure might be high in the wild.
x Genetic diversity of captive population is almost a half of Chinese one because
captive population was established from only 5 founders which came from
China. It is sometimes difficult to get new founders with novel genetic
characters due to recent political issues between Japan and China.

Major lessons learnedx “Hard” release induced females to further breeding dispersal outside the islandand ‘soft’ release appears to encourage birds to remain near the release site
and to form a flock immediately after release. The number of females
dispersed to the outside is decreasing as the number of birds settled in Sado
Island increased.
x Adult crested ibises showed high annual survival rate (>0.7), if they cansurvive for 6 month after release (Nagata & Yamagishi, 2011). Birds survivingin the release event suffered higher mortality in summer than in winter.
x The crested ibis rely on paddies and surroundings as a foraging habitat (Endo& Nagata, in press). The ibis, however, cannot use paddies itself in summer,
when rice plants were grown up. Though loaches (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus)
were predominant prey species throughout the year, earthworms and large
insects become important prey items in summer (Endo & Nagata, 2012).
x The ibis can use any tree species even if they can put nesting materials on thefork of tree. This means nesting tree is not restricting factor of successful reintroduction for the crested ibis. Hand reared individuals, however, showed
lower mating success, and some cannot complete a nest.
x Crested ibis preferred agricultural ecosystems in lowland areas, so-called‘Satoyama’, that have been modified over a long history of interactions
between human and nature, to those in mountain areas.

61

BirdsSuccess of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reasons for success/failure:x Recently, almost the released birds tended to settle on Sado Island, as
population increased.
x Adults of crested ibises showed moderate survival rate (61%) for the first year,
and showed higher annual survival rate (~80%) after the second year from therelease (Nagata & Yamagishi, 2011).
x Though eight young of three nests fledged in 2012, the breeding success is
considerably lower than those of Chinese wild populations (Ding, 2004). We
do not know whether they are viable offspring or not, as it will take another two
years for young to reach breeding age.
x Current breeding performance is not enough to maintain the population without
the release of birds. Though captive reared individuals might show low
breeding success, it will gradually impove as offspring born in the wild will
increase.
x The effects of low genetic diversity and/or inbreeding depression are still
unknown.

References
Ding, C. (2004) Research on the Crested Ibis (in Chinese). Shanghai press ofscience and education. Shanhai, China, pp. 388. ȱEndo, C. and Nagata, H. (2012) Seasonal changes of foraging habitats andprey species in the Japanese Crested Ibis Nipponia nippon reintroduced on Sado
Island, Japan. Bird Conservation International. available on CJO doi:10.1017/
S0959270912000457
Nagata, H. and Yamagishi, S. (2011) Probability of sustaining re-introduced
population of Japanese Crested Ibis, Nipponia nippon, for 50 years on Sado
Island, Niigata. Reintroduction 1: 55-61. (in Japanese with English summary)ȱ
Yamamoto Y (2009) Genetic diversity of Crested ibis in East Asia (in Japanese),
In: BirdLife Asia (ed.) Proceedings of Workshop on crested ibis restoration in
China and Japan, BirdLife Asia, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 22-25ȱ
Yamashina Y, Nakanishi G (1983) Toki (Crested Ibis), Nipponia nippon: lost flightin the dusk (in Japanese). Kyoikusha, Tokyo.ȱ

62

BirdsRe-introduction of brown-headed nuthatch &eastern bluebird to South Florida pine
rocklands, USA
Gary L. Slater1, John D. Lloyd1 & Ray W. Snow2
1- Ecostudies Institute, P.O. Box 703, Mount Vernon, WA, 98273, USA
glslater@ecoinst.org & jlloyd@ecoinst.org
2- Everglades National Park, 40001 SR 9336, Homestead, FL 33030, USA,skip_snow@nps.gov

Introduction
The Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) inhabits a variety of open forest types, bothdeciduous and coniferous, in eastern North America. The brown-headed nuthatch(Sitta pusilla), a cooperative breeder, is endemic to pine forests in thesoutheastern United States. Both species remain common and widespread inappropriate habitat and are not included on any regional or national conservation
lists. They are listed by the IUCN as species of Least Concern. Although both
species require cavities for nesting, their breeding and foraging ecologies differ.
The bluebird relies on existing cavities, while the nuthatch is capable ofexcavation. Bluebirds forage on a variety of ground-dwelling insects and during
the winter consume small fruits. The nuthatch’s diet is dominated by pine seeds,
which it caches, and insects gleaned from the trunk and branches of trees. Bothspecies, along with three other cavity-nesting bird species, were extirpated from
Everglades National Park (EVER), Florida, USA following large-scale habitat loss
and degradation of the pine rockland (slash pine; Pinus elliottii var. densa)
ecosystem. The re-introduction of these two species was viewed as a test of the
progress made in the recovery of this fire-dependent ecosystem from logging andthe implementation of a natural fire-management program.

Goals
x Goal 1: Develop andimplement translocation
strategies for Eastern
bluebird and brown-headed
nuthatch.
x Goal 2: Monitor
reproduction and survival
rates in the re-introduced
population to evaluate
translocation methods andre-introduction success.
Goal 3: Establish viable
breeding populations in
EVER with a population sizeof >200 breeding

Eastern bluebird © Skip Snow63

Birdsterritories for eachspecies.

Success Indicators

Brown-headed nuthatch © Gary Slaterx Indicator 1: Short-term:
Released individuals andtheir offspring breed
successfully.
x Indicator 2: Short-term:
Population size increases
annually.
x Indicator 3: Short-term:
Demographic measures(reproduction and survival)in the re-introduced
population are similar to ahigh-quality reference
population (i.e., the donor

population).
x Indicator 4: Long-term: Populations maintain a growth rate >1.0.

Project Summary
Feasibility: A qualitative feasibility assessment indicated that pine-rockland
habitat in EVER could support breeding populations of Eastern bluebirds andbrown-headed nuthatches and that without re-introduction these species wereunlikely to recolonize on their own (Slater, 1997). Vegetation characteristics of theforest in EVER appeared comparable to those where large populations of
nuthatches and bluebirds thrived. In addition, snags, which often limit cavitynesters, were unusually abundant after Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The estimatedcarrying capacity of EVER forests was >200 breeding pairs of each species.
Implementation: We conducted translocations from 1998 - 2001 (Slater,
2001). We captured all nuthatches and most (76%) bluebirds from nearby source
populations in Big Cypress National Preserve, approximately 40 km from the reintroduction site; remaining bluebirds were captured from golf courses in Naples,
Florida, approximately 140 km away. Translocations of nuthatches, which
maintain year-round territories, were conducted from November to February to
avoid the peak of breeding activity, ensuring sufficient time to excavate nest
cavities. Because they are monomorphic and cooperative breeders, we only
conducted translocations when the entire group was captured. Nuthatches wereplaced in small (1 m x 1 m x 2 m) aviaries and held for 1 - 10 days. In Year 2, we
attempted to use large (2 m x 2 m x 2 m) aviaries; however, several nuthatchesdied and we returned to original methods. For bluebirds, we captured pairs as
they established territories (March - April), although we moved a few pair withdependent young (~10 days old) later in the breeding season. Bluebird pairs wereplaced in large aviaries and held for 1 - 3 weeks, except two pairs that nested andremained in captivity until the young fledged. We released bluebird pairs with
nestlings once the young had fledged and were capable of sustained flight.

64

BirdsAviaries were constructed to be mobile andpermit open views, while providing
protection from the elements. They
contained multiple perches, a nestbox forroosting, and food (mealworms, crickets)
and water. Release sites were selectedbased on the presence of suitable habitat,
and upon establishment releases wereconducted adjacent to occupied territories.
We captured and translocated 53
nuthatches. Six individuals died in theaviary, all within 24 hours, and 5 individuals
were released when their condition
appeared to deteriorate. Of the 42 released
in good condition, 25 (60%) established abreeding territory. We captured,translocated, and released 47 eastern
bluebird adults: 17 breeding pairs, 1 single
female, and 6 pairs with dependent young.
Pine rockland habitat
Overall, 31 of 47 (66%) adults established a© Lauren MacDade
breeding territory. Five of 18 juveniles were
killed inside the aviary by snakes or other predators, presumably crows, that
attacked them through the hardware cloth. Only one juvenile released establisheda territory in the subsequent year.
Post-release monitoring: We met our short-term indicators of success. We
found evidence of breeding in each year, with both translocated individuals andlocally-produced offspring reproducing successfully. Population size increased ineach year of the translocation period, reaching 31 and 38 adults, respectively, fornuthatches and bluebirds. Reproduction and survival estimates were either higher(reproduction) or did not differ (survival) in the re-introduced populations
compared to a high-quality reference populations during the translocation period
and two-year post-translocation period (Slater, 2003).
We conducted post-translocation monitoring from 2002 - 2003 and 2005 - 2007
for nuthatches and through 2009 for bluebirds. Success, based on population
growth rate estimates, following the cessation of translocations was mixed.
Following translocations, annual counts of adult nuthatches increased
dramatically, reaching a high of 87 adults in 2005, but then declined to 52 adults
in the following two years. Reverse-time capture-recapture models foundpopulation growth rate estimates were, on average, >1.0, although estimatesvaried annually (Lloyd et al., 2009). Models indicated that population declines in2006 - 2007 were due to low survival. We suspect that the effect of two
hurricanes in the fall of 2005 may have reduced food availability in subsequent
winters by stripping pine trees of their cones. Qualitative monitoring after 2007
indicated that nuthatch population size and distribution increased in subsequent
years.

65

BirdsBluebird populations following translocations increased to 46 adults in 2002, butthen declined and varied from 34 to 39 adults until 2009. Population models
yielded a population growth rate estimate of 0.92 (95% CI = 0.83 - 1.00),
indicating we failed to meet our criteria of success. Monitoring revealed two
potential factors stemming population growth. First, bluebird fecundity declined
substantially after translocations were discontinued, apparently from high levels of
predation, possibly mediated by declining cavity availability. Second, bluebirds,
especially juveniles, appeared vulnerable to mortality via vehicle collisions due totheir propensity to nest and forage along roadsides. Efforts to identify specificlimiting factors in 2008 - 2009 were unsuccessful and we failed to obtain
additional funding for further research.

Major difficulties facedx Successfully capturing the complete pair (bluebirds and nuthatches) or
cooperative group (nuthatch).
x Nuthatches mortality in the aviary due to stress inside the aviaries, particularly
for those individuals that were captured closer to the breeding season.
x Vulnerability of bluebird nestlings to predation inside the aviary, both frompredators that gained entry into the aviary and those external to the aviary.
x Increasing predation rates of bluebird nests after the cessation oftranslocations.
x Identifying limiting factors hindering population growth of eastern bluebirds inthe re-introduced population.

Major lessons learnedx The use of a lure bird to capture bluebirds increased capture successdramatically.
x Translocation success increased as population size increased for nuthatches;in the final two years of translocations, success increased to 73%.
x Most nuthatch groups and bluebird pairs did not maintain pair bonds following
release, indicating that future translocations may not need to focus on
capturing established breeding pairs.
x In the case of nuthatches, a relatively small number of translocated birds (42)was sufficient to establish a population.
x Long-term monitoring (>10 years) is required to fully evaluate re-introduction
success, and long-term funding is required to address unforeseen problems
and address causes for why re-introductions fail.

Success of project
Brown-headed Nuthatch:Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful¥
Reason(s) for success/failure:x The development of effective release strategies.

66

FailureBirdsx High rates of reproduction and survival leading to positive population growthrate, acknowledging the population did not reach the estimated carrying
capacity during our monitoring period.
x Population resiliency, which allowed the population to recover following astrong decline.
x The nuthatch’s ability to excavate its own cavities, particularly in snags ofsmaller size that are not desirable by other cavity-nesting species.
Eastern bluebird:
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The development of successful translocation strategies that resulted in a
bluebird population that initially grew following translocations; however, thepopulation remained small and did not grow as expected leading us todescribe the re-introduction as only partially successful.
x We suspect a combination of factors may be hindering population growth,
including cavity availability and road mortality factors.
x The declining cavity and snag availability in years following Hurricane Andrew,
perhaps in response to prescribed fires that consume more snags than theycreate.
x We failed to identify limiting factors in the population that could be addressed
through habitat management.

References
Lloyd, J. D., G. L. Slater & S. Snow. (2009) Demography of re-introduced Eastern
bluebirds and brown-headed nuthatches Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 955964.
Lloyd, J. D. & G. L. Slater. (2007) Environmental factors affecting productivity ofBrown-headed Nuthatches. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1968-1975.
Slater, G. L. (1997) Brown-headed Nuthatches and Eastern Bluebirds in southern
Florida pinelands: breeding biology, nest-site selection, and the influence of habitaton nesting success. M.S. Thesis., University of Florida, Gainesville.ȱ
Slater, G. L. (2001) Avian restoration in Everglades National Park (1997 - 2001):
translocation methodology, population demography, and evaluating success. Final
Report to Everglades National Park. Ecostudies Institute, Mount Vernon, WA.ȱSlater, G. L. (2004) Avian restoration in Everglades National Park: an evaluation of
the Brown-headed Nuthatch and Eastern Bluebird re-introduction program during
the 2-year post-translocation period (2002 - 2003). Final Report to Everglades
National Park. Ecostudies Institute.ȱ

67

Birds1980 - 2012: 32 years of re-introduction effortsof the hihi (stitchbird) in New Zealand
John G. Ewen1, Rory Renwick2, Lynn Adams3, Doug P. Armstrong4& Kevin A. Parker5
1- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park NW1 4RY,
London, UK john.ewen@ioz.ac.uk
2- Department of Conservation, Warkworth Great Barrier Area Office, 28 Baxter
Street, Warkworth 0910, New Zealand rrenwick@doc.govt.nz
3- Department of Conservation, Wellington Hawkes Bay Conservancy Office, PO
Box 5086, Wellington 6145, New Zealand ladams@doc.govt.nz
4- Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston
North, New Zealand D.P.Armstrong@massey.ac.nz
5- Institute of Natural Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 102904, North Shore
Mail Centre, Auckland, New Zealand k.parker@massey.ac.nz

Introduction
The hihi or stitchbird (Notiomystis cincta) is a rare New Zealand passerine listed
as Vulnerable by the IUCN (2011) and as Nationally Endangered by New
Zealand’s Department of Conservation (Miskelly et al., 2008). Hihi are the sole
representatives of a New Zealand endemic bird family, the Notiomystidae thatwas historically widespread and common over the main North Island andsurrounding offshore islands of the country. Following European colonization of
New Zealand the hihi suffered a rapid decline in range and numbers until by
about 1890 they had become restricted to a single remnant population on an
isolated offshore island, Little Barrier or Hauturu (3,083 ha). The relatively
unmodified forest ecosystem on Little Barrier supports a hihi population estimatedto be between 600 to 6,000 birds. The rough terrain and isolation make reliable
population estimates difficult although there are indications that hihi abundance
has fluctuated on theisland since the late
1800s. Beginning in 1980,
an ongoing national
recovery program aims toincrease the range andnumbers of hihi using reintroduction. Initially acaptive population wasestablished with the view it
would provide mostfounders for reintroduction, but later
harvesting from wild
populations has provided
most birds. To date there
have been 21
Male hihi © Eric Wilsontranslocations to eight

68

Birdsdifferent locations (see: www.hihiconservation.com). Here we review this recovery
program and highlight the mixed success but growing optimism surrounding
management of this species.

Goals
x Goal 1: Identify sites favorable to the establishment of unmanaged or
managed hihi populations and introduce hihi to the most favorable of these.
x Goal 2: Continuing to optimize management required to allow re-introduced
hihi populations to persist in otherwise unsuitable habitats.
x Goal 3: Maintaining a captive population of hihi to produce birds for reintroduction.
x Goal 4: Coordinated and ongoing movement of hihi between populations as
optimal management indicates (including, assessing suitable translocationsites, sustainable harvest for translocation, genetic management and reduced
disease transmission risks).

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Coordinating a national approach to monitoring to ensure survivaland breeding success is evaluated one year post release, and population
growth is estimated from survival and reproduction data.
x Indicator 2: Essential that monitoring is designed such that results can beevaluated and management adjusted to ensure optimal hihi recovery (using an
adaptive management model).
x Indicator 3: Existing translocated hihi populations are maintained and produce
enough birds to be available as founders for new translocations.
x Indicator 4: That the captive population is a net producer of hihi fortranslocation and that hihi production costs are competitive until a more costeffective or successful translocation technique is developed.
x Indicator 5: That global hihi numbers increase and are divided between
multiple viable sites to protect against catastrophe in any one site.

Project Summary
Feasibility: Habitat requirements for hihi are difficult to identify andsuccessful establishment at sites with populations of the more dominant bellbird(Anthornis melanura) and tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae) remains the acidtest for New Zealand restoration. However, the identification of key management
initiatives that promote population persistence make re-introduction a feasible
management approach. The New Zealand Government is committed to hihi
conservation under the Wildlife Act and limited funds and extensive staff timefrom the Department of Conservation (DoC) are allocated to this project.
Increasingly community based conservation groups are also becoming involved in
hihi management as it shares the responsibility for management of this species
and suitable sites. A national Hihi Recovery Group is convened by the DoC andincludes DoC staff, community conservation group representatives andresearchers. The purpose of the Hihi Recovery Group is to provide advice to hihi
managers, including identifying and evaluating re-introduction sites. Currently theHihi Recovery Group and managers of hihi populations benefits from generous

69

Birdscorporate sponsorshipfrom Wesfarmers
Industrial and Safety NZLtd. In all cases Maori iwi(tribal groups) areconsulted and theirsupport is obtained fromboth source and releasesites prior to anytranslocation. Iwi havekaitiaki (traditional
guardianship) over all
native species and thelocations where they arefound in New Zealand.
Little Barrier Island (Hauturu) © John Ewen

Implementation: The
practicalities and logistics
of hihi translocations and subsequent monitoring have been refined over multiple
translocation events. Early translocations were from the remnant population on
Little Barrier whereas more recently hihi have been translocated from establishedre-introduced populations and the captive breeding facility. Husbandry techniques
are well formalized and documented (e.g. Ewen et al., 2011a) and disease risk
assessments for translocation and preventative medications are continuallyrevised (Ewen et al., 2011b). The genetic ramifications of translocation have beenassessed and recommendations have been made to best manage current genetic
diversity and minimizing inbreeding accumulation (Brekke et al., 2011). Anothermajor transition has been from translocation to DoC managed reserves (mostly
remote offshore islands) to community driven restoration projects (often mixed
private and public lands on the main North Island). In all cases non-native
mammalian predators are either controlled, or ideally, eradicated prior to hihitranslocation.
Post-release monitoring: In most early re-introduction events translocated hihi
were colour ringed but no standardized re-sighting protocol had been developed
to accurately track their fates. Early monitoring inconsistently recorded
persistence of release individuals, evidence of breeding of these birds andrecruitment. Beginning in the early 1990s there was an effort to develop improved
monitoring methods of individual survival, and in some cases individual
reproductive success, across re-introduced hihi populations. This necessitatedongoing colour ringing of progeny in each re-introduced population andconducting regular and consistent re-sighting of ringed birds. These data are thenused to model population growth and demographic responses to management(Armstrong et al., 2002; Armstrong et al., 2007; Chauvenet et al., 2012). Current
monitoring methods work well at accessible sites, however where releaselocations are remote or include difficult terrain the quality of monitoring data is
considerably lower and remains a challenge. In addition, sites with mature forest

70

Birdsthat include natural nesting cavities for hihi make recording reproductive successmore difficult than at sites where artificial nest boxes are used.

Major difficulties facedx Lack of detailed knowledge of the resilience of the one remnant hihi population
on Little Barrier to continual harvesting for translocation or the habitat featuresthat allow the population to persist without supportive management.
x Difficulty in obtaining detailed post release survival data and ongoing survivaland reproduction data from some populations. This is due to a mix of sitecharacteristics (size and terrain), low density of hihi (at least initially), andmonitoring skills of personnel.
x Poor population persistence without management at release sites and in atleast one case uncertain population viability despite supportive management.
x Possible dispersal of hihi outside of protected areas at restoration sites locatedon the main North Island of New Zealand, and the difficulty in distinguishing
the effect of dispersal against the impacts on the population of any predatorsthat remain within an area despite control measures.
x Multiple problems in the captive breeding program including; (i) poor survival in
captivity, (ii) low numbers of individuals can be housed in any single aviary due
to aggression, (iii) high cost of maintaining the population and rearing young,and (iv) continual need for replacement of breeding birds from wild
populations.

Major lessons learnedx Hihi can be easily caught, held and transported for re-introduction. Over time
the techniques and husbandry requirements have been continually refined(details available in references or on request). A primary goal is to reducestress to birds during all stages of translocation and to minimize the time taken
for this process.
x Some hihi populations can grow with intensive supportive management.
Currently all reintroduced hihi
populations require
some form of
supportive
management. Targeted
monitoring is designed
to evaluate andoptimize management.
This is important wheremanagement is costly
and time consuming.
x Post-release
monitoring ischallenging but
provides valuable
information. The
Public release of hihi at Maungatautari 201171

BirdsRecovery Group is still developing a best approach to post-release monitoringfor each site.
x Convening a national Recovery Group that includes DoC staff, community
group representatives, iwi and NGOs, plus researchers benefits hihi
conservation. The Recovery Group allows cohesive action with maximal input
and agreement. It also provides an avenue to direct where research is
required and also for generating funding.
x Direct translocations have proven to be a more successful and cost effective
translocation technique compared to captive breeding, which has now been
discontinued.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Positive growth of re-introduced populations at some sites when supportive
management provided a varying mix of; (i) provision of sugar water foodsupplementation, (ii) provision of artificial nest boxes at some sites, (iii)management of nest mite parasites and, (iv) ongoing control or exclusion of
introduced mammalian predators.
x Despite supportive management some sites remain unsuitable, perhaps
associated with disease (Mokoia Island population) or dispersal outside ofprotected areas (Ark in the Park project of Waitakere Ranges) or possibly frompredation despite predator control attempts.
x All re-introduced populations require supportive management. The success ofmanaged populations is due to the willingness of many determined groups andindividuals to work together.
x The success of the project has been enhanced through collaborative
information sharing and stakeholder involvement via the Hihi Recovery Group.
x Captive breeding program discontinued due to poor survival in captivity
associated with disease and also an inability to hold many adult birds in thesame enclosures due to aggression. Excessive cost to produce only few
offspring relative to the ability to source large numbers of hihi for translocationfrom wild populations.

References
Armstrong, D. P., Davidson, R. S., Dimond, W. J., Perrott, J. K., Castro, I., Ewen,
J. G., Griffiths, R. & Taylor, J. (2002) Population dynamics of re-introduced forest
birds on New Zealand islands. Journal of Biogeography 29: 1-13.ȱ
Armstrong, D. P., Castro, I. & Griffiths, R. (2007) Using adaptive management todetermine requirements of re-introduced populations: the case of the New
Zealand hihi. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 953-962.ȱ

72

BirdsBrekke, P., Bennett, P. M., Santure, A. W. & Ewen, J. G. (2011) High genetic
diversity in the remnant island population of hihi and the genetic consequences of
re-introduction. Molecular Ecology 20: 29-45.ȱ
Chauvenet, A. L. M., Ewen, J. G., Armstrong, D. P., Coulson, T., Blackburn, T.,
Adams, L., Walker, L. & Pettorelli, N. (2012) Does supplemental feeding affect theviability of translocated populations? The example of the hihi. Animal
Conservation doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00522.x
Ewen, J. G., Parker, K. A., Richardson, K., Armstrong, D. P. & Smuts-Kennedy,
C. (2011a) Translocation of hihi Notiomystis cincta to Maungatautari, a New
Zealand mainland reserve protected by a predator-exclusion fence. Conservation
Evidence 8: 58-65.ȱ
Ewen, J. G., Armstrong, D. P., Empson, R., Jack, S., Makan, T., McInnes, K.,
Parker, K. A., Richardson, K. & Alley, M. (2011b) Parasite management intranslocations: lessons from an endangered New Zealand bird. Oryx (in press)ȱ
Miskelly, C. M., Dowding, J. E., Elliott, G. P., Hitchmough, R. A., Powlesland, R.
G. & Robertson, H. A. (2008) Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2008.
Notornis 55:117-135.

73

BirdsAugmentation of the Puaiohi population throughcaptive propagation and release on the Alakai
Plateau, Kauai, Hawaii, USA
Richard Switzer1, Alan Lieberman2, Jay Nelson3 & Lisa Crampton4
1- Associate Director of Applied Animal Ecology, San Diego Zoo Institute forConservation Research, 15600 San Pasqual Valley Road, Escondido,
California 92027, USA rswitzer@sandiegozoo.org
2- Research Fellow, San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research.
15600 San Pasqual Valley Road, Escondido, California 92027, USA
alieberman@sandiegozoo.org
3- Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish
and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088,
Honolulu, HI 96850, USA jay_nelson@fws.gov
4- Leader, Kauai Forest Bird Recovery Project, PO Box 27, Hanapepe, HI 96716, USA
crampton@hawaii.edu

Introduction
The Puaiohi, also known as the small Kauai thrush, is listed as CriticallyEndangered by IUCN/BirdLife and Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. It is one of only two remaining Hawaiian species in the genus
Myadestes, formerly comprising six Hawaiian species. (The Kamao, or large
Kauai thrush (Myadestes myadestinus), has been considered extinct since 1989).
The distribution of the Puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri) is currently limited to theupland, wet forests bordering the stream drainages of the Alakai Plateau, on theisland of Kauai, Hawaii, at an altitude of approximately 1,050 - 1,500 m. Althoughendemic to Kauai and always uncommon, the Puaiohi is thought to have been
more widespread and flexible in habitat use prior to the arrival of humans (Burney
et al., 2001). Historicalcensus data have been
variable due to the lack ofrigor in surveying effort.
Based on limited surveys,
the population in the mid1990s was thought to“conservatively exceed
200 birds” (Snetsinger etal, 1999). Due to its
diminished range andongoing threats, a captive
population wasdetermined to be
warranted as an
assurance against
extinction. This captive
Puaiohi © Robby Kohley/SDZG
population subsequently74Birdsacted as the source for anaugmentation program.
The wild Puaiohi
population is currently
thought to number 300600 birds (KFBRP, unpubl.
data).

Goals
x Goal 1: Establishmentof a captive population
as an assurance colony
to prevent extinction.
x Goal 2: Successful
captive propagation,
sufficient to provide
Overlooking the Alakai © Richard Switzer/SDZG
cohorts for reintroduction.
x Goal 3: Soft release methods to ensure high levels of post-releasesurvivability.
x Goal 4: Augmentation of the remnant Puaiohi population, through long-term
survivability and successful reproduction.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Successful development of effective techniques for the collectionof wild eggs, artificial incubation, hand-rearing, captive maintenance andcaptive breeding of Puaiohi.
x Indicator 2: Captive propagation to provide 6 - 12 Puaiohi annually that are“surplus” to the goals of species assurance, constituting release cohorts.
x Indicator 3: Short-term survivability rate of 50% for 28 days post-release.
x Indicator 4: Follow-up survey data indicating an increase, or at least a halt in
the decline, of the wild Puaiohi population; evidence of released birds showing
long-term post-release survivability for multiple years; evidence of released
birds breeding successfully in the wild.

Project Summary
Feasibility: In the mid-1990s, just as today, the remnant Puaiohi population wasunder pressure from a wide range of threats, including introduced predatory
mammals (e.g. black rats, cats), avian-borne diseases carried by introduced
Culex mosquitoes (avian malaria, avian pox), and the degradation of habitat byintroduced ungulates (e.g. pigs, goats) and invasive plants (e.g. ginger). The
majority of the Puaiohi’s remnant range is located in the Alakai Wilderness
Preserve, on a plateau near Mount Waialeale. Although the wet, upland forest
ecosystem of the Alakai is degraded by invasive plants and introduced mammals
in some locations, it is still some of the best quality forest in Hawaii and in the
Puaiohi’s historical range. Within the Alakai, native fruits (e.g. Vaccinium,
Cheirodendron, Styphelia) and invertebrates - the two major food types in the wild

75

BirdsPuaiohi diet - are still found. Puaiohi nest primarily in niches on cliff faces runningalong river drainages. The territoriality of the species may limit the availability ofnest-sites. Puaiohi are shy and secretive, presenting a challenge to survey andevaluate the impact of threats. The only total population estimate ever obtainedfor Puaiohi, from the early 1970s, is 177 + 96 individuals (USFWS et al., 1983).
Research in the mid-late 1990s suggested that the population numbered morethan 200 individuals, and the Puaiohi range possibly was expanding from anearlier contraction to only 20 km2 (Snetsinger et al., 1999). Further, more widespread, surveys indicated there were 300 - 500 Puaiohi in the wild by 2004
(Woodsworth et al., 2009). The altitudinal rise in the “mosquito line” - the elevation
limit up to which the Culex mosquito and the malaria parasite (Plasmodium
relictum) can exist - was considered an ever-increasing concern, likely putting
further pressure on the Puaiohi’s range.
Implementation: Due to the extinction threat to the Puaiohi, the initial goal
was to establish a captive, assurance population at the Keauhou and Maui Bird
Conservation Centers (KBCC and MBCC) - two captive breeding facilities
operated by the Hawaii Endangered Bird Conservation Program, a partnership
between The Peregrine Fund, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Hawaii
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, which was subsequently to be operated by the
San Diego Zoo Global. During 1996 - 1997, 19 Puaiohi eggs were collected fromwild nests and transferred to a temporary incubation and rearing facility on Kauai.
Fifteen eggs were viable and resulted in the hatching of 15 chicks. When robust
enough to travel to the Big Island, the chicks were transferred to aviaries at
KBCC, as the founders for the captive breeding program (Kuehler et al., 2000).
Between 1998 and 2011, the captive breeding program produced a further 420
viable/fertile eggs and hatched 336 more chicks, of which 268 were raised toindependence.
Between 1999 and 2012, 225 Puaiohi were transferred to either the Kawaikoi,
Koaie or Halepaakai river drainages within the Alakai, constituting 14 release
efforts. In preparation for leaving MBCC or KBCC, each bird was given a fullveterinary exam to ensure they were fit for release and carrying no pathogens.
Birds were transported to Kauai by inter-island plane and then transferred to theremote Koaie or Haleapaakai release sites by helicopter, or by vehicle and on footto the more accessible site at Kawaikoi. Birds were installed in 2.4 m x 2.4 m x
2.4 m pre-release aviaries, elevated on a predator-proof scaffold approximately
1.5 m above the ground. The area immediately surrounding the aviaries wasbaited with rodenticide. Up to 6 birds were held in each aviary for a pre-releaseacclimation period of 7 - 15 days. Native berries and vegetation were provided inabundance. Several days prior to release, each bird was captured, examined,
weighed, banded, and whenever appropriate, fitted with a radio-transmitter. Any
birds presenting concerns at this point were not released and three birds died in
the aviaries before release.
Of the 222 birds released, 176 (79.1%) were released at under one year of age.
The mean age at release was 445 days. Each cohort was released by simply
opening the hatch, with birds leaving the aviary at their own pace. Supplemental

76

Birdsfood was provided in andaround the open releaseaviaries for up to 1 month,
to facilitate the birds’
transition to wild foraging.
Post-release monitoring:
Whenever possible, birds
were monitored using
radio-telemetry up to 28
days post-release. The
monitoring effort varied
according to adaptive
management of releasemethods and availability of
personnel. In some years,
helicopter surveys aimed
Puaiohi chicks © Sharon Belcher/SDZG
to detect birds which had
dispersed long distances. During the initial 1999 release at Kawaikoi, all 14 birds
were monitored to assess survival, dispersal, and home-range establishment - all
14 birds survived up to 56 days post-release (Tweed et al., 2003). In later years,
the percentage of release birds with confirmed status at 28 days was as low as
8.3%. Of 222 birds released in total, 122 (55.0%) had confirmed status at 28 days
post-release. Of those 122 birds, 80 (65.6%) were recorded as alive. General
population surveys have resulted in longer-term observations of 20 released birds- paired up, nesting and raising at least 24 chicks to fledging (Tweed et al., 2006;
KFBRP, unpubl. data).

Major difficulties facedx Although managed by the State of Hawaii as a Wilderness Preserve, the
Alakai is operated for multiple purposes, including recreation and hunting.
Based on the scarcity of funding and lack of feasibility for ecosystem
restoration, minimal effort was made to restore Puaiohi habitat to its pristine
state. It is acknowledged that this represented both a less-than-perfectscenario and a challenge in the re-introduction effort. Additionally, throughout
the course of this re-introduction program, it appeared that mosquitoes had
invaded further into the Puaiohi’s remnant range.
x The largest sample group of released birds consisted of those with unknown
status at 28 days, represented by 100 birds (45.0%). The thickly forested
ridges, peaks and drainages of the Alakai plateau made radio-telemetry achallenge and impacted the evaluation of post-release survival and dispersal.
x There was low detectability of released birds long-term beyond the period of
the radio-telemetry effort. Some data exists on the detectability of banded, wild
birds, but this only reflects the pairs living at higher densities within the core
distribution. This limitation makes it challenging to evaluate the long-term
benefit of the released birds on the wild population.
x At the start of the re-introduction effort, little precise data existed on thereasons for range retraction, population and density of the Puaiohi. It is77

Birdspossible (but by no means certain), that core Puaiohi habitat was at its holding
capacity for territories, while habitat at the periphery of the range was being
encroached upon by a number of threats. Therefore re-introduction in
conjunction with only targeted amelioration of the threats impacting recruitment
may have had little benefit.
x By the end of the intensive captive breeding program in 2011, several chicks
showed signs of congenital abnormalities, presumed to be related toinbreeding depression. This should not be a surprise, based on more than 5generations of reproduction descended from only 14 wild founders and their 15
eggs, resulting in a decline in the genetic diversity of the captive flock to only
84%.

Major lessons learnedx The harvest of wild eggs, artificial propagation and productive captive breedingof the Puaiohi provided a valuable source of potential new recruits for the wild
population.
x Although the initial captive breeding program was established as an
emergency measure to prevent extinction, the re-introduction effort would havebenefitted from higher quality and more rigorous data on population, range,
ecology, reproductive success, limiting factors, epidemiology of introduced
disease, and other threats. This would have provided greater guidance for the
re-introduction effort.
x Attempts to augment sinking populations or establish new populations aremuch more effective if conducted in combination with other measures toameliorate the limiting factors.
x Similarly, the re-introduction program would have been more effective if othermeasures had been taken within a holistic approach to ecosystem restoration.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The establishment of the captive assurance colony was highly successful(particularly for a captive passerine program), with 222 birds provided forrelease.
x Near the midpoint of the reintroduction program, data collected from 2003 2006 indicated that there were 300 - 600 Puaiohi in the wild, and continuingresearch suggests that the population is probably stable (KFBRP, unpubl.
data). Even if the population estimates are imprecise due to difficulties inacquiring census data, it can be concluded that, at best, there was an increasein the wild population, and at worst, there was no significant decline in the
population. This is within the context of other endemic species in the Alakai
declining drastically over the same time-frame.
x Although it is challenging to assess the long-term contribution of released birds
to recruitment and population increase, at least 20 released birds successfully
bred in the wild.

78

Birdsx The re-introduction program provided the stimulus and momentum for more
extensive research of wild Puaiohi and other endemic species in the Alakai,
which is currently ongoing.
x Failure to tackle the major threats that are assumed to impact the wild
population has resulted in no significant increase in the range of the Puaiohi.ȱ

References
Burney D. A., James H. F., Burney L. P., Olson S. L., Kikuchi, W., Wagner, W.L.,
Burney, M., McCloskey, D., Kikuchi, D., Grady, F. V., Gage, R.,& Nishek, R.
(2001) Fossil evidence for a diverse biota from Kaua`i and its transformation sincehuman arrival. Ecol. Monogr. 7711: 615 - 641
Kuehler, C., Lieberman, A., Oesterle, P., Powers, T., Kuhn, M., Kuhn, J., Nelson,
J.Y., Snetsinger, T., Herrman, C., Harrity, P., Tweed, E., Fancy, S., Woodworth,B. & Telfer, T. (2000) Development of restoration techniques for Hawaiian
thrushes: collection of wild eggs, artificial incubation, hand-rearing, captivebreeding and re-introduction to the wild. Zoo Biology. 19: 263 - 277.ȱ
Snetsinger, T. J., Wakelee, K. M., and Fancy, S. G. (1999) Puaiohi (Myadestes
palmeri), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab ofOrnithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bna/species/461
Snetsinger, T. J., Herrman, C. M., Holmes, D. E., Hayward, C. D. & Fancy, S. G.
(2005). Breeding Ecology of the Puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri). The Wilson
Bulletin, 117(1): 72 - 84.ȱTweed, E. J., Foster, J. T., Woodworth, B. L., Oesterle, P., Kuehler, C.,
Lieberman, A.A., Powers, A. T., Whitaker, K., Monahan, W. B., Kellerman, J. &Telfer, T. (2003) Survival, dispersal and home-range establishment of reintroduced captive-bred Puaiohi, Myadestes palmeri. Biol. Cons. 111: 1 - 9.ȱ
Tweed, E. J., Foster, J. T., Woodworth, B. L., Monahan, B. B., Kellerman, J. L. &Lieberman, A. (2006). Breeding biology and success of a re-introduced populationof the critically endangered Puaiohi (Myadestes palmeri). The Auk. 123: 753 763.ȱ
US Fish and Wildlife Service. (1983) Kaua'i forest bird recovery plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildl. Serv. Portland, OR.
Woodworth, B., Lieberman, A., Nelson, J. & Fretz, S. (2009) Puaiohi. In Pratt T.
K., Atkinson C. T., Banko P. C., Jacobi J. D. & Woodworth B. L. (eds.)
Conservation Biology of Hawaiian Forest Birds: Implications for Island Avifauna.ȱ

79

BirdsField propagation and release of migratory Eastern
loggerhead shrike to supplement wild populationsin Ontario, Canada
Jessica Steiner1, Amy A. Chabot2, Tara Imlay3, Jean-Pierre L. Savard4& Bridget J. M. Stutchbury5 ,1- Species Recovery Biologist, Wildlife Preservation Canada, 5420 Highway 6
North, Guelph, Ontario, Canada jessica@wildlifepreservation.ca2- Research Associate, Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston,Ontario, Canada amy@chabotcuddy.ca3- Species Recovery Biologist, Wildlife Preservation Canada, 5420 Highway 6
North, Guelph, Ontario, Canada tara.imlay@gmail.com
4- Scientist Emeritus, Environment Canada, 801-1550 av d’Estimauville,
Québec, Canada Jean-Pierre.Savard@ec.gc.ca
5- Professor, Dept. of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto,
Ontario, Canada bstutch@yorku.ca

Introduction
The loggerhead shrike is one of two species of shrikes (Laniidae) in North
America, and the only shrike with an exclusively North American range. The
species has undergone one of the most persistent and drastic population declineof any North American passerine and is now largely extirpated from northeastern
North America, with the exception of a very small population in Ontario, where
recovery actions are focused. The Ontario population is classified as thesubspecies Lanius ludovicianus migrans, however recent research suggests it
represents a unique genetic cluster significantly different from L. l. migrans(Chabot, 2010). The known number of breeding pairs in the province ranged from
20 to 35 pairs in the past decade and the global population is likely less than 100
individuals. The
loggerhead shrike isprotected internationally(Canada, Mexico andUSA) by the Migratory
Birds Convention Act(1916), and L. l. migrans islisted federally in Canada
as Endangered under theSpecies at Risk Act.
Globally, the species isclassified as Apparently
Secure (IUCN). Thispasserine is unique in its
predatory and impaling
behaviors, and isequipped with a raptor-like
Loggerhead shrike © Larry Kirtley
beak. It is often

80Birdsconsidered a ‘flagship’species for grassland
birds, a guild of highconservation concern.

Goals
x Goal 1: Preserve thegenetic diversity ofloggerhead shrike ineastern Canada.
x Goal 2: Provide asuitable source of birds
for re-introduction toaugment the wild
population.
x Goal 3: Undertake
Shrike Chicks (10 days old) © Tracy Anderson
research to increase
the effectiveness of thebreeding and release program (apply adaptive management).
x Goal 4: Undertake other research to enhance management of the wild
population, e.g. disease (West Nile virus), diet, toxin studies, dispersal andmigration studies (radio-tracking, geolocators).
x Goal 5: Re-establish a viable, self-sustained, and broadly distributed wild
population of L.l. migrans in the current population range and re-establish thespecies in parts of its historical range in Canada.ȱ

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Breeding of L.l. migrans in captivity.ȱ
x Indicator 2: Survival and return of released captive-reared birds to breeding
grounds in Canada.ȱ
x Indicator 3: Captive-reared birds breeding in the wild.ȱ
x Indicator 4: Captive population retains genetic diversity (maintain 90% of thegenetic diversity of the founder population for 25 years).ȱ
x Indicator 5: An increase in the number of breeding pairs in the wild in Canada.

Project Summary
Feasibility: Population monitoring began in the 1980s with annualcomprehensive surveys starting in the early 1990s. Evaluation of habitat
availability indicated the presence of extensive suitable but unoccupied habitat in
the historical range in Ontario. At the time this program was established, captive
breeding of shrikes was already underway for other subspecies: L. l. mearnsi and
L. l. excubitorides. Release site selection considered habitat suitability at the site,extent and proximity of other suitable habitat, projections of land-use over time,logistics, community support, and the existence of wild pairs in the region.
Implementation: Founder stock was obtained as nestlings (n = 48) from wild
pairs in 1997 and 1998. Breeding occurred at the Toronto Zoo (Toronto, Ontario)

81Birdsand McGill University (Ste Anne de Bellevue, Quebec) initially to obtain a viable
captive population (i.e. maintain genetic goals). In 2001 an experimental in-situ
field propagation program was initiated. Current release efforts focus on
supplementing existing populations rather than re-establishing locally extirpatedones. Pairs are bred in large field enclosures within suitable shrike habitat; while
food (crickets, mealworms and hopper mice) is provided, birds are also able tohunt wild prey entering through the mesh walls, and are exposed to natural
predators (e.g. merlin (Falco columbarius)). Young are soft-released into theirnatal territory and receive supplemental food. Young are also produced at ex-situ
breeding facilities, with young “hacked out” at the field sites. From 2001 - 2012,
663 juvenile shrikes were released with ca. 100 young released annually in someyears (2006 to 2010). Thirty confirmed sightings of returning birds have been
made to date, with the first captive-reared bird returning to successfully breed witha wild shrike in 2005 (Nichols et al., 2010). The return rate observed for captivereared shrikes is in-line with that reported for wild juveniles in Ontario andelsewhere, and productivity in the wild is similar to that of wild pairs in theprovince (Lagios et al., in press). Evaluation of release techniques (e.g. releasegroup size, age) has allowed for adaptive management to improve results interms of returning birds (Lagios et al., submitted).
West Nile virus (WNV) and Capillaria sp. (nematode parasite) have been the
major identified disease concerns for the program. The captive population is
vaccinated annually against WNV since 2008. Capillaria exists normally within thewild population; routine fecal/pellet screening and treatment aim to reduceparasite burdens in captive birds rather than completely eliminate it. From 2007 2011 the program experienced substantial fledgling mortality and deaths of young(<4 years old); necropsy results were largely inconclusive but ruled out aninfectious disease agent. In 2010 we began consultations with epidemiologists tofurther investigate causes but no obvious cause was identified. The issue is likely
multifactorial including environmental conditions, stress from double clutching andcage density. Collaboration with epidemiologists to identify and mitigate
contributing factors continues.
The captive breeding and release program is tightly integrated with other recovery
activities, e.g. wild population monitoring, color banding, habitat restoration andstewardship, outreach and education, and research to address knowledge gaps.ȱ
An external review of the program (Kleiman & Lynch, 2008) concluded that therelease program had achieved success relatively early (as defined by returning
birds successfully breeding in the wild) and suggested that the program would
ultimately provide a model for future recovery programs for other shrike
populations in North America and other at risk migratory passerines.
Post-release monitoring: All released birds are colour banded; since 2009 a
unique 4-colour combination has been used. Immediate post-release monitoring
follows birds as they disperse from the field site and intensive field staff surveys
spot returning birds in subsequent seasons. These efforts are supplemented by avolunteer Adopt-a-Site program and additional outreach to the birding community
to “Spot a Shrike, Save a Species”. A network of partners and volunteers was82Birdsestablished in the U.S. to
aid in detection of banded
shrike along migrationroutes and on wintering
grounds. There have been
several recent sightings ofbanded birds in the U.S.,
two of these captivereared birds appearing in
Ohio and northern Virginia
during migration.
A radiotelemetry study
found that shrikes tolerateradio-transmitters (andbehave normally) and we
observed 75% survival of
Observing captive loggerhead pairs
release young pre© Wildlife Preservation Canada
migration (Imlay et al.,2010). Birds moved too quickly out of Canada to track migration routes, even withthe use of aerial telemetry. To locate the wintering grounds, geolocators were
deployed on 108 shrikes from 2009 - 2011. Although 3 geolocator birds returned
to Ontario and were successfully re-trapped, in all cases the devices had failed
prior to onset of migration. Further trials with captive shrike suggest that the
failures are not caused by the shrikes themselves and we will continue this study
in 2013.

Major difficulties facedx Migration routes and wintering grounds for the Ontario population are
unknown, therefore we cannot yet monitor birds or determine threats outsideof the breeding season.
x Unexplained mortality in the captive population undermines its genetic viability
and the numbers released.
x It is difficult to maintain community goodwill towards the release program when
there is a lack of clarity surrounding enforcement of provincial endangered
species legislation and the federal Recovery Strategy which identifies Critical
Habitat on private lands; community polarization impacts property access andmonitoring efforts.
x Sustained funding to maintain a full-scale and long term program, that crosses
geo-political boundaries.
x Issues with field surveys include high dispersal of young, nesting on private
properties, low detectability of shrikes.

Major lessons learnedx Successful breeding and high productivity achieved through in-situ breeding
conditions.
x Young that are parent-reared in-situ, and provided with live prey, demonstrate
a full range of natural behaviors and show a high rate of survival post-release.

83

Birdsx Due to the species’ foraging behavior, cage height was an importantdimension in reducing stress and increasing breeding success and productivity(increasing cage height from 2.4 m to 3.0 m had positive results).
x Ongoing communication, good-will, and partnership development withstakeholders is key; this includes local landowners, and industry, e.g. beef,
aggregate, renewable energy (wind and solar).
x Successful recruitment of captive-reared young into the wild population oversuccessive years shows captive breeding is a viable conservation tool for
migratory birds.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Production and release of large numbers of young annually.
x In-situ breeding conditions, soft-release and supplemental food.
x Integration of release program with other recovery activities, including surveys
of wild population, stakeholder engagement and habitat stewardship.
x Recruitment of captive-reared individuals depends on their successful
migration, wintering in an unknown location, and return to breeding grounds.
x Despite the successful captive breeding program; the wild population has notincreased in size due to threats during the non-breeding season.

References
Chabot, A. A. (2011) The impact of migration on the evolutionary and conservationof an endemic North America passerine: Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).
PhD Dissertation, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.ȱ
Imlay, T. I., J. F. Crowley, A. M. Argue, J. C. Steiner, D. R. Norris & Stutchbury, B.
J. M. (2010) Survival, dispersal and early migration movements of captive-bredjuvenile eastern loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus migrans). Biol. Conserv.
143, 2578-2582.ȱ
Kleiman, D. G. & Lynch, C. (2008) Final report: Results and recommendations forthe captive breeding/release program for the Eastern Loggerhead Shrike.
Unpublished report to Canadian Wildlife Service. 105 pp.ȱLagios, E. L., K. F. Robbins, J. M. Lapierre, J. C. Steiner & Imlay, T. L. (2013)
Recruitment of juvenile, captive-reared eastern loggerhead shrikes into the wild
population. Oryx, in press.ȱ
Nichols, R. K., J. Steiner, L. G. Woolaver, E. Williams, A. A. Chabot, Tuininga, K.
(2010) Conservation initiatives for an endangered migratory passerine: field
propagation and release. Oryx 44, 171–177.

84

BirdsRe-introduction of the oriental white stork forcoexistence with humans in Japan
Yasuo Ezaki1,Yoshito Ohsako2 & Satoshi Yamagishi3
1- INES, University of Hyogo/Division of Research, Hyogo Park of the Oriental White
Stork, Shounji 128, Toyo-oka, Hyogo 668-0814 Japan ezaki@hitohaku.jp
2- INES, University of Hyogo/Division of Research, Hyogo Park of the Oriental White
Stork, Shounji 128, Toyo-oka, Hyogo 668-0814 Japan yosako@stork.u-hyogo.ac.jp
3- Director, Hyogo Park of the Oriental White Stork, Shounji 128, Toyo-oka, Hyogo
668-0814 Japan yamagishi@yamashina.or.jp

Introduction
The endangered oriental white stork (Ciconia boyciana) (OWS) is distributed
within the Far East with a global population size estimated to be between 1,000 to
2,499 birds (IUCN, 2012). In Japan the OWS was common up until the first half of
19th century, but declined in number thereafter due to human persecution. The
last wild population persisted for a time in the Tajima District, in the northern partof Hyogo Prefecture, but had died out completely by 1971 due to widespread
pesticide application. The Government of Hyogo Prefecture had established acaptive population in the 1960s, and successful breeding started in 1989. With anincreasing captive population size, the government planned a re-introduction
project aiming at restoring the harmonious coexistence between humans andstorksAll these programs concerning conservation and re-introduction of the
OWS have been practiced under close cooperation with the Agency for Cultural
Affairs, Japan. The first releases of captive-bred bird by the Hyogo Park of the
Oriental White Stork (HPOWS, established 1999 by Hyogo Prefecture) took placein Tajima in the autumn of 2005 (Ohsako et al., 2008).

Goals
x Goal 1: Reestablishment of theJapanese OWS
population incoexistence withhumans.
x Goal 2: Establishmentof a meta-population
structure in Japan.
x Goal 3: Linkage withthe continental
populations to fusethem into a metapopulation.
x Goal 4: Contribution to
the global conservationof the species.

Oriental white stork85

BirdsSuccess Indicators

Stork habitat - co-existing with humansx Indicator 1: Survival of
released birds.
x Indicator 2:
Reproduction in the wild.
x Indicator 3:
Establishment of otherlocal populations in Japan.
x Indicator 4:
Maintenance of genetic
diversity within the birds inthe wild.
x Indicator 5:
Understanding andcooperation by local
communities promoting
coexistence with thestorks.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The original habitat of the OWS is floodplain where intensive
rice cultivation has been taking place for a long time in Japan. Wild storks in thepast naturally foraged within paddy fields and they were regarded as a nuisancethrough their trampling of seedlings of the rice plant. Thus it was a key challenge
to persuade the local people to support the re-introduction. The project was basedon the IUCN Guidelines for Re-introduction (IUCN, 1998) and developed into an
action plan in 2003 under the slogan “Environment where storks can live is also
safe and secure for humans” (CROWS, 2003). With the agreement of the local
community a Liaison Committee for Re-introduction was organized withparticipation from all stakeholders, and efforts were made to improve both thenatural and the social environment, e.g. restoration, education, and a newly
developed cultivation method that helps production of prey animals.
Implementation: Twenty-seven storks were released by HPOWS between 2005
and 2010 within the rural area of Toyo-oka City, situated at the northernmost partof Tajima District. Artificial nest towers last used by wild birds in the 1960s, wererenovated by stakeholders with the result that the wild storks again use them fornesting. Some birds were artificially fed to encourage their settlement, and asignificant number of birds foraged in an open cage within the property of
HPOWS where prey fish are supplied every day to flightless display storks.
Post-release monitoring: Monitoring and scientific studies have been
conducted by HPOWS researchers. Of the 24 released birds (3 of the 27 weretaken back into captivity again) 16 survived at the start of the 2012 breeding
season as the first generation in the wild, a 67% overall survival rate. The first pair
was formed in 2006 and the number of pairs increased from 2 in 2007, 5 in 2008,
6 in 2009, 7 in 2010 and 9 in 2012. The first fledgling of the second generation
was thus produced in 2007 and by 2011 a total of 36 second generation birds had

86Birdsfledged, with 29 of them still alive at the start of the 2012 breeding season. The
annual survival rate of young after fledging is as high as 81%. With the addition ofa female believed to have immigrated from the continent, the total population size
has increased to 46. By monitoring an almost fully banded population, it was
shown that this species has territories defended by pairs throughout the year, andimmature birds younger than four years live as floaters. Based on scientificanalysis of monitoring data a grand-design for re-introduction was developed by
HPOWS (2011).
Although young birds fly long distances and visit various districts of Japan, theyusually return to Tajima centered by Toyo-oka Basin after a short stay in each
district, possibly indicating some difficulty in natal dispersal and suggesting low
food availability in rural areas where bio-productivity has declined due to achange in the water-supply system for paddy fields all over Japan. Other thanthis, the limited genetic variability of released birds, with highly biased breeding
success among pairs, increases the probability of inbreeding in the wild. Genetic
analysis of skins of the past wild birds (Murata et al., 2004) suggests that they
were in the midst of an extinction vortex due to inbreeding (HPOWS, 2011). In
order to lower the probability of inbreeding in the present population, birds
belonging to new families were added to the captive population, with some ofthem being released in 2012. In addition, various attempts are conducted toreduce the birds’ use of artificial feeding (Ohsako & Ezaki, 2011).
Another problem is the fact that some pairs use nest-towers built at the center ofa paddy field, completely in open space. As the past wild population nested inpine trees on hillsides, pairs were invisible to each other as long as they stayedon the nest. But with introduction of nest-towers just before the extinction of thewild population, birds started to nest in open space and this arrangement is
considered by local people to be the normal situation. After re-introduction, eggs
and chicks in tower nests are sometimes attacked by neighboring pairs while theparents are absent from the nest, indicating that those nest-towers should be
moved to hillside. In orderto solve this problem
HPOWS experimentally
moved a nest-tower justbefore 2012 breeding
season. Efforts toestablish other local
populations also havestarted. A pair of captive
storks were lent fromHPOWS to Fukui
Prefecture where the local
government is now
engaged in captive
breeding with the aim ofsupporting re-introductionin the future. Lastly, in
Third generation wild storks

87

Birds2012, a total of four birds of the third generation fledged from two nests, one ofwhich was reared completely free from artificial feeding. We call this the “first
genuinely wild” bird.

Major difficulties facedx Poor prey animal communities, especially that of fish.
x Dependence of storks on artificial food.
x High probability of inbreeding.

Major lessons learnedx It is very difficult to restore the Japanese rural environment in the face of bioproductivity declines due to a changing system of paddy field irrigation. But it
must be restored at least partially using any possible engineering methods, as
this will contribute not only to re-introduction but also to conservation of local
biodiversity, especially in aquatic animals.
x It is easy for the storks to depend on artificial feeding and it is difficult to
reduce reliance on that, mainly because of social reasons, especially the mindof local people loving the beautiful bird.
x Education is important to persuade people that wild animals are not free fromdeath, especially when they are young.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Acclimatization and training were successful due to the high adaptability of thestorks.
x It is easy for the storks to form pairs in the wild, whereas it is difficult toachieve this in captivity.
x The storks are attractive and iconic enough to promote regional development
and local environmental action.
x Establishment of the Liaison Committee for Re-introduction by Hyogo
Prefecture.

References
CROWS (Committee for the Re-introduction of the Oriental White Stork) (2003)
Action plan for the reintroduction of the Oriental White Stork. Tajima District
Administration Office, Hyogo Prefecture. 6pp. (in Japanese)
HPOWS (Hyogo Park of the Oriental White Stork) (2011) Grand Design of the
Oriental White Stork Re-introduction Project. Hyogo Park of the Oriental White
Stork. 36 pp. (in Japanese)88BirdsIUCN (1998) Guidelines for Re-introductions. Prepared by IUCN/SSC Reintroduction specialist group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 10
pp.
IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. http://
www.iucnredlist.org/details/106003836/0.
Murata, K., Satou, M., Matsushima, K., Satake, S. & Yamamoto Y. (2004)
Retrospective estimation of genetic diversity of an extinct Oriental White Stork(Ciconia boyciana) population in Japan using mounted specimens andimplications for reintroduction programs. Conservation Genetics 5: 553 - 560.
Ohsako Y. & Ezaki Y. (2011) Experimental fasting and its effect on released freeliving Oriental White Storks that depend on artificial feeding. Reintroduction 1: 45- 53. (in Japanese with English summary)Ohsako Y., Ikeda H., Naito K. & Kikuchi N. (2008) Re-introduction project of the
Oriental White Stork in coexistence with humans in Japan. In the proceedings ofInternational Environmental Conference: “A Healthy Amur for a Better Life”
pp.189 - 199. Khabarovsk.
Soorae, P. S. (ed.) (2010) Global Re-introduction Perspectives: Additional casestudies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group. Abu
Dhabi, UAE. 352 pp.

89

BirdsRe-introduction of red-billed oxpecker incentral Zimbabwe
Clive M. Swanepoel1, Janine Walls (ex Honywill)2 & Kevin M. Dunham3
1- Formerly General Manager Debshan Ranches, 10 Belgravia Mews, Isobels Lane,
Belgravia, Harare, Zimbabwe cmswanie2012@yahoo.com
2- Formerly Research Assistant, Wildlife Unit, Veterinary ResearchLaboratory, Harare, Zimbabwe. Current address: PO Box 89023 Torbay, 0742,
Auckland, New Zealand janinekaren57@gmail.com
3- PO Box CH385, Chisipite, Harare, Zimbabwe faykevin@zol.co.zw

Introduction
The red-billed oxpecker (Buphagus erythrorhynchus) ranges from southern Africa
to north-eastern Africa. Although its conservation status is Least Concern (IUCN
Red List), its population range and number are declining. Population decreases
followed declines in the populations of the hosts (e.g. buffalo, black rhinoceros)on which the oxpecker perches to feed, eating ticks; and the widespread dippingof cattle in acaricides (based on arsenic, organochlorine, or organophosphate
compounds) that kill both ticks and oxpeckers. Recently, dips that control ticks but
which do not kill oxpeckers (Amitraz ,or pyrethroid-based) have become available(Couto, 1994). The red-billed oxpecker was re-introduced to Shangani Ranch toaid in tick control on both cattle and wild animals. Shangani Ranch (c. 480 km2)
lies on the highveld in central Zimbabwe. Mean annual rainfall is c. 600 mm, witha single rainy season during November - March (Dunham et al., 2003). The main
vegetation types are: Terminalia sericea woodland and wooded grassland;
Brachystegia–Julbernardia woodland; Colophospermum mopane woodland andshrubland; Acacia-Combretum woodland on alluvial soils; and hydromorphic
grassland. The ranch isused primarily for beef
production, but supports
significant populations ofwild herbivores, including
impala, kudu, tsessebe,eland, zebra and giraffe,
as well as predators suchas leopard, cheetah andjackal.

Goals

Captured oxpecker being measured after
removal from mist net © Tracey Couto

90x Goal 1: Create a selfsustaining population of
the red-billed oxpecker on
Shangani Ranch.
x Goal 2: Establish the
red-billed oxpecker as anatural means of tickBirdscontrol on Shangani
Ranch, so that the useof chemical acaricides
could be reduced oreliminated.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Sightings ofoxpeckers on the ranchduring the days andweeks after theirrelease, indicating thatthe birds were alive
and that they had notleft the release area.
x Indicator 2: Sightings ofCattle a major host for released oxpeckers on
juveniles in the years
following the release,
Shangani Ranch © Clive Swanepoel
indicating thatoxpeckers were breeding on the ranch.
x Indicator 3: Increased frequency of sightings across the ranch during the years
after the release, indicating that both the population number and range wereincreasing.
x Indicator 4: A decline in the number of ticks on the ranch’s cattle, suggestingthat oxpeckers were controlling tick numbers.ȱ

Project Summary
Feasibility: The re-introduction was undertaken jointly with the Wildlife Unit of theVeterinary Research Laboratory and the Ornithology Unit of the then Departmentof National Parks & Wild Life Management, which determined the criteria foroxpecker re-introductions (Mundy, 1992). These were that: no purple-label (verytoxic to mammals) acaricidal dips be used within 10 km of the release site; therelease area contain >500 tick-infested large herbivores (i.e. wild herbivores, orundipped cattle) in >30 km2; and at least 20 birds are released (recognising thatbirds roost communally, and that ‘helpers’, probably youngsters from an earlier
brood, assist a breeding pair at the nest). Use of purple-label dips on Shangani
Ranch had been discontinued, the ranch was big (480 km2) and large, wild
herbivores were numerous (>7000 - mainly impala, tsessebe, warthog and kudu were counted during a helicopter-based, total-area survey during 1993).
Implementation: Twenty-two red-billed oxpeckers (19 adults and 3 sub-adults)
were captured at Rukometjie Research Station in Mana Pools National Park,
northern Zimbabwe, during 30th September - 1st October 1992. This was outside
the breeding season, which coincides with the rains. The birds were caught
during the early morning in mist nets erected near a pen containing a small herdof cattle that was used during tsetse fly research (Couto, 1994). When caught in
the net, an oxpecker would often utter distress calls that attracted other membersof the family group, which then became caught. After removal from the net, each91

Birdsbird was weighed,measured, ringed,
checked for moult, and its
age determined. While theoxpeckers were handled,their feet were wrapped insmall pieces of adhesive
tape to protect the
researcher from theneedle-like claws and thus
make handling easier.
The captured oxpeckers
were placed in acollapsible aviary
measuring 2.4 m x 2.4 m x
1.2 m and sited in a
Captured oxpeckers in temporary aviary priorsecluded, shady position.
to transfer to release area © Janine Walls
The aviary wasconstructed with a tubular-steel frame and 1 cm wire-mesh sides. A small
doorway in one panel provided access. Shade cloth covered part of the aviary toprovide extra shade and reduce external stimuli. Perches were provided in thecorners and drinking and bathing water was freely available in shallow troughs on
the ground. In the centre of the aviary, a 200-litre metal drum was placed on its
side, with sack cloth tied around it to simulate the body of an animal. On the top of
the drum were secured plastic Petri dishes that were filled three times daily withunclotted bovine blood. The birds were also fed a mixture of chopped liver, egg
and Pronutro (a commercial meal for people, manufactured from maize, soya andsugar, with added yeast, minerals and vitamins), spoonfuls of which were placedon the drum.
Catching the oxpeckers in the aviary could be stressful for the birds. First, theperches, drum and other obstructions were removed and then the birds werecompressed into one end of the aviary with a sheet attached to an aluminium
frame just less than the width of the aviary. Once caught, the birds were placed insmall, portable cages for transfer by road to Shangani on 2nd October. There, thebirds were placed in another aviary, where the food was similar to that at thecapture site. Because the birds arrived at Shangani after dark, they were left intheir travel boxes overnight and these were opened at first light the next morning.
Two birds had died during transit or overnight, and a third died soon after thebirds were freed into the aviary. The remaining oxpeckers were caged for fourdays and fed and watered daily. On 6th October, nineteen birds were caught in theaviary, transported in boxes to the centre of the ranch (a 40-minute journey byroad) and released. They were freed close to a herd of cattle, on which they soon
settled, prompting the cattle - ignorant of oxpeckers - to run off.
Post-release monitoring: Post-release monitoring of oxpeckers involved
incidental observations of birds by staff during cattle management operations, e.g.

92

Birdswhen cattle were rounded up. Sightings provided information about the spatial
distribution and dispersal of released birds. For example, one bird was seen 17
km from the release site about three months after release. And during the first six
months of 1995 (27 - 33 months after the release) ranch staff recorded groups of
1 - 9 oxpeckers on 52 days. The first sign of breeding was a nest in an Acacia
tree during November 1993, and later the presence of juveniles in recordedgroups indicated continued successful breeding. Oxpeckers were often on cattle,
but also on kudu and warthog. Birds were observed on neighbouring ranches andduring 1998 five were seen approximately 90 km from the release site (Couto etal., 2000).

Major difficulties facedx Some neighbouring cattle ranches continued to use purple-label (highmammalian toxicity) acaricides.

Major lessons learnedx The oxpeckers were transferred by road to Shangani and arrived there in theevening, after dark. They were left in their travelling boxes overnight andreleased into the aviary at first light the next morning. Two birds had diedduring transit, or overnight. The other birds flew straight to the water, where athird died. Subsequent observations revealed that the birds did not feed during
the early morning, or late afternoon - hence they could not have been fed orwatered immediately after they arrived at Shangani, because by then it was
dark. The road journey had been long and these deaths emphasized theimportance of oxpeckers being regularly fed and watered and checked for heatstress while in transit.
x The oxpeckers in the aviary at Shangani spent much time on a high ledge andthis observation suggested that a good way to catch the caged birds was toposition roosting boxes with closeable entrance holes high in the aviary. The
roosting birds could be shut in the boxes during the night prior to their transfer
and, the next morning, the roosting boxes could be used as travelling boxes tomove the birds to the release site.
x The re-introduced population of red-billed oxpeckers had no major impact on
the numbers of ticks found on cattle, although the fluctuations in tick numbers,
especially of the brown ear tick, seemed to be less extreme and less frequent
than previously. Recent studies have shown that tick loads on cattle areunaffected by oxpeckers and that oxpeckers significantly prolong the healing
time of wounds by feeding on blood at the site of these wounds (Weeks,
2000). Hence, regular dipping of cattle with green-label (low mammalian
toxicity) acaricides continued to be necessary at Shangani. The presence ofoxpeckers dictates the need to avoid resuming the use of purple-label
chemicals and instead anti-helminthic injections were given to cattle.

93

BirdsSuccess of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The social behavior of oxpeckers (communal roosting, helpers at the nest)
prompted the decision that a release group contain at least 20 birds (although
after three deaths, 19 were freed at Shangani). All the birds were captured at
the same site during a short period, in the hope that the birds were from thesame social group(s).
x The release site was near the centre of a large ranch that contained numerous
wild ungulates, as well as cattle that were dipped with green-label (low toxicity)
acaricides. Hence the release ranch was big enough to sustain an oxpecker
population, even though some birds may have died after moving toneighbouring ranches, some of which were still using purple-label acaricides.
Nonetheless, the primary goal - of establishing a self-sustaining population in
an area from which the species had disappeared - was achieved.

References
Couto, J. T. (1994) Operation oxpecker. The Farmer, December 1, 64 (48): 10 11.
Couto, J. T., Honywill, J. & Mundy, P. J. (2000) An evaluation of the exercise totranslocate red-billed oxpeckers in Zimbabwe. Honeyguide 46: 114 - 124.
Dunham, K. M., Robertson, E. F. & Swanepoel, C. M. (2003) Population declineof tsessebe antelope (Damaliscus lunatus lunatus) on a mixed cattle and wildlife
ranch in Zimbabwe. Biological Conservation 113: 111 - 124.
Mundy, P. J. (1992) Notes on oxpeckers. Honeyguide 28: 108 - 112.
Weeks, P. (2000) Red-billed oxpeckers: vampires or tick birds? Behavioural
Ecology 11: 154 - 160.

94

BirdsBrown treecreeper re-introduction into eucalypt
woodland in the Australian Capital Territory,
Australia
Victoria A. Bennett1, Veronica A.J. Doerr2, Erik D. Doerr3, Adrian D. Manning4,
David B. Lindenmayer5 & Hwan-Jin Yoon6
1- Fenner School of Environment and Society, Building 141, The Australian National
University, Acton, ACT 0200, Australia victoria.bennett325@gmail.com
2- CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
and Division of Evolution, Ecology, and Genetics, Research School of Biology,
Australian National University, Acton, ACT 0200, Australia veronica.doerr@csiro.au
3- CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
and Division of Evolution, Ecology, and Genetics, Research School of Biology,
Australian National University, Acton, ACT 0200, Australia
erik.doerr@csiro.au
4- Fenner School of Environment and Society, Building 141, The Australian National
University, Acton, ACT 0200, Australia adrian.manning@anu.edu.au
5- Fenner School of Environment and Society, Building 141, The Australian National
University, Acton, ACT 0200, Australia david.lindenmayer@anu.edu.au
6- Statistical Consulting Unit, John Dedman Building 27, School of Mathematical
Sciences, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT 0200, Australia
Hwan-jin.yoon@anu.edu.au

Introduction
The brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus) is a small ground-foraging bird
endemic to eastern Australia. The species is listed as vulnerable under theAustralian Capital Territory Nature Conservation Act 1980 and the New South
Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (subspecies victoriae). The
brown treecreeper is afacultative cooperative
breeder, living
predominantly ingregarious social groups
comprised of a breedingpair and a number ofoffspring that havedelayed dispersal. The
species nests and roosts
in tree cavities and isalmost entirely
insectivorous. There isevidence of dramatic
declines of this species
throughout its range. The
main causes of decline areconsidered to be habitat
Brown treecreeper © Veronica Doerr95

Birdsdegradation, such as the loss of tree hollows and components of high quality
ground-foraging habitat such as coarse woody debris and ground litter. Further,
habitat fragmentation significantly disrupts the recruitment of females owing to theshort-distance dispersal capabilities of the species. Female offspring tend todisperse earlier and further than males, however this is generally only a distanceof 1 - 2 km. The brown treecreeper was re-introduced into Mulligans Flat and
Goorooyarroo Nature Reserves, which are two connected eucalypt woodlandreserves that are undergoing ecosystem restoration in south-east Australia. The
species was recently locally extinct from these reserves.

Goals
x Goal 1: Installation of experimental restoration treatments in the nature
reserves where the re-introduction was to be conducted. The re-introduction
and subsequent survival, behavior and habitat use of re-introduced individuals
was used to assess the success of these restoration treatments.
x Goal 2: Successful selection and translocation of brown treecreeper socialgroups from the source population to the re-introduction site.
x Goal 3: Establish a self-sustaining population based upon survival andreproduction indicators.
x Goal 4: Intensive monitoring of re-introduced individuals to obtain informationon brown treecreeper behavior, movement and habitat use.
x Goal 5: Examination of the factors influencing the outcome of the reintroduction.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Successful release of brown treecreepers.
x Indicator 2: Survival rate over time: survival of 70% of re-introduced adult birds
3 days after release, 50% at 4 weeks after release, and 40% at 1 year after
release.
x Indicator 3: Successful reproduction, with the survival of at least one young tofledgling from at least one social group within two years.
x Indicator 4: Detailed examination of data collected on brown treecreeper
survival, behavior, movement, and habitat use to provide unique information
regarding this species in an unfamiliar, experimentally restored environment.

Project Summary
Feasibility: Brown treecreepers were sourced from populations 200 km westof the release site, in the Murrumbidgee region of New South Wales, Australia.
These source populations were the most appropriate for re-introduction as they
had been studied extensively, the birds’ social relationships were known, and the
populations were considered sufficiently stable and large to allow the removal ofsome individuals without compromising the stability of the populations.
The reserves where re-introduction took place, Mulligans Flat and Goorooyarroo
Nature Reserves (measuring 1,623 ha), are the site of a large long-term
restoration project. Habitat manipulations in these reserves included the additionof 2,000 tons of coarse woody debris, management of variation in ground96

Birdsvegetation cover throughkangaroo exclusion areas, andthe installation of brown
treecreeper nest boxes. These
manipulations were considered
to be beneficial in reversing
habitat degradation, which was
the likely cause of local decline
for the brown treecreeper. The
restoration manipulations were
implemented as experimental
treatments to enable
examination of the effects oftreatment combinations onbrown treecreeper survival,
movement, behavior andhabitat selection.
Implementation: Brown
treecreepers were reintroduced in November 2009.
Birds were released in socialgroups containing dependent
fledglings to maintain bonds
between individuals in a group.
Mulligans Flat Nature Reserve
One social group was captured
settlement site © Victoria Bennett
and released per day as a hard
release to minimize handlingtime and avoid unnecessary stress. Seven brown treecreeper social groups werere-introduced, comprised of 43 individuals (26 adults and 17 fledglings). Eachindividual was fitted with a unique combination of coloured leg-bands.
Additionally, radio-transmitters were fitted to the breeding female and one or two
helper birds per social group (total of 18 adult birds). The re-introduction was
performed experimentally, by releasing different social groups in areas that had
been subject to different habitat restoration treatments. Social groups werereleased in areas with combinations of two experimental treatments: i) high or
medium level of ground vegetation cover, and ii) the presence or absence of nest
boxes.
Post-release monitoring: Released birds were monitored daily until
February 2010, with observations recorded for survival, location, behavior andsubstrate use. Ongoing visual monitoring of survival was conducted until March
2011. Short-term post-release survival rates were high over 24 hours (93%) and 3days (91%), with high levels of social group cohesion maintained. The number ofadults and fledglings confirmed alive over the initial three month monitoring period
steadily declined. There were no apparent differences in survival between males
and females, adults and fledglings, social groups, or between birds that carried
radio-transmitters and those that did not. The coarse woody debris supplemented

97Birdsto the reserves appeared to benefit the brown treecreeper through influencing
their behavior and significantly increasing the probability that an individual would
forage on a log or on the ground. This potentially occurred through influencing theindividual’s foraging efficiency. However, variation in ground vegetation cover did
not influence the species’ behavior and substrate use. This may have beencaused by the overall limited use of the ground layer, particularly in relation toprevious studies on the species. This suggests that the degrading processes
previously acting in the reserves have not been sufficiently reversed.
All radio-tracked brown treecreepers were recorded leaving their immediate
release site, irrespective of the habitat experimental treatments at their releasesites. This result suggests that re-introduced individuals may always explore theirsurroundings regardless of the quality of the habitat they are provided with.
Individuals were observed moving extensive distances, with significant variation in
search area among individuals. This may be a result of the re-introduction
process, or indicate a rejection of the release site. However, the result also
indicates that re-introduced individuals are likely to be able to adjust their
movement behavior and find suitable habitat. Settlement of social groups was
significantly affected by the level of ground vegetation cover, with dry forest areas
with low vegetation cover having the highest proportional rate of settlement.
Despite the experimental restoration conducted within the reserves and attempts
to conduct the re-introduction within a best-practice framework, the re-introduction
failed to meet all of the predetermined criteria for success. This was particularly
the case for medium-term survival. Further examinations were conducted tocompare the habitat within the nature reserves where the re-introduction took
place and the habitat at the source population. Although predation appeared toplay a key role in bird survivorship, there was no significant difference in predationpressure identified between the two habitats. However, re-introduced individuals
may have been particularly vulnerable to predation because of an increased flighttime to reach a refuge area when under threat due to a lower number of refuge
areas in the re-introduction reserves compared with the source sites. A lower
ground foraging habitat quality was also identified at the release sites, however,brown treecreepers were able to disperse extensively throughout the reserves
and settle in areas with generally higher-quality foraging habitat.

Major difficulties facedx Much lower survival rates of re-introduced brown treecreepers over the firstyear than have been reported in any naturally occurring population of brown
treecreepers.
x Higher predation levels of released individuals than expected, particularly bynative avian predators. All known deaths of radio-tracked birds (n = 4)
appeared to be due to predation by native predators. To a smaller extent,elevated densities of aggressive species such as the noisy miner (Manorina
melanotis), negatively influenced brown treecreeper releases and may act as abarrier to re-colonisation by other locally extinct species.
x Released individuals were observed dispersing across extensive distancesthat were greater than distances previously observed among brown98

Birdstreecreeper natal
dispersers. This was
despite existing studies
examining brown
treecreeper natal
dispersal in detail.
Extensive dispersal
caused logisticaldifficulties in effectively
monitoring all
individuals andconfirming theirsurvival, despite radiotracking, andparticularly once radiotransmitters were nolonger functioning andSocial group just before release © Peter Mills
during and after thetime when the species normally disperses. Hence, the disappearances ofsome individuals could be a result of dispersal, not just death.
x The re-introduction was a large logistical project requiring extensive
organization of licensing, acquisition of funds, equipment and personnel. This
project was conducted as a post-graduate project and was therefore
somewhat restricted in the amount of monitoring conducted. Therefore, there
were ample additional hypotheses available for examination stemming fromthis project.

Major lessons learnedx Brown treecreeper short-term survival was very high, and social groups
maintained high group cohesiveness, suggesting that the species handled thetranslocation process well. This result emphasized the importance ofknowledge of the social groups present in the source population.
x Regardless of existing knowledge of brown treecreeper habitat preferences inother populations, re-introduced individuals selected habitat contrary to
expectations, selecting forest rather than eucalypt woodland. This result
emphasized that behavior and habitat use information from prior studies withina source population may not approximate that which is observed within a reintroduced population.
x Brown treecreepers displayed an increased probability of foraging on a log oron the ground when within areas that coarse woody debris had been
experimentally added to the reserves. This behavior indicated that the additionof coarse woody debris benefited the species potentially through influencing
foraging efficiency, and also demonstrated the value of using behavior as a bio-indicator for restoration success.
x Further consideration of, and investigation into, the elements influencing
predation by natural predators is required to enable conservation of groundforaging insectivores and is essential prior to any re-introduction of similar
species.

99

Birdsx Continued restoration is required in the reserves where the re-introduction took
place. This includes consideration of finer-scale habitat components such as
management of the ground layer through promoting the development of acryptogamic crust, an increased leaf litter layer, reduced weed cover andcontrolled levels of grazing pressure by both native and exotic herbivores. This
result reinforces the need to closely examine the habitat suitability before atranslocation.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The re-introduction process itself was highly successful particularly given thehigh survival rates over 24 hours and 3 days post-release (93% and 91%
respectively) and the high level of group cohesion observed immediately after
release.
x Although the criteria for success regarding adult survival over 3 days (70%survival) and 4 weeks (50% survival) were achieved, the survival rate of adultbrown treecreepers over 1 year (15%) did not meet the criteria for success(40% survival). This was despite attempts to address the previous causes forthe decline for the species and restore the habitat. This indicates that in orderto establish a viable population, further releases of larger numbers ofindividuals over several years would be required.
x No instances of successful reproduction was observed despite regularmonitoring of females. Although, a male was seen feeding a female on seven
separate occasions during November 2010. This was noteworthy given thatbreeding females appear not to accept courtship feeding unless they intend toattempt to reproduce.
x Although in terms of survival rates, the re-introduction did not succeed, theproject provided unique and important knowledge regarding brown treecreeper
behavior, habitat use, movement, restoration ecology of eucalypt woodlands,
and the procedures of re-introducing a social bird species.
Acknowledgements: This project was made possible by funding and in-kind
contributions from:x Birding NSW
x Birdlife Australia – Stuart Leslie Bird Research Awardx Canberra Ornithologist Groupx Canberra Birds Conservation Fundx The Conservation and Landscape Ecology Group within the Fenner School ofEnvironment and Society at The Australian National Universityx The Foundation for National Parks and Wildlifex The Gould League of NSW 2010 Centenary Year Cayley Memorial Scholarshipx The Mulligans Flat-Goorooyarroo Woodland Experiment (ARC Linkage ProjectLP0561817)

100

Birdsx The Norman Wettenhall Foundationx The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Ecosystem Sciencesx The Australian Capital Territory Parks and Conservation Service within the Departmentof Territory and Municipal Servicesx The Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University

References
Bennett, V. A., Doerr V. A. J., Doerr, E. D., Manning A. D. & Lindenmayer, D. B.
(2012) The anatomy of a failed re-introduction: a case study with the Brown
Treecreeper. Emu 112, 298-312.ȱ
Bennett V. A., Doerr V. A. J., Doerr E. D., Manning A. D., Lindenmayer D. B. &Yoon H.-J. (2012) Habitat selection and post-release movement of re-introduced
Brown Treecreeper individuals in restored temperate woodland. PLoS ONE 7(12),e50612.ȱ
Bennett, V.A., Doerr, V.A.J., Doerr, E.D., Manning A. D., Lindenmayer D. B. &Yoon H.-J. (2013) Habitat selection and behaviour of a re-introduced passerine:
Linking experimental restoration, behaviour and habitat ecology. PLoS ONE 8(1):e54539.ȱ
Bennett V. A., Doerr V. A. J., Doerr E. D., Manning A. D., Lindenmayer D. B. &Yoon H.-J. (2013) Causes for re-introduction failure of the Brown Treecreeper:
Implications for ecosystem restoration. Austral Ecology 38; 700-712.ȱ
Manning A. D., Wood J. T., Cunningham R. B., McIntyre S., Shorthouse D. J.,
Gordon I. J. & Lindenmayer D. B. (2011) Integrating research and restoration: theestablishment of a long-term woodland experiment in south-eastern Australia.
Australian Zoologist 35, 633-48.ȱ

101

BirdsRe-introduction of the western bluebird to oakprairie habitats in Pacific Northwest, USA
Gary L. Slater1 & Bob Altman2
1- Ecostudies Institute, P.O. Box 703, Mount Vernon, WA, 98273, USA
glslater@ecoinst.org
2- American Bird Conservancy, 311 NE Mistletoe, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA,baltman@abcbirds.org

Introduction
The Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) occurs throughout much of western North
America and breeds in a variety of open habitats where nest cavities, lowperches, and an open understory are present. In the Pacific Northwest, west of
the Cascade crest, the northern edge of the bluebird’s range has undergone large-scale retraction due to the loss, fragmentation, and degradation of oak-prairie
habitats, where they most commonly occur (Altman, 2011). Coastal mainland
breeding populations of bluebirds disappeared from British Columbia, Canada
and Washington, USA in the 1970s, while island populations in the San Juan andGulf Islands archipelagos began disappearing in the 1960s. The last observed
breeding in the region occurred in 1995 on Vancouver Island, BC. Because thespecies occupies a broad array of open habitats, the primary cause of theirdecline was apparently the loss of a critical habitat element, nesting cavities. In
some areas, such as in the Willamette Valley, OR and south Puget Sound, WA,nearly extirpated populations have recovered following the establishment of
nestboxes programs. This case study reports on the 6-year (2007 - 2012; 5 yrs.
translocation, 1 yr. post-translocation) re-introduction of the bluebird to San Juan
Island, WA.

Goals

Western bluebird male in aviary © Gary Slater

102x Goal 1: Capture >90
wild adults from donorsites and safely transportand release on San Juan
Island during a 5-year
period.
x Goal 2: Monitor
reproduction and survival
rates in the re-introduced
population to evaluate
translocation methods andre-introduction success.
x Goal 3: Establish a selfsustaining breeding
population on San Juan
Island and adjacentislands.

Birdsx Goal 4: Use the bluebird as a flagship emblem for oak-prairie conservation.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Released individuals and their offspring breed successfully andreestablish migratory pathways between wintering grounds and the reintroduction site.
x Indicator 2: Population size increases annually.
x Indicator 3: Demographic measures (reproduction and survival) in the reintroduced population are similar to other Pacific Northwest populations.ȱ

Project Summary
Feasibility: The re-introduction of bluebirds to San Juan Island was consideredappropriate and timely for several reasons. First, the likelihood of bluebirds reestablishing a population on San Juan Island without assistance appeared low.
The long distance (165 km) and large area of unsuitable habitat (i.e., urban
Seattle and Puget Sound) between San Juan Island and the closest source
population (south Puget Sound) apparently hindered dispersal, because there
was no evidence of successful colonization in the three decades since thespecies was extirpated, even though the source population showed substantial
growth. Second, a pre-project assessment indicated that sufficient habitat wasavailable in north Puget Sound, centered on San Juan Island, to support a
bluebird population. Local conservation organizations (e.g., San Juan
Preservation Trust, San Juan County Audubon Society) promoted the protection
and restoration of the prairie-oak ecosystem, ensuring that habitat would beavailable in the future. Third, the cause of their extirpation was considered to be
the loss of a particular habitat element, cavities for nesting, rather than a more
complex set of issues unable to be addressed through management. Nest boxes
have been used as management tool to increase the availability of cavities formany cavity-nesting species and they have played a critical role in the recovery ofEastern and Western bluebird populations in many parts of North America. Local
conservation partners encouraged the placement of nestboxes, and over 500
were established during the course of the project. Finally, successful translocation
methodologies had been developed for Eastern bluebirds in Florida and thesemethodologies were believed to be transferrable to a re-introduction of Western
bluebirds (Slater, 2001).
Implementation: We translocated bluebirds to San Juan Island in each
breeding season (March - June) from 2007 to 2011. The source population was
Joint Base Lewis-McChord Military Base, approximately 165 km from the reintroduction site; several pairs were translocated from Oregon (450 km away).
Most translocations involved breeding pairs, although we moved some pairs withdependent young later in the breeding season. In 2010 - 2011, we translocated a
few single females because we observed a higher ratio of males to females in the
re-introduced population. At the release site, bluebirds were placed in outdoor
aviaries, which allowed open views, yet provided protection from the elements.
Aviaries contained multiple perch choices, a nest box for roosting, and food(mealworms and crickets) and water ad libitum. Initial releases were conducted in
the San Juan Valley, which historically held the most oak habitat on the island.

103

BirdsRelease sites were selected based on the presence of suitable habitat (e.g.,
proximity to oaks, appropriate foraging habitat), the willingness of landowners tohost an aviary and place nest boxes on their property, and, upon establishment,
the proximity of bluebird territories. Release sites for single females were selectedbased on the presence of a single territorial male.
We captured and translocated 102 adults and 35 juveniles; 2 adults and 1 juvenile
died in the aviary, but the remaining were released in good condition. In 2007, weplaced 8 adult pairs in 1 m x 1 m x 2 m aviaries (small), releasing them after 4 - 5
days. We discontinued this strategy following low establishment (only 1 pair) andhigh rate of dispersal (45%) back to the source population. In the following 4
years, we placed breeding pairs, captured early in the breeding season, in 2 m x
2 m x 2 m aviaries (large), holding them for 1 - 3 weeks. Twenty seven of 65(42%) individuals released as pairs (one with a resident bird) established abreeding territory. Pairs translocated with dependent young (10 - 12 days old)
were placed in a large aviary (the young in a nestbox) and were released 1 - 10days after nestlings fledged. Six of 15 (40%) adults established a breeding
territory; 7 of 35 (20%) juveniles returned the following year to breed. Single
females were placed in a small aviary and released after 3 - 5 days in thepresence of a free-living male; 3 of 5 (60%) single females established a breeding
territory. On all established territories, we provided supplemental food(mealworms) to birds during periods of cool (<16° C), windy, and rainy weather
and when pairs were feeding nestlings.
Post-release monitoring: We found evidence of successful breeding in eachyear of the project and both translocated individuals and their locally-produced
offspring reproduced successfully. Annual counts of adults indicated that the reintroduced bluebird population grew in each year of the project during thetranslocation period, and at the end of the 2011 breeding season the minimum
estimate of population size was 38 individuals (14 breeding territories).
In 2012, we found fewer
individuals, but there werestill 14 breeding territories.
From 2007-2012, wemonitored 87 nests, which
fledged 274 juveniles.
Fecundity and survival
estimates in the reintroduced population did
not differ significantly fromreference populations in
the Pacific Northwest(Keyser et al., 2004;
Kozma & Kroll, 2010).

Constructing aviary © Gary Slater104

BirdsMajor difficulties
facedx In 2007, our attempt touse a smaller, andeasier to move, aviary
and a shorter holding
period proved
ineffective, and thus wereturned to larger
aviaries and longer
holding periods,
techniques used for
Eastern bluebirds.
x Initially, annual return
rates for juvenile males
were higher than
Typical habitat in release area © Gary Slater
females producing amale-biased sex ratio
in the nascent population.
x Nest predation by house sparrows and other mammals is a leading factor in
nest failures.
x Poor reproduction in 2011 and 2012, due to unusually cold and rainy breeding
seasons, is a significant concern to this small and vulnerable population.

Major lessons learnedx Holding bluebird pairs for longer periods (1 - 3 weeks) in large aviaries
appeared more effective than short holding periods (3 - 5 days) in small
aviaries.
x Breeding pairs captured earlier in the breeding season (before mean
incubation date) were more likely to establish a territory than pairs captured
later in the breeding season.
x Similarly, translocating and releasing pairs with juveniles earlier in the season
to allow pairs time to re-nest was more successful than later releases.
x Releasing family groups when young are 2 - 4 days old appears to reduce
dispersal from the release site, although aviary sites need to include patchesof shrubby vegetation to provide cover for juveniles.
x Translocations of single females was highly effective and thus provides
evidence of a technique to successfully address biased sex ratios in small reintroduced populations.
x In contrast to the re-introduction of Eastern bluebirds in South Florida, paired
individuals typically maintained pair bonds, providing support for translocating
pairs rather than single individuals.

105

BirdsSuccess of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x A dedicated partnership of conservation groups that provided the full spectrumof expertise, from administration to technical to local knowledge, necessary fora successful re-introduction project.
x The ability to adapt and modify translocation strategies during the project.
x Participation by local conservation organizations, San Juan Preservation Trustand San Juan Audubon Society, who actively engaged the local community inparticipating and supporting the re-introduction project.
x The presence of a large donor population, which allowed us to reach our target
release number within our proposed timeframe.
x While we successfully established a small population on San Juan Island,
further monitoring will be required to evaluate population persistence anddetermine whether the re-introduction can be considered “successful”.ȱ
x The success of the re-introduction effort on San Juan Island spurred the
expansion of the project to Vancouver Island, 25 miles away. The creation ofanother local population should increase the likelihood of long-term
persistence for the regional population.ȱ

References
Slater, G. L. (2001) Avian restoration in Everglades National Park (1997 - 2001):
translocation methodology, population demography, and evaluating success.
Final Report to Everglades National Park. Ecostudies Institute, Mount Vernon,
WA.ȱ
Slater, G. L. & B. Altman. (2011) Avian Restoration in the Prairie-Oak Ecosystem:
A Reintroduction Case Study of Western Bluebirds to San Juan Island,
Washington. Northwest Science 85: 223-232.ȱ
Altman, B. (2011) Historical and current distribution and population of bird species
in prairie-oak habitats in the Pacific Northwest 85:194-222;ȱ
Keyser, A. J., M. T. Keyser & Promislow, D. E. L. (2004) Life-history variation anddemography in Western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana) in Oregon. The Auk 121:118133.ȱ
Kozma, J. M. & A. J. Kroll. (2010) Nest survival of Western bluebirds using treecavities in managed ponderosa pine forests of central Washington. Condor
112:87-95.ȱ

106

Mammals

Re-introduction and recovery of the red wolf inthe southeastern USA.
Rebecca A. Bartel & David R. Rabon Jr.
Red Wolf Recovery Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1969,
Manteo, NC, USA rebecca_bartel@fws.gov & david_rabon@fws.gov

Introduction
The red wolf (Canis rufus) is one of the Earth’s most imperiled canids. Onceoccurring throughout the southeastern USA, red wolves were decimated by
predator-control programs and habitat degradation. Remnant populations of red
wolves were further threatened by hybridization with expanding coyote (C. latransvar.) populations. To protect the red wolf from extinction, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) extirpated the red wolf in the wild and established an exsitu breeding program with plans to restore the species to a portion of its former
range. Only 14 individuals would reproduce to become the founding ancestors of
all red wolves existing today. Successful ex situ reproduction prompted a reintroduction of red wolves in northeastern North Carolina (NENC) in 1987. A
second re-introduction was initiated in 1991 in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, but later terminated because of disease and low pup survival. The
restored population of red wolves in
NENC has expanded to included 90 110 wolves occurring over more than
6,000 km2. Nearly 200 red wolves aremaintained in more than 40 zoos/
nature centers throughout the USA.
The red wolf is federally listed as
Endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and IUCN CriticallyEndangered D (IUCN, 2012).

Goals
Goals and success indicators of the
Red Wolf Recovery Program are takenfrom the Red Wolf Recovery/Species
Survival Plan (USFWS, 1990) and the
Red Wolf 5-Year Status Review(USFWS, 2007).
x Goal: Achieve a series ofgeographically independent
populations of red wolves, throughre-introduction, that are numericallylarge enough to have the potential
for allowing natural evolutionary
processes to work within thespecies (USFWS, 1990).

Red wolf © John Froschauer/PDZA

107

Mammals
Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Establish
and maintain a series of atleast three red wolf
populations via restoration
projects within the historicrange of the species. Each
population should benumerically large enoughto have the potential forallowing natural
evolutionary processes towork within the species.
This must be paralleled by
the cooperation andassistance of at least 30
Fostering of red wolves © David Rabon/USFWS
captive-breeding facilities.
x Indicator 2: Preserve
80% to 90% of the genetic diversity found in the founding population (14individuals) of red wolves for a period of 150 years or more.
x Indicator 3: Remove those threats that have the potential to bring about
extinction of the red wolf. Achieving this objective will include maintaining a
total wild population of at least 220 wolves and a captive population of
approximately 330 wolves.
x Indicator 4: Maintain the red wolf in perpetuity through embryo banking andcryogenic preservation of sperm.

Project Summary
Feasibility: With the passage of the ESA, a red wolf recovery program wasestablished in partnership with Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium (WA, USA), tocoordinate captive breeding efforts and determine “pure” red wolves as part of aplanned extirpation of red wolves in the wild. Between 1973 and 1980, only 14
canids captured within the remaining red wolf range were determined to be pure
red wolves and successfully bred in captivity. By 1980, the red wolf was
extirpated in the wild. In 1984, the captive breeding program was accepted by the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums for development of a Species Survival Plan
(SSP), and plans for re-introduction were initiated. To assess various restoration
approaches (e.g., acclimation, release, and recapture techniques), captive-born
red wolves were released on an island propagation site. After public opposition at
the initial re-introduction, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR, NC)
was chosen as the red wolf re-introduction area. Extensive analyses determinedfeasibility due to the absence of coyotes, the lack of livestock operations, andavailability of prey species. To garner public support, traditional recreational
activities, such as hunting and fishing, were allowed to continue within the reintroduction area, and the re-introduced population was designated “non-essential
experimental” under Section 10(j) of the ESA.

108

Mammals
Implementation:
Captive breeding: With very small populations, survival can be affected by genetic
drift (random loss of allele frequency) and inbreeding depression. Currently, genediversity in the captive red wolf population is approximately 89.65% of the founderpopulation (N = 14), and there is little evidence of inbreeding depression.
Pre-release conditioning: As a strategy to propagate wild red wolf offspring forrelease, breeding pairs of wolves from captive breeding facilities were relocatedto several island propagation sites. The wolves were released on the islands to
live, hunt, breed, and raise their young in a natural, albeit space limited,environment. Their offspring, having been raised “wild,” would be relocated to themainland re-introduction site when they reached dispersal or reproductive age.
The concept being that wild-raised red wolves would have learned to hunt andlive as wild animals and were more likely to survive following release than captive-reared wolves. Most of these sites were discontinued due to human-wolfinteractions or funding constraints. Currently, the St. Vincent National Wildlife
Refuge (FL, USA) island propagation site remains operational.
Re-introduction: In 1987, after briefings to the public, state, and other federal
agencies, re-introduction efforts of the red wolf began on ARNWR with therelease of four captive-born, male-female wolf pairs. The captive-born wolves
were housed in 225 m2 acclimation pens prior to release. During acclimation,
human contact was minimized, and feeding regimes were altered to resemble
wild conditions. Prior to release, the wolves were given a health check,vaccinated, treated for parasites, weighed, and fitted with VHF radio-telemetry
collars (Phillips et al., 2003). To encourage the wolves to remain near the releasesite, and to facilitate predatory diet and habits, the wolves were provided
supplemental food (generally deer carcasses) for 1 - 2 months following release.
Fostering: The insertion of captive-born wolves in a wild-born litter has been a
successful tool to increase the number of wild red wolves and enhance thegenetic diversity of the re-introduced population. Typically, captive-born pups areinserted into a wild litter when the recipient and donor pups are between 10 - 14days old, and the recipient litter is small enough to accommodate the additional
litter mates.
Adaptive management: The expansion of the coyote into the red wolf recovery
area has resulted in interbreeding and coyote gene introgression into the wild redwolf population. To reduce hybridization, an adaptive management plan wasdeveloped that uses sterilized, hormonally-intact (via vasectomy and tubal
ligation) coyotes as territorial “placeholders.” The “placeholder” coyotes will notinterbreed with red wolves, and they exclude other coyotes from their territory.
Ultimately, the “placeholder” coyotes are replaced by red wolves either naturally(e.g. displacement) or via management actions (e.g., removal followed byinsertion or natural dispersal of wolves into the territory).
Post-release monitoring:
Population estimation: Adult and juvenile red wolves are live-trapped, fitted with
VHF radio-telemetry collars, and monitored several times a week from fixed-wing
aircraft and ground surveys. Radio-telemetry techniques determine wolf
movements, territory usage, pairings and interactions, den establishment andlocation, and fates of individuals. Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags are109Mammals
implanted in all pups found during the spring den search for identification whenlater captured and radio-collared as adults. Population estimates of wild red
wolves are calculated by adding the number of actively monitored radio-collared
wolves and PIT-tagged pups recorded during the spring whelping season.
Current conservation status: As of 2012, ~90 - 110 red wolves are surviving in thewild, of which 65 are regularly monitored through radio-telemetry. However, thespecies only exists in the wild in the one re-introduced population. The captive
breeding population remains stable at ~200 red wolves.

Major difficulties facedx Human-caused mortality: From September 1987 through December 2012,mortalities were documented for 364 wild red wolves in NENC. Demographic
data were available for 357 red wolves, including 72 pups, 94 juveniles, and
191 adults (many of which were breeders). For the first 25 years of reintroduction, causes of death were determined for all red wolves in the NENC
re-introduction area. Causes of red wolf mortalities included suspected illegal
activities, involving gunshot, poisoning, and other suspected illegal take (30%);
vehicle collisions (20%); health-related causes (16%); intraspecific competition(6.5%); management actions (5.0%); private trapping (3.5%); and, unknown
causes (19%). Fifty-seven percent of all observed mortalities (72% ofmortalities with a known cause of death) during this period were humancaused and potentially avoidable. During the past nine years (2004 - 2012),
the average annual number of gunshot-caused mortalities has increased~375% when compared to earlier years (1988-2003).
x Disease: Canid diseases have threatened both re-introduced and captive redwolf populations. The magnitude of risk to the red wolf species overall is partly
offset by captive red wolves held in more than 40 SSP zoos and nature
centers across the USA. Risk of disease is also partly offset by intensive
vaccination programs for both re-introduced and captive red wolves. However,veterinary research scientists caution against the assumption that vaccinated
red wolves are adequately protected against diseases. The diseases ofgreatest concern are canine distemper (Genus Morbillivirus; CDV), canine
parvovirus (Genus Parvovirus; CPV1, CPV2), leptospirosis (Genus leptospira),
hemobartonellosis (Haemobartonella canis), borrelliosis (Lyme disease,
Borrelia sp.), demodectic mange (Demodex canis mites), sarcoptic mange(Sarcoptes scabiei mites), heart worm (Dirofilaria immitis), and rabies (Genus
Lyssavirus, rabies virus). The impacts of CPV2 parvovirus on pup survival in
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park re-introduction area eventuallycontributed to the termination of that project. Fortunately, to date, none ofthese diseases have occurred at sufficiently high levels to cause an epidemic.
However, mange (N = 17) and heartworm (N = 7) have been confirmed as
repeated sources of red wolf mortality in the re-introduced population. New
threats also are becoming more prevalent in local domestic dogs, including the
Lyme disease-causing bacteria Borrelia burgdoferi.
x Interbreeding with coyotes: The recovery and restoration of red wolves
requires the careful management of coyotes and occasionally red wolf-coyote
hybrids in the red wolf re-introduction area. The non-native coyotes spread
across the eastern USA, reaching NENC in the early to 1990s. It soon was

110Mammals
recognized thatinterbreeding
between red
wolves andcoyotes would
produce hybrid
offspring resulting
in coyote gene
introgression into
the wild red wolf
population, andthat thisintrogression
would threaten therestoration of red
wolves. An
Typical red wolf habitat © Melissa McGaw
adaptivemanagement plan (Rabon et al., 2013) was developed to reduce interbreeding
and introgression while simultaneously building the red wolf population. The
adaptive management plan effectively uses techniques to capture and sterilize
hormonally intact coyotes via vasectomy or tubal ligation, then releases thesterile canid at its place of capture to act as a territorial “placeholder” until theanimal is replaced by wild red wolves. Sterile coyotes are not capable ofbreeding with other coyotes, effectively limiting the growth of the coyote
population, nor are they capable of interbreeding with wild red wolves, limiting
hybridization events. In addition, the sterile canid will exclude other coyotes
from its territory. Ultimately, the placeholder coyotes are replaced by the larger
red wolves either naturally by displacing the coyote or via management actions(e.g., removal of the coyote followed by insertion of wild or translocatedwolves).
x Climate change and stochastic events: Natural weather events and global
climate change will play growing roles in long-term survival and recovery of red
wolves, especially in the re-introduced red wolf population. The re-introduced
wild red wolf population in NENC, as well as many of the captive SSP facilities,
is subject to the adverse effects of annual tropical storm activity. Hurricane
Isabel (2003) resulted in the deaths of two captive red wolves, and Hurricane
Sandy (2012) resulted in the death of one captive red wolf. Although there has
been no noticeable long-term impacts observed on the red wolves in the reintroduced population, the red wolf restoration area and associated habitats
and prey species are vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding related toclimate change and tropical events. Additional long-term changes in habitat
availability, prey abundance, and other ecological or landscape factors will
occur with climate change. Thus, long-term assessment and planning areneeded that consider the current re-introduced and future populations in thecontext of tropical storm activity, global climate change, and resulting changes
in the North American landscape over time.

111

Mammals
Major lessons learnedx Partnerships and cooperation are essential for success: Cooperation andcreative partnerships are essential to the success of any re-introduction
program. The successful captive red wolf breeding program is a result of thecooperation of Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, the development of an
Association of Zoos and Aquariums SSP program, and the participation ofnumerous SSP-affiliated zoos and nature centers. Consequently, captive
breeding has become a foundation of the success of the red wolf recovery
program. Researchers and other science-based partners have provided dataand information necessary to make management decisions that support
restoration actions to ensure sound conservation approaches to recovering the
red wolf. Re-introduction requires cooperation and partnerships among many
diverse groups, particularly among local, regional, and state-wide
governments, private landowners and land managers, researchers, andspecial-use groups and organizations.
x Disease prevention and surveillance are prudent: Because canid diseases canspread quickly, they can cause serious setbacks in red wolf recovery, andremain serious threats to all red wolf populations. As evidenced by thetermination of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park re-introduction
project due to poor pup survival and parvovirus, additional precautions areneeded to proactively address potential disease outbreaks in any reintroduced red wolf population. The establishment of at least two more reintroduction sites within red wolf historic range could partly alleviate diseaserisk. The import of existing and new strains of canid diseases carried into a reintroduced red wolf population also is a concern. Domestic hunting dogs andimported coyotes from elsewhere in USA are two potential outside sources of
disease. A red wolf disease prevention and surveillance program has been
recommended to ensure long-term survival for any red wolf re-introduced
population.
x Early development of regulatory mechanism is critical: The red wolf remains
federally listed as
Endangered throughout its
historic range. However,
the red wolf was declared
extinct in the wild in 1980
when the last known
remaining red wolves
were brought into
captivity. Therefore, redwolves in captivity arelisted Endangered,
whereas re-introduced red
wolves are designated asa nonessential
experimental population
under 10(j) of the ESA.
x The nonessential
Red wolf with radio-collar © Ryan Nordsven/USFWS experimental status for the112Mammals
re-introduced population of the red wolf is a helpful mechanism which allows
managers to work cooperatively with partners to enhance red wolf recovery
and resolve problems. The nonessential experimental status also allows
flexibility for landowners and managers, and other citizens by allowing
exceptions to the prohibitions of take under the ESA when a red wolf
constitutes a demonstrable threat to human safety or livestock, provided it has
not been possible to eliminate such threat by live capture and relocation of thewolf. Such flexibility allows less regulation while addressing needs in humansafety and property. However, there is room for improvement to ensure thatfederal listing status of the red wolf is mirrored by state listing status such thatit promotes red wolf conservation and synergy in red wolf recovery.
x Sterile coyote placeholders can deter hybridization: During the initial site
selection process for the red wolf re-introduction program, the NENC red wolf
recovery area was considered uninhabited by coyotes. However, coyotes have
expanded their historical range eastward; individuals were observed in therecovery area beginning in the early-1990s. As a result, an adaptive
management plan was needed to attempt to eliminate the threat ofhybridization. Research has demonstrated that sterilized coyotes remain
territorial and continue to defend space. It is this concept of holding space thatis being applied to manage hybridization by providing managers time,
information, and a higher degree of control over the recovery landscape, while
simultaneously providing reproductive advantage to the red wolf. Ultimately,
sterilization is a method that allows territorial space to be held until that animal
can be replaced naturally or by management actions. Sterile or “placeholder”
coyotes are then naturally replaced when the larger red wolves displace or kill
the coyote. Occasionally, a coyote may be removed from an area when there
is an opportunity to insert a wild or translocated red wolf into that territory or if
there is a red wolf dispersing into that area.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Socio-politics: Socio-political views of the red wolf, and wolves in general,
have a long history. The wolf was maligned in folktales, fables, and fairy tales,and persecuted in reality. Euro-American colonists, acting on prejudice,established a bounty on the wolf that spread like an epidemic with the growing
nation. With the expansion and increasing number of pastoralists, the wolf wasseen as much as an ecological competitor that threatened livestock andlivelihoods as it was a diabolical and malevolent beast. The widespread use ofa bounty extirpated the wolf in many regions. By the early-1900s, governmentoperated predator control programs had the task of systematicallyexterminating the wolf, further driving the red wolf to near extinction.
Eventually, the wolf was romanticized in literature, reversing the public’s
sentiment, or at least the government’s role in their eradication. By the laterpart of the 20th century the public’s attitude had swayed enough to support

113

Mammalslegislation to protect the species. Decades of successful restoration activities
and the unfulfilled prophecies of the wolf’s devastating impact on the local
wildlife or livelihoods has assisted in furthering the positive change in attitudes.
But localized animosity toward the red wolf still exists in landowners and land
managers that see the wolf as an ecological competitor despite the increasing
recognition of red wolves as ecologically important. The red wolf continues tobe persecuted, requiring additional management interactions to maintain the
red wolf population.
x Adaptive management techniques: Adaptive management techniques haveshown that sterilization is a method that allows territorial space to be held untilthat animal can be replaced naturally or by additional management actions.
Sterile or “placeholder” coyotes are then naturally replaced when the larger red
wolves displace or kill the coyote. Ongoing analyses suggest that red wolves
always win over coyotes in the battle of territorial disputes, whether
management actions were taken or not to remove a coyote. Preliminary data
analyses show no instances of a coyote successfully defending a territory
against a red wolf. Space is limited in the re-introduction area. Ideally, within
the re-introduced red wolf population in NENC, that space is initially best
occupied by breeding pairs of red wolves, non-breeding mixed (red wolf/
coyote) pairs, and non-breeding coyote pairs. By sterilizing coyotes,
introgression of non-wolf genes will be controlled and territories will be
unavailable for colonization by breeding coyote pairs or breeding red wolfcoyote pairs. In addition to the ~65+ radio-collared red wolves, there are also
~60+ sterilized, radio-collared coyotes regularly monitored. As the red wolf
population grows, having space available for dispersing red wolves will
become increasingly important, and this space will be provided through naturalinterspecific competition and/or management actions.
x Persistence and patience: Coyote expansion and the threat of hybridizationand genetic swamping of the small remnant red wolf populations ultimately
lead to an abandonment of the attempt to preserve the red wolf in the wild in
the late-1960s. When planned extirpation of the wild red wolves and theestablishment of a captive breeding program were determined to be the only
solutions, then the captive breeding process was marred by the availability ofpure red wolves. Only 14 red wolves were determined “pure” and verified
through a breeding certification program, becoming the founding population of
all red wolves in existence today. Captive breeding also was hampered by aslow start in the production of viable offspring. It was not until 1977 when thefirst litter of red wolves was born in captivity that the real steps in red wolf
recovery were made. The red wolf captive breeding program has grown anddeveloped since 1973, ensuring and maintaining the genetic diversity of thespecies. More than 40 zoos and nature centers that breed red wolves havecommitted substantial resources, without compensation, to the captive
breeding effort. Re-introduction of captive-born red wolves into the wild began
in 1987 and continued until 1994. However, red wolves were born in the wild
every year since the first wild-born litter in 1988. Fortunately, program partners
remain committed to re-introduction, and new partners are joining the recovery
effort.

114

Mammalsx Continued research and monitoring: An adaptive approach to recovery
program management has allowed research to address ongoing and emerging
issues facing the red wolf recovery program. Several identified research needs
include demographic analysis of the effects of gunshot mortality on red wolf
population dynamics; development of a two-species model to show how thepresence and interactions with coyotes impact habitat suitability indices andred wolf carrying capacity; monitoring how pre-release conditioning can
improve survival and establishment of a territory; careful genetic managementof the captive population and the development of artificial insemination andcryopreservation techniques; and investigating how pup fostering can increase
numbers and genetic diversity in the re-introduced population.

References
Phillips, M. K., V. G. Henry, & B. T. Kelly. (2003) Restoration of the red wolf.
Pages 272-288 in L. D. Mech and L. Boitani, eds. Wolves: behavior, ecology, andconservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Rabon, D. R., Jr., R. Bartel & & Beyer, A. (2013) Red Wolf Adaptive Management
Plan FY13-FY15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Manteo, North Carolina. 14 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1990) Red Wolf Recovery/Species Survival Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 110 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) Red Wolf 5-Year Status Review: Summary
and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Manteo, North Carolina. 58 pp.

115

Mammals

Re-introduction of the Mexican wolf in the Sierra
Madre Occidental, Mexico
Jesus Lizardo Cruz Romo1, Robert A. Wolf Webels1, Alejandro Gonzalez Bernal2,
Zaira Y. Gonzalez2, Cristian Aguilar2, Carmen Garcia Chavez2, Nalleli E. Lara Diaz2& Carlos A. López Gonzalez2 *1- DEPC-CONANP, Camino al Ajusco 200. Col. Jardines en la Montaña. Tlalpan, D.F.
C.P. 14210. México
2- Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Cerro de las Campanas S/N, Col. Las
Campanas. Queretaro, Queretaro. C. P. 76010. Mexico* - email for corresponding Author: Cats4mex@gmail.com

Introduction
Mexican wolves were extirpated from the wild in the late 1970s, since then acaptive breeding program involving the United States and Mexico has resulted ina bi-national recovery program with a current captive population of 253 (June,2013). A wild population of 75 (December, 2012) in the Blue Range, US is theresult of a re-introduction program started by the USFWS in 1998. Since 2006,
several stakeholders in Mexico began a re-introduction process that culminatedwith the release of 10 Mexican wolves during 2011, 2012 and 2013, representing
three family groups. Survivorship of the wolves has been affected by poisoning
livestock carcasses and negative attitudes toward the re-introduction. A single
stakeholder approach and supplemental feeding has increased the survivorship of
those individuals released in 2013. We believe the process to establish a selfsustaining population is just beginning, but there are changes occurring that mightallow to achieve this in the mid term.

Goals
x Goal 1: Identification of re-introduction sites within the historical species range
in Mexico.
x Goal 2: Constant monitoring of released individuals in the wild.
x Goal 3: Constant communication with local stakeholders to assess theirperception of the project and apply adaptive management practices.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Establishment of one or more self sustaining Mexican wolf
populations in Mexico.
x Indicator 2: Increase Mexican wolf survivorship in the wild.
x Indicator 3: Achieve Mexican wolf reproduction in the wild.

Project Summary
Feasibility: A captive Mexican wolf program was established in the late1970s, with the capture of five wild individuals in the Mexican States of Durango
and Chihuahua. Currently, the program has the support of 52 institutions in
Mexico and the United States and is composed by 253 individuals (June, 2013).
The program is represented by three genetic lineages incorporated in the last 30

116

Mammals
years. In 1998 the UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) reintroduced the species in
the Blue Range Area
(Arizona and New Mexico
States), to date that
population has reached 75
individuals. Parallel to theefforts carried out in theUS, Mexico first developed
a Mexican Wolf recovery
project in 1999. In 2007 arecovery strategy for
endangered species(PROCER) wasestablished and a
Mexican wolf in the wild
recovery plan for each one
developed, included the Mexican Wolf (PACE: Lobo Gris Mexicano). In 2006, a
group of stakeholders (including scientists, government and nonprofits) assessed
the feasibility of carrying out the first re-introduction of Mexican wolves in Mexico.
Six areas were selected (based on landscape suitability) to be surveyed for prey
abundance (particularly ungulates) and social attitudes towards wolves. In 2008
two areas were selected as possible candidate areas both in the Sierra Madre
Occidental: Sonora and Chihuahua. The land tenure landscape of Mexico,contrary to the United States, is dominated by privately owned lands (single
individuals or community owned land “ejidos”) with minimal or no federally owned
land, which implies that in order to release individuals on the ground we need thewritten approval of the landowner.
Implementation: The first group of Mexican wolves selected for reintroduction was rehabilitated for hunting abilities, other behavioral attributes andsocial cohesion. The first re-introduction occurred in Sonora, with a family groupthat included 2 males and 3 females (1 female and her 4 and 5 year oldoffspring). Additionally a male was released in the same area 6 months later topair with the surviving female. The second re-introduction took place in
Chihuahua in October 2012 and comprised a pair (6 year old male with a 5 year
old female). A second release in the same area in April 2013 included anotherpair (3 year old male with a 7 year old female). All individuals were fitted with asatellite radio transmitter to obtain telemetry locations to determine their
movement and survivorship. The areas selected for release had a different social
approach; the first (Sonora) included a series of conversations with livestock
producers with the aim of exposing the possible benefits of ecological restoration
resulting from wolf presence and the impact observed in other experience. The
second area (Chihuahua) had a less publicized approach that included custommade talks with individual stakeholders resulting in the written consent of them
accepting the release of wolves on their land. In the first stage of the releaseprogram (2011-2012), there was an allowance (economic support) for local

117Mammalslandowners involved in the projectprovided by the National
Commission of Natural Protected
Areas (CONANP-SEMARNAT). All
the monitoring effort and releaseactivities (2011 - 2013) were
implemented by academic and nonprofit institutions, also through agrant by CONANP.
Post-release monitoring: Mexican
wolves were monitored via satellite
and ground telemetry. The satellite
telemetry was carried out incollaboration with the USFWS, using
the same programing of the collars
as it has been used in the Blue
Range Wolf Recovery Area (3 to 4
locations per day, with locations
obtained between 2 to 4 days apart).
Ground telemetry depended on the
topography and safety conditions forthe technicians. The first released
Mexican wolf at release sitefamily group split into two entities, asingle 5 year old female and theother four remaining together. These four individuals were found poisoned during
the 1 to 2 months after release. After almost 6 months of territorial stability in theregion, the single female began a major movement that ended almost 200 km
south of the release site, where her signal disappeared seven and a half months
after the release.
During the releases in the second area (Chihuahua) two elements to favor
Mexican wolf adaptation and monitoring were added: food supplementation andcamera traps were placed in the release sites. The first pair released in
Chihuahua had a bond and remained as such; their monitoring has been
facilitated by this behavior. These individuals have fed on white tailed deer,cottontail rabbits, small peccaries and livestock carcasses. The second pairreleased in Chihuahua did not present such bonding structure and resulted in an
immediate separation, which has resulted in a complex monitoring pattern; they
have not settled and established a definitive home range. The male has traveled
extensively north and the female has traveled south, both have dispersed on
average 40 km of the release site. The habitat used by these two are significantly
different, the male using Chihuahuan desert flatlands, the female has remained
associated to high elevation pine-oak forests.

Major difficulties facedx Livestock producer’s antagonistic behavior in Sonora resulted in low
survivorship of released individuals.

118

Mammalsx Poor husbandry in livestock operations provide carrion to Mexican wolves,both in Sonora and Chihuahua.
x These problems have lowered the success of the re-introduction process.
x Local ego’s has been an obstacle to successful communication of the project
results.

Major lessons learnedx Mexican wolves are capable of living in a privately owned dominatedlandscape, supplemental feeding has been a major tool to facilitate andacclimatize the individuals to their environment. Food habits analysis haveshown the use of native ungulates, and to some degree livestock carcasses.
x Livestock carcasses are readily available to Mexican wolves and otherpredators which are perceived as “depredation events” into the eyes ofranchers and livestock producers, alternative management should result in
lower availability of carcasses The social approach in these projects should
consider primarily rural areas, where the direct contact and information isneeded, supported with programs like livestock insurance, support inmanagement and incentives to conservation.
x The program requires long-term support of the Federal and State governments
and strong collaboration with academics and NGO.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Partially Successful

Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x An individually social based approach to the program has facilitated thetolerance of wolves in the second re-introduction site. Contrary to the first reintroduction site.
x Alternative husbandry techniques should be implemented by local
stakeholders that have shown acceptance to the program, resulting inneighboring ranches implementing those techniques.
x Additional availability of Mexican wolves should favor the survivorship of moreindividuals.

ȱ119Mammals

Re-introduction of the Iberian lynx, Andalusia,
Spain
Miguel A. Simón1, Rafael Arenas-Rojas2, Javier Rodriguez-Siles2, Maribel GarcíaTardío2, Joaquín Perez-Marin2, José M. Gil-Sánchez2 & Guillermo Lopez2
1- Junta de Andalucía. C/ Manuel Siurot 50, 41071, Seville, Spain
miguelangel.simon@juntadeandalucia.es
2- Agencia de Medio Ambiente y Agua de Andalucía. C/ Johan Gutenberg s/n,
41092, Seville, Spain

Introduction
The Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) is an endemic felid of the Iberian Peninsula.
Once widespread across the Iberian territory, only about 100 Iberian individuals
were found to occur in 2002 into two isolated populations in Andalusia (Southern
Spain): Andújar-Cardeña and Doñana (Guzmán et al., 2004). Given this criticalsituation, the Iberian lynx was the only felid species catalogued by IUCN as“Critically Endangered” in 2003 (IUCN 2003). Starting in 2002, three consecutive
EU-funded Life conservation projects (summarizing 14 years) are being
developed by the Andalusian Regional Government of Environment in order tostop the decline of the population and restore extinct populations through reintroduction (Simón et al., 2012).
Moreover, a captive-breeding
program was initiated in 2004 withthe main goal of providing
individuals to be released in reintroduction programs (Vargas etal., 2008). The first re-introduction
program began in 2006 with theselection of optimal areas for reintroduction. Two areas close to
Andújar-Cardeña nucleus wereselected for re-introduction:
Guadalmellato and Guarrizas.
Releases began in 2009.
Currently, 34 individuals have been
re-introduced in the wild.
Demographic parameters of both
re-introduced populations show apositive evolution, and the total
wild Iberian lynx population in 2012
was estimated to be 320
individuals.

Goals
x Goal 1: Decrease Iberian lynx
extinction risk through the creation

Iberian lynx © Manuel Moral120

Mammalsof two connected reintroduced nuclei thatwould strengthen theremnant population.
x Goal 2: Identification of
optimal areas(regarding to habitat,
resources and threats)
for the re-introduction
within the former
Iberian lynx range in
Andalusia.
x Goal 3: Correction of
main limiting factors
through habitat
management, resource
Typical Iberian lynx habitat © Miguel Simon
improvement, reductionof threats and obtaining
a strong social support for re-introduction.
x Goal 4: Provide enough individuals (both wild-born and captive-born) to create
two self-sustaining populations (connected to each other), in 15 years.
x Goal 5: Evaluate effectiveness of all processes in order to establish useful reintroduction protocols for the species.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Establishment of 15 breeding females per area after 7 years of
releases.
x Indicator 2: Establishment of 30 breeding females per area after 15 years of
releases.
x Indicator 3: Achieve annual survival rates higher than 50% in released
individuals.
x Indicator 4: Obtain the interconnection of areas of presence with areas of reintroduction to reach an only meta-population.
x Indicator 5: Down-list the IUCN threat category of the Iberian lynx after 10
years of releases.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The Iberian lynx need well-preserved Mediterranean scrubland andhigh wild rabbit (its staple prey) densities. Habitat transformation (mainly due toboth forestry plantations and infrastructure development) has provoked suitable
habitat to be restricted to hunting private lands. Thus, collaborative agreementswith owners and hunting societies are essential in Iberian lynx conservation(Simón et al., 2012, 2013). After a careful selection and a correction of limiting
factors in optimal re-introduction areas in Andalusia, and once a strong social
support was guaranteed, releases began in early 2010. The re-introduction
program was designed by a multidisciplinary team and approved in aninternational seminar. All the stages of the program are being covered according
the planned agenda. Up to January 2013, 19 (8 males:11 females) and 15 (7121Mammals
males:8 females) Iberian lynxes in Guadalmellato and Guarrizas were released
respectively. Out of the total released lynxes, 50% were wild-caught individuals
and 50% captive-bred ones. Collaborative agreements and public awareness arebeing important to count on the local population support of the program.
Implementation: Prior to releases, wild rabbit populations were enhanced
through habitat management. Moreover, a sanitary surveillance program was
implemented in wildlife in order to evaluate sanitary risks for re-introduced
individuals. Meanwhile, the main potential threats were decreased throughawareness and poaching surveillance (Simón et al., 2012, 2013). A total of
23,403 ha (7,881 ha in Guadalmellato and 15,522 ha in Guarrizas) are undercollaborative agreement. During the first year of releases, six (3 males:3 females;
two breeding-aged couples) and five (2 males:3 females; one breeding-aged
couple) individuals were soft-released in Guadalmellato and Guarrizas
respectively. Soft-release enclosures are 4 ha pens that were built in areas ofhigh rabbit density. Moreover, supplementary feeding is performed while lynxes
stay inside the soft-release enclosures. From the second year onwards, both softand hard-releases were performed.
Post-release monitoring: Released individuals are monitored throughtelemetry (both VHF and GPS-GSM collars) and photo-trapping (Simón et al.,2013). In soft-releases, individuals are observed 8 hours/day in order to evaluate
their behaviour and potential interaction between individuals. When soft-release
was performed inside the home range of a settled individual, fights across themess between resident and released individuals were not uncommon. Once thisproblem was detected, no other soft-releases were performed inside settled adultterritories. Reproduction events and productivity are identified by means of phototrapping (Simón et al., 2013). Mortality was mostly detected by means oftelemetry. Post-release development has been similar in both between hard- andsoft-released individuals, and between wild-caught and captive-bred ones. Noneof the individuals had to be recaptured due to a lack of adaptation to theenvironment.
In Guadalmellato, reproduction was confirmed since the first year of releases.
One breeding female raised two cubs during the first year, three breeding females
raised seven cubs during the second one, and four breeding females raised six
cubs during the third one. Nine out of the 19 lynxes released in Guadalmellato
were found dead within one year after the release. Of them, four individuals died(run over) in car accidents, three poached and two died due to unknown causes.
Because of these results, conservation actions in Guadalmellato are currently
focused on decreasing both road accidents and poaching.
In Guarrizas, no breeding was recorded in the first year, whereas two breeding
females raised eight cubs during the second one. Five of the fifteen lynxes
released were found dead within the first year after the release. Of them, two
individuals were poached, one died in a car accident, another one as a result of adisease and the last one due to a fight. Conservation efforts in Guarrizas arebeing mainly directed to prevent poaching.

122Mammals
Overall mortality during
the first year after release
was 41.2% (47.4% in
Guadalmellato and 33.3%
in Guarrizas). Althoughsample size is still low forsolid conclusions, mortality
during the first year wasbarely lower in wild-caught
individuals than in captiveborn ones (29.4% vs.
52.9%). Apparently, there
were not differences insurvival, behaviour or
settlement between softand hard-released
individuals. In the
Release of Iberian lynx © Guillermo Lopez
following years, releasesof 5 - 10 genetically-selected individuals per area will be performed annually inorder to achieve a rapid population increase. Moreover, re-introduction in a third
optimal area will begin in 2014.

Major difficulties facedx Measures to decrease fragmentation caused by infrastructures and its relatedrisks are very expensive.
x The use of illegal non-selective hunting methods is frequent and its total
eradication sometimes becomes a difficult issue.
x Prior to re-introduction, enough funding to perform the whole program must be
ensured.

Major lessons learnedx Performing Iberian lynx re-introduction in a large area (>10,000 ha) of highrabbit density guarantees both settlement and reproduction of released lynxes.
x Soft-releases should not be performed inside the home range of a resident
Iberian lynx.
x Both soft- and hard-releases can be successfully used in the Iberian lynx reintroduction.
x Risk due to both poaching and car accidents might be carefully considered
and reduced before beginning an Iberian lynx re-introduction program.
x The support of the local population is essential to the success of an Iberian
lynx re-introduction program.

123

Mammals
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason for success/failure:x Steps are being made according to approved re-introduction program.
x Settlement and productivity are over the previsions in both areas.
x All released individuals have adapted well to the environment.
x Connection between Andújar-Cardeña and both re-introduction areas has
been demonstrated by the movements of four different individuals.
x The social support to the re-introduction program is high, and the involvementof the population in the program increases every year.

References
Guzmán, N., F. J. García, G. Garrote, R. Pérez de Ayala & C. Iglesias. (2004) El
lince ibérico (Lynx pardinus) en España y Portugal. Censo-diagnóstico de sus
poblaciones. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad, Madrid.ȱ
IUCN (2003) 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.redlist.org.ȱ
Simón, M.A., J.M. Gil-Sánchez, G. Ruiz, G. Garrote, E.B. McCain, L. Fernández,
M. López-Parra, E. Rojas, R. Arenas-Rojas, T. Del Rey, M. García-Tardío, and G.
López. 2012. Reverse of the decline of the endangered Iberian lynx. Cons Biol
26: 731-736.
Simón, M. A. et al. (2013) El lince ibérico. Diez años de Conservación. Consejeríade Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Andalucía, Sevilla.ȱ
Vargas, A., I. Sánchez, F. Martínez, A. Rivas, J.A. Godoy, E. Roldán, M.A.
Simón, R. Serra, M.J. Pérez, C. Enseñat, M. Delibes, M. Aymerich, A. Sliwa, U.
Breitenmoser. (2008) The Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus conservation breeding
program. Int Zoo Yearbook 42: 190–198.ȱ

124

Mammals

Re-introduction of the brown bear in the central
Alps, Trentino, Italy
Marta De Barba1, Claudio Groff2 & Piero Genovesi3
1- Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS UMR 5553, Universite ғ Joseph Fourier, BP
53, F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France marta.debarba@gmail.com
2- Forest and Wildlife Service, Provincia Autonoma di Trento, via G.B. Trener 3,38123 Trento, Italy claudio.groff@provincia.tn.it
3- Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, via Vitaliano Brancati 48,
00144 Rome, Italy piero.genovesi@isprambiente.it

Introduction
The brown bear (Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758) population of northern Italy is oneof the smallest in Europe and is central for the restoration of the species in the
Alps (Swenson et al., 2000). The decline of the brown bear population in the Alps
started during the 18th century due to human persecution and habitat loss andfragmentation (Mustoni et al., 2003). Bears in northern Italy became isolated fromthe larger Dinaric-Balkanian population, and by the end of the 1990s, only few
relict individuals survived in the central Alps, in the Trento province (Trentino) andthe population was considered biologically extinct. In 1999 - 2002, nine bears
from Slovenia were released in Trentino as part of a translocation program (LifeUrsus Project). Since then, the population has grown to 43 - 48 bears in 2012
(estimates are over 50 bears for 2013), and has expanded into part of the former
range (Groff et al., 2013). The modern Alpine ecosystem, a mosaic of natural andhuman dominated environments, poses the main challenge for the management
and conservation of this population. Brown bears are globally listed as of Least
Concern (IUCN), the population of northern Italy is in Annex II of the CITES(Washington, 1973) and its protection is regulated at the national and European
level.

Goals
x Goal 1: Usetranslocation of brown
bears from Slovenia to
avoid the extinction of
one of the large
carnivores of the Alps,
assure the continuity ofbrown bear presence inthe region andpreserve the legacy ofthe native brown bear
population, re-establish
a minimum viable
population of 40 - 60
bears in the central

Brown bear © C. Frapporti

125Mammals
Alps in 20 - 40 years anda brown bear metapopulation in the Alps inthe longer term.
x Goal 2: Promote the coexistence between
humans and bears byincreasing awareness ofthe human population
towards brown bears andthe re-introduction project,through environmental
education and media
information, and involving
local stakeholders in the
project.
Typical bear habitat © Archives Forest Servicex Goal 3: Mitigate humanbear conflicts throughprotocols for damage evaluation, establishment of damage compensation
schemes, prevention of damage to properties, and management of problem
bears and of emergency situations.
x Goal 4: Monitoring and scientific research to measure success of the reintroduction and allow timely intervention if deemed necessary.
x Goal 5: Establish a network, at the national and international level, between
the different relevant authorities to promote population level management.ȱ

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Number of founders surviving and reproducing after translocation,
positive population growth and reproduction.
x Indicator 2: Preservation of the genetic legacy of the last bear population of the
Italian Alps and maintenance of genetic diversity.
x Indicator 3: Habitat use and distribution of the population, connectivity withother bear populations in the eastern Alps.
x Indicator 4: Support to the project (number of local administrations,stakeholders and other associations adhering to the project, attitude of the
public opinion during and after the translocation).
x Indicator 5: Level of knowledge acquired through monitoring, number andimpact of research projects and activities.

Project Summary
Feasibility: A feasibility study was carried out by the former National
Wildlife Institute (now ISPRA) to evaluate the environmental, organizational,
administrative, socio-economic and normative aspects of a brown bear reintroduction in the central Alps in Italy based on the analysis of ecological, socialand economical data (Dupré et al., 1998). The study estimated that only 2 - 3
relict bears remained in Trentino, based on genetic analysis of feces collected in
the region during the years preceding the project. Based on a sample area of
6,495 km2, the study verified the existence of a minimum suitable habitat of126

Mammals~1,700 km2 for supporting a MVP of 35 - 50 bears, taking into account bear
ecological requirements, environmental features, and human presence. The
attitude of the human population living in non-urban areas was surveyed andfound to be mostly (>70%) favorable to the re-introduction, despite lower levels of
acceptance in some areas. The study also highlighted the necessity of improving
prevention and compensation measures for damages possibly caused by bears.
Finally, it was determined that, to achieve project objectives 9 bears (3 males and6 females and approximately 2 - 6 years old) should be released in the area werethe last relict bears of Trentino still existed. The Slovenian population should be
the source of the translocated bears given the short time the populations havebeen separated, the behavioral characteristics, and the sustainability of theremoval (stock taken from the Slovenian hunting quota). The study concluded thata re-introduction was feasible and could lead in the mid- to long-term to thesuccessful re-establishment of the species in the central Alps.
Implementation: The main agencies responsible for the implementation of
the project were the Parco Naturale Adamello Brenta, which first promoted the reintroduction, the Provincia Autonoma di Trento, which coordinates management
activities, and the former National Wildlife Institute, which provides scientificsupport. Formal technical and administrative agreements were established withother local administrations, including neighboring provinces and countries where
the bears were likely to expand.
The support of local stakeholders to the project was ensured through the
involvement of the Hunting Association of the Trento Province, Trento WWF, andorganizations of categories particularly affected by bear presence such as
livestock farmers and beekeepers. Specific Guidelines were produced to define
operational programs (i.e. monitoring, management of problem bears, damages
and emergency situations, training of personnel, communication) and the specificroles of the various agencies involved. The Trento Province secured a budget forcompensating damage losses and other management activities.
Translocations took place
during four years, between
1999 and 2002. Bears
were captured within two
hunting reserves insouthern Slovenia andreleased in the Parco
Naturale Adamello Brenta
in the western part ofTrentino. An additional
female was released toreplace one that died in anavalanche shortly after
release.
Brown bear with radio-collar © C. Groff127

Mammals
Post-release monitoring: All re-introduced bears were equipped with a VHF
collar and two ear tags to allow precise determination of their position, at least
twice per day, and evaluate potential risks to people and properties, therefore
preventing situations of possible conflicts with humans. Radio-tracking was themain monitoring method from 1999 to 2003 and provided important data on
survival, habitat use, and distribution of the translocated bears (Zibordi et al.,2010). Radio-tracking through GPS/VHF technology is still used for closemonitoring of problem bears. Starting in 2003, genetic monitoring became theprincipal mean to obtain demographic, reproductive, ecological, distribution andgenetic information on the released bears and their descendants. The method isbased on the analysis of the DNA extracted from biological samples, mostly bearhair and feces collected non-invasively in the field, using a variety of samplingtechniques, but occasionally also tissue, blood, and bones retrieved during
capture operations or from bear carcasses (De Barba et al., 2010; Groff et al.,2013). Data from radio and genetic monitoring is complemented with additional
information from traditional sign survey, visual observation (i.e. female with cubs),
and camera traps.
Most released bears survived and reproduced in Trentino (7 of the 9 founders, 2males, 5 females); since the translocation the population grew rapidly toestimated 43 - 48 bears in 2012 (the threshold of 50 individuals will likely be met
in 2013) due to high reproductive rate (34 documented birth events, at least 69
cubs in 2002 - 2012); survival rates over 11 years were 81,8%, 92,9%, 91,3% for
cubs, juveniles, and adults respectively (Groff et al., 2013); and the released
bears and their descendants started to recolonize the former bear range in the
Alps. Since the beginning of the project, 14 bears were found dead, additional 13
bears have not been detected through genetic monitoring for at least the two past
years and two bears were placed in captivity and two bears dispersed outside thestudy area (Groff et al., 2013).
The population is still demographically isolated; however long distance malebiased dispersal, from Trentino to the east and from Slovenia to the west, hasrecently resulted in the partial overlap, without gene flow, of the two bear
populations. As a consequence, initially high genetic diversity is declining, fiveinbred litters, out of a total of 30 litters have been detected through pedigree
reconstruction, and the effective population size (Ne) remains small (De Barba etal., 2010). Repeated opinion surveys showed a dramatic decrease in the public
support, despite the communication campaigns, and the efforts for damage
prevention and compensation.

Major difficulties facedx Higher than expected conflicts with humans and management of problem
bears.
x Human caused mortality especially in neighboring countries.
x Lack of efficacy and coordination for the management and potential removal of
the few problem bears, and consequent dramatic decrease in public support.
x Establishment of gene flow with the Slovenian population not yet recorded.
x Need for effective trans-national agreements for bear management in the Alps.

128

Mammals
Major lessons learnedx Importance of support and involvement of local population and stakeholders,and of agreements with administrations affected by bear presence.
x Importance of long term, science based post-release monitoring and research.
x Importance of increasing awareness and education of human population anddelivery of project status and results.
x Importance of trained scientists and field teams.
x Importance of effective and prompt measures to manage problem bears.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Survival and reproduction of majority (77%) of founders; high reproductive
rates of re-introduced population and achievement of the minimum
demographic objective of >50 bears in less than 20 years.
x High initial levels of genetic diversity comparable to the source Slovenian
population.
x Geographic expansion and beginning of recolonization of former bear habitat
in northern Italy and neighboring countries (Switzerland, Germany andAustria).
x Inter-regional agreements ensuring large scale monitoring, damage
compensation and prevention, management of problem bears andemergencies, personnel training, communication to human population. In thiscontext, an Alpine action plan for the Conservation of the Brown Bear
(PACOBACE), endorsed by the Italian Ministry of Environment, ISPRA, andrelevant regional administrations, was produced in 2010 for the Italian Alps.
Efforts are presently carried out to officially recognize the international alpine
bear group already operating since 2006.
x Effective and adaptive management strategies (monitoring, damages andemergencies, personnel training, communication).

References
De Barba, M., Waits, L. P., Garton, E. O., Genovesi, P., Randi, E., Mustoni, A. &Groff, C. (2010) The power of genetic monitoring for studying demography,
ecology and genetics of a reintroduced brown bear population. Molecular Ecology
19: 3938 - 3951.
Dupre ғ, E., Genovesi, P. & Pedrotti, L. (2000) Studio di fattibilita‘ per lareintroduzione dell’Orso bruno (Ursus arctos) sulle Alpi centrali. Biologia eConservazione della Fauna, 105, 1 - 96.
Groff C., Bragalanti, N., Rizzoli, R. & Zanghellini, P. (2013) Rapporto Orso 2012
del Servizio Foreste e fauna della Provincia Autonoma di Trento129MammalsMustoni, A., Carlini, E., Chiarenzi, B., Chiozzini, S., Lattuada, E., Dupré, E.,
Genovesi, P., Pedrotti, L., Martinoli, A., Preatoni, D., Wauters, L. A. & Tosi, G.
(2003) Planning the Brown bear Ursus arctos re-introduction in the Adamello
Brenta Natural Park. A tool to establish a metapopulation in the Central-Eastern
Alps. Hystrix, 14, 3 - 27.
PACOBACE (2010) Piano d’Azione interregionale per la Conservazione dell’Orso
bruno nelle Alpi centro-orientali. Quad. Cons. Natura, 33, Min. Ambiente ISPRA.
Swenson, J. E., Gerstl, N., Dahle, B. & Zedrosser, A. (2000) Action Plan for theConservation of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) in Europe. Council of Europe,
Strasbourg.
Zibordi, F., Mustoni, A., Viviani, V., Liccioli, S. & Stefani, G. (2010) L’impegno delParco per l’Orso: il Progetto Life Ursus. Documenti del Parco n.18. Parco
Naturale Adamello Brenta, Strembo130Mammals

Translocation of Hawaiian monk seals in the
Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston Atoll, USA
Jason D. Baker1, Tenaya A. Norris2 & Charles L. Littnan3
1- Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Marine FisheriesService, NOAA, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1000, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96814-4733, USA jason.baker@noaa.gov
2- The Marine Mammal Center, 2000 Bunker Road, Fort Cronkhite,
Sausalito, CA 94965, USA
3- Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service,
NOAA, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1000, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814-4733, USA

Introduction
The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) is one of the world’s mostendangered marine mammals, numbering approximately 1,200 individuals anddecreasing at a rate of about 3% per year. Hawaiian monk seals occur throughout
the 2,600 km-long Hawaiian Archipelago, which consists of two regions: the main
Hawaiian Islands (MHI, with eight primary high islands) and the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI, made up of small coral islands, low-lying atolls, andsteep basalt islands). Most monk seals reside in the remote NWHI, and a small
population occurs in the MHI. There are rare and sporadic reports of seals visiting
Johnston Atoll, approximately 800 km south of the Hawaiian Archipelago. Adultmonk seals are approximately 220 cm in length and can weigh over 200 kg. They
give birth, nurse, rest and molt on land and forage on a wide variety of prey on thesea floor, sometimes at depths exceeding 500 m. Identified threats include food
limitation, shark predation, conspecific male aggression, entanglement in derelict
marine debris, fishery interactions, and intentional killing by humans. The species
is Critically Endangered under the IUCN, endangered under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act, depleted under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act, and listed
on CITES Appendix I.

Goals
x Goal 1: Translocation
to alleviate immediaterisks of mortality, suchas shark predation orconspecific maleaggression.
x Goal 2: Translocationfrom area of lower tohigher long-term
survival probability(e.g., due to morefavorable foraging
conditions).
Hawaiian monk seal © Jon Brack131Mammalsx Goal 3: Translocate aggressive male seals to mitigate injury and mortality ofconspecifics.
x Goal 4: Translocate seals in human-populated areas to mitigate undesirable or
dangerous human-seal interactions.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Successful execution of translocations (capture, transport andrelease).
x Indicator 2: Acceptably low rate and distance of dispersal from release area.
x Indicator 3: Post-release survival effects are acceptable. That is, survival rateof translocated seals matches that of comparable individuals at the releasesite. Or, (depending on the goal of translocation) survival of translocated seals
is improved relative to survival at the capture site.
x Indicator 4: Post-release foraging behavior and habitat use of translocatedseals is similar to comparable seals at the release location.
x Indicator 5: Intended goals of translocations were achieved.ȱ

Project Summary
Feasibility: The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) and Main Hawaiian
Islands (MHI) differ in nearly every aspect relevant to monk seal conservation(Baker et al., 2011). The remote NWHI are part of the PapahƗnaumokuƗkea
Marine National Monument, a vast marine-protected area where coral reefs andassociated fish populations are considered robust and fishing and other in situ
human impacts have been minimized. In contrast, the MHI are characterized by alarge human population and nearshore marine ecosystems severely impacted byphysical alteration, heavy fishing pressure, and pollution. Nevertheless, monkseals appear to be thriving in the MHI (Baker et al., 2011), while the NWHI
subpopulations in aggregate are declining, believed largely as a result of food
limitation leading to low juvenile survival. MHI seals may enjoy relatively low intraspecific competition (because the number of seals is still small) and low interspecific competition (because large predatory fish competitors have been greatly
reduced by fishing). Johnston Atoll is very isolated and encloses four small, lowlying islets. It is considered part of the monk seal’s range because seals naturally
occur there, though only rarely and typically only singly.
In the NWHI, strict quarantine protocols minimize the risk of introducing invasive
species to these fragile island ecosystems characterized by a high degree ofendemism. At some sites, access is controlled to protect cultural resources andarchaeological remains. In the MHI, social factors play a large role in monk sealtranslocations. Public attitudes toward monk seals are diverse. Undesirable sealinteractions with people have motivated several seal relocations, and sensitivity to
public sentiment is an important element of translocation decision-making.
Implementation: Translocation has been a tool for Hawaiian monk sealconservation for the past 30 years. A total of 259 seals were translocated during
1984 - 2009 (Baker et al., 2011; Norris, 2013). Seals were transported from just a
few kilometers within an island or atoll to over 2,000 km between subpopulations.
Consequently, the cost and complexity of associated logistics varied greatly with132

Mammals
the scale of translocations.
The NWHI are primarily
accessible only by large
seagoing vessels. The
exception is Midway Atoll(previously also Kure Atolland French Frigate
Shoals), which aircraft
may access. Within NWHI
atolls, seals have beentransported aboard smallboats or carried by hand.
In contrast, the MHI
shorelines are largely
accessible by somecombination of aircraft,
vessel and automobile,
Translocating a weaned monk seal pup from area ofand these have all beenhigh shark predation © Monica Bond
used for translocations
within the MHI.
Translocations between the MHI, NWHI and Johnston Atoll were accomplishedusing large vessels or aircraft.
Attention to disease transmission risk has varied over time and with the nature oftranslocations. Prior to the 2000s, no testing for disease exposure wasconducted. Thereafter, potential variation in disease exposure among
subpopulations has been assessed, and when seals were translocated among
subpopulations, individuals were subject to health screening (Norris, 2013).
Further, Schultz et al. (2011) found that the Hawaiian monk seal is comprised of asingle panmictic population, so that there are no concerns regarding genetic
consequences of translocations. Most seals had “hard releases” on land, in thatthey were simply let go on the beach. In 1990 - 1991, six weaned pups instead
had a “soft release”, as they were held for 1 - 2 months in shoreline pens at Kure
Atoll and offered live fish prior to release. For logistical reasons, 21 adult maleseals were released from a ship in nearshore waters of the MHI in 1994 and 12
weaned pups were released from a small boat within 100 m of shore at Nihoa
Island in 2008 - 2009.
Post-release monitoring: Most seals are individually identifiable by appliedtags, temporary pelage bleach marks, and photographic identification using
natural markings. Post-release monitoring and program assessment largely reliedon resighting translocated individuals over time and comparing their movement
and survival to appropriate “control” seals. The following was reported by Baker etal. (2011) and Norris (2013). Recently weaned pups (with little or no at-sea
foraging experience) exhibited high fidelity to release sites commensurate withthat shown by untranslocated pups to their birth location. In contrast, juvenile andadult seals tended to stray from their release locations farther and sooner.
Nevertheless, when 21 adult male seals were moved over 1,000 km from Laysan

133Mammals
Island (NWHI) to the MHI, they subsequently dispersed among the MHI; however,
only one was observed to return to the NWHI. Translocated seals’ survival rates
were indistinguishable from those of comparable seals native to the release sites.
Further, where comparisons could be made, seals translocated to improve theirsurvival appeared to fare better than comparable seals remaining at their natal
locations.
Detailed post-release telemetry tracking was conducted on 12 pups translocatedfrom French Frigate Shoals to Nihoa Island (Norris, 2013). Similar post-release
movement patterns, diving activity, and habitat use were observed fortranslocated and non-translocated monk seal pups at Nihoa Island and other sites
in the Hawaiian Archipelago, indicating monk seal pups had normal foraging
activity following translocation.

Major difficulties facedx Once seals had become habituated to people, translocations within the MHI to
mitigate their interactions with people typically failed. Habituated seals usuallydispersed from relatively remote release sites (often repeatedly whenrelocated and released multiple times) and continued to seek out humancontact. These cases tended to ultimately result in the seals being taken out of
the MHI (to Johnston Atoll, the NWHI or permanent captivity) to address public
and seal safety concerns.
x Adult males and a subadult male released at Johnston Atoll apparently did not
persist there long post-release. Some may have died there, whereas others(fitted with satellite tracking devices) departed the atoll soon after release andwere never resighted.
x Small sample sizes sometimes inhibited robust statistical inference.
x Post-release monitoring effort for many of the translocations conducted prior to
the late 1990s was inadequate.
x Budgetary and logistic constraints limited post-release visual monitoring of themost recent (2008 - 2009) translocations to Nihoa Island. Available informationsuggested these translocated pups likely fared considerably better than thoseat their natal site, but perhaps not as well as native Nihoa Island pups.
Imprecise survival estimates due to low monitoring effort hampered project
evaluation.

Major lessons learnedx There is little risk to Hawaiian monk seals associated with the mechanics of
capture, transport, and release. Of 259 seals translocated, only 3 (1.2%) diedduring translocation procedures, including 2 adult males and 1 weaned pup.
One of the adults died while being restrained, while the second adult and thepup died while being held in temporary captivity. Cause of death in all 3 cases
could not be determined. Capture stress, pre-existing conditions or both may
have been involved. A wide variety of transportation methods may be safely
employed, including carrying seals on foot, transporting in small boats, large
ships and aboard aircraft. Whenever feasible, releasing translocated monkseals on land is preferred to a boat-based release, especially for young seals.

134Mammalsx Weaned pups aremost amenable totranslocation. They
are robust tohandling andtransport, showhigh fidelity torelease sites, andapparently survive
as well ascomparable native
pups at the releaselocation. Olderseals also appear to
exhibit favorable
Hawaiian monk seal pup on research vessel withsurvival rates postGPS telemetry instrument © Hung Tranrelease (with the
exception of thosetaken to Johnston Atoll) but tend to disperse sooner and more widely.
x Based on existing information, Johnston Atoll is not a viable release site formonk seals.
x Most intended goals of the translocations were consistently achieved. Notably,
undesirable human-seal interactions can be successfully prevented throughtranslocation of young seals (weaned pups) prior to habituation to humans.
However, once seals have become habituated to people, translocation within
the MHI is unlikely to resolve problem interactions.
x The 1994 translocation of 21 adult males to the MHI convincingly achieved thedesired goal of reducing female seal mortality at Laysan Island (NWHI)(Johanos et al., 2010). At that time, monk seals existed in low numbers andhad rarely been seen by Hawaii residents. Scientists and managers failed to
involve the public in decision-making, nor was there follow-up public
education. Apparently as a result, some Hawaii residents believe that monkseals are not native to the MHI and do not belong there. Thus, while theimmediate goal of the translocation project was achieved, this action also
contributed to persistent animosity towards seals and a lack of support amongsome members of the public for monk seal conservation, even two decades
hence.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Monk seals are clearly robust animals and can readily withstand temporary
handling and captivity. We believe the rarity of translocation-related mortality
has also resulted from strict adherence to cautious handling and transport
protocols.

135Mammalsx In the short term, pups undergo a post-weaning fast and remain relatively
sedentary and mostly on shore for 1 to 2 months after weaning. Pups
translocated during this period tend to stay put where released and slowly
expand their range once they begin to forage. This behavior facilitates postrelease monitoring and provides a measure of confidence that pups will not
rapidly disperse from the habitat selected for release to perhaps less desirable
habitat.
x In the long term, most monk seals translocated at all ages remained in thegeneral region where they were released and did not return to their natal
areas.
x “Hard” releases with no acclimation period work well for this species. Pups
were typically released immediately on shore and older animals either on ornear shore. This meant captive time was limited to that required for healthscreening and transport (which typically can be done simultaneously).
Consequently, cost of captive care, risk of capture-related health complications
and potential for human habituation were minimized.
x The long-term, detailed monk seal demographic database and the fact thatmost seals are individually identifiable both improve design of translocation
actions and facilitate post-release monitoring.ȱ

References
Baker, J. D., B. L. Becker, T. A. Wurth, T. C. Johanos, C. L. Littnan, & J. R.
Henderson. (2011) Translocation as a tool for conservation of the Hawaiian monkseal. Biological Conservation 144: 2692 – 2701.ȱ
Baker, J. D., A. L. Harting, T. A. Wurth, & T. C. Johanos. (2011) Dramatic shifts in
Hawaiian monk seal distribution predicted from divergent regional trends. Marine
Mammal Science 27: 78 - 93.ȱJohanos, T.C., B. L. Becker, J. D. Baker, T. J. Ragen, W. G. Gilmartin, & T.
Gerrodette. (2010) Impacts of sex ratio reduction on male aggression in thecritically endangered Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi. Endangered
Species Research 11: 123 - 132.ȱ
Norris, T. A. (2013) Foraging behavior, habitat, health, and survival of resident
and translocated Hawaiian monk seals at Nihoa Island, Hawaii. MSc Thesis, San
Jose State University, 121 pȱ
Schultz, J. K., J. D. Baker, R. J. Toonen, A. L. Harting & B. W. Bowen. (2010)
Range-wide genetic connectivity of the Hawaiian monk seal and implications fortranslocation. Conservation Biology 25: 124 - 132.

136

Mammals

Re-introduction and supplementation of large
antelopes and zebra to Debshan Ranches, Central
Zimbabwe
Clive M. Swanepoel1 & Kevin M. Dunham2
1- Formerly General Manager Debshan Ranches, 10 Belgravia Mews, Isobels
Lane, Belgravia, Harare, Zimbabwe cmswanie2012@yahoo.com
2- PO Box CH385, Chisipite, Harare, Zimbabwe faykevin@zol.co.zw

Introduction
As their habitats are reduced and fragmented by the expansion of agriculture andhuman settlement, numbers of many African antelopes are declining (East, 1999).
In southern Africa, the economic value of wildlife, often realised through trophy
hunting, has promoted conservation on private land. During 1991, Debshan
Ranches initiated a project to boost small populations of wild herbivores and to reintroduce species that historically occurred there. Common eland (Tragelaphusoryx), wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) andwaterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus) were re-introduced, and sable antelope(Hippotragus niger), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) and Burchell's zebra(Equus quagga) were released to supplement existing populations. The
conservation status of all these species is Least Concern (IUCN Red List).
Shangani Ranch (c. 480 km2) and De Beers Ranch (c. 200 km2) lie in central
Zimbabwe. Mean annual rainfall is c.600 mm, with a single rainy season during
November - March (Dunham et al., 2003). The main vegetation types are:Terminalia sericea woodland and wooded grassland; Brachystegia–Julbernardia
woodland; Colophospermum mopane woodland and shrubland; AcaciaCombretum woodland on
alluvial soils; andhydromorphic grassland.
The ranches are usedprimarily for beef
production, but support
various wild herbivores
and predators (leopard,
cheetah and black-backed
jackal, and occasionallylion and spotted andbrown hyenas).

Goals
x Goal 1: Create selfsustaining populations
Zebra and cattle share range on Debshan Ranch© Susan Swanepoel

137

Mammals

Hard release of bushbuck from crate at Debshan
ranches in 2011 © Susan Swanepoelof the re-introduced
species on the ranch(es)where those species werereleased.ȱ
x Goal 2: Create selfsustaining populations of
the supplemented specieson the ranch(es) where
those species werereleased, with the postrelease populations being
more numerous than the
pre-release populations of
the same species.ȱ
x Goal 3: Increase thegenetic diversity of thepreviously-small
populations ofsupplemented species.

ȱSuccess Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Sightings of released animals in the general vicinity of releasesites (indicating that freed animals had both survived and not left the ranchwhere they were released).
x Indicator 2: Sightings of young animals (indicating that released animals had
bred successfully).
x Indicator 3: Long-term increases in the population numbers on the ranches.

Project Summary

Feasibility: The ranches were established during the early 20th century andrecords from early European travellers (e.g. Baines, Selous) and ranch staff
showed that the species earmarked for re-introduction previously occurred there.
The ranches still contained significant populations of other wild herbivores suchas impala, tsessebe, kudu and warthog. Hence, it was believed that thevegetation was suitable for the re-introduced species - most likely the original
populations were eliminated by excessive offtakes (e.g. to reduce competition
with cattle), not by habitat changes. For the species earmarked forsupplementation, it was thought that the populations were kept small by Allee
effects (possibly predator-driven), not by issues of habitat suitability. Sable
antelope, waterbuck, wildebeest and zebra are grazers, giraffe and bushbuck arebrowsers, and the eland is a mixed feeder.
Implementation: All the released animals were purchased through private
sale or game auctions, from ranches in Zimbabwe. For all the species, there is
only a single subspecies within Zimbabwe (Lorenzen et al., 2012) and so themain concerns about moving animals around the country were veterinary ones.
What was available for purchase placed some limitations on the size and age/sex

138

Mammals
composition of the groups released. Prices varied between species and highprices limited the numbers of the rarer species that could be released.
National regulations for controlling foot-and-mouth disease required that the
animals came from areas where both the disease and potential carriers (e.g.
buffalo) were absent (the ‘green zone’); or, for those captured elsewhere, thatthey were tested for foot-and-mouth disease by the veterinary authorities after
capture. The animals came from southern Zimbabwe, the Midlands, or Doma innorth-east Zimbabwe. Except for animals from auction sales, most weretransported to their release site immediately after being caught by professional
game capture teams, usually during the cooler dry-season months. Bushbuck
were individually crated during transport, but other species travelled in groups.
At the release site, the animals were freed into a boma (pre-release pen) withhigh (approximately 2 m) sides of black, opaque plastic sheeting, and measuringc. 50 m x 50 m. The initial groups were kept in the boma for up to 14 days, during
which they were given food (commercial game pellets and cotton seed) anddrinking water. They were freed by removing part of the boma side and letting
them find their own way out. After the apparent success of the early releases, andgiven the difficulty of confining large antelopes in even high-sided bomas (somejumped the sides), later release groups were confined to the boma for just onenight, to prompt group cohesion, before release. Later still, some less financiallyvaluable animals (zebra) or solitary species (bushbuck) were freed immediately
on arrival at the ranch (“free-released”).
More valuable species (waterbuck and sable antelope) were released in
Shangangwe game-fenced enclosure of c. 20 km2 on De Beers ranch. Although it
contained cattle, this enclosure was surrounded by a 2 m, 10-stand, electric fence
that served to prevent the wild herbivores leaving the ranch, and to facilitate their
Table 1. The total numbers of each species released on the two ranches, therange of group sizes and the years when the releases occurred(R = Re-introduction; S = Supplementation)
Release Ranch
Species
Shangani

De Beers

Number inrelease groupYears of releases

Zebra

101

S

89

S

8 - 25

1991 - 1997

Eland

94

R

102

R

10 - 41

1991 - 1997

Wildebeest

0

30 *

R

7 - 23

1998 - 1999

Giraffe

6

R

0

6

1997

Sable antelope

5

S

28 *

R

5 - 18

1993 - 1998

Waterbuck

0

43 *

R

2 - 15

1995 - 1998

0

5

S

1997

Bushbuck

58

S

24 *

S

2011
2

* Released in the Shangangwe enclosure of c.20 km

139Mammals
Fig. 1. The numbers of zebra, eland and giraffecounted during total-area counts from a helicopter ofthe wildlife on Shangani Ranch, Zimbabwe.

monitoring. Wildebeest
were also released here inorder to contain them,because wildebeest may
carry a virus that causes
malignant catarrhal fever,which is potentially fatal tocattle.

Post-release monitoring:
There were three forms of
post-release monitoring.
First, there were incidental
observations of groups of
re-introduced or
supplemented species
during cattle management
operations. Sightings provided information about the spatial distribution anddispersal of released animals, and the presence of juveniles in the groups
indicated successful breeding. Secondly, whenever cattle management required
cattle in a paddock to be rounded up, the staff - working on foot - searched theentire paddock and recorded the numbers of all wild herbivores that they saw. In
addition to providing information on spatial distribution and breeding, these dataalso provided indices of abundance. Thirdly, usually every two years, all large,
wild animals on each ranch were counted during a total-area survey, conductedfrom a helicopter flying at low level along parallel flight-lines.
The helicopter surveys revealed that eland and zebra populations became
established on Shangani Ranch (Figure 1). A giraffe population also became
established, even though just six animals (all adult females) were released. The
increased number of giraffe clearly resulted at least partly from immigration, either
because immigrants were attracted by the released animals, or because of
disruption caused onneighbouring
properties by
Zimbabwe’s agrarianreform program or
both. Giraffe releases
were discontinued
because monitoring
revealed that the
population wasincreasing as a resultof this immigration.
Foot patrols revealed
that the releases ofwaterbuck and sable
antelope in the
Eland in plastic walled boma © Kevin Dunham

140

Mammals
Fig. 2. The median numbers of wildebeest, waterbuck
Shangangwe enclosureand sable antelope counted monthly during footwere initially successful,patrols of Shangangwe enclosure on De Beers Ranch,with numbers peaking
Zimbabwe. Temporal trends shown by lines indicating
during 2005,
the 5-month running means (solid line = wildebeest;
approximately seven years
small dash = sable; large dash = waterbuck).
after the last releases(Figure 2). But during
2006, the number of both
species declined to about
one-third or less of theirformer level and thenremained generally low.
Wildebeest numbers
appeared to decline later,
during 2007, but thenincreased.

Major difficulties facedx The monitoring
schemes were good atrevealing population trends, but did not reveal the reasons for any population
changes. It is still unknown why the sable antelope and waterbuck populationsin the Shangangwe enclosure declined so dramatically during 2006: possibly
some animals were poached, or chased out of the enclosure. But the absenceof an increase in either population during the following three years suggeststhat both were now being regulated, possibly in some density-dependent
fashion, or as a result of a new or additional mortality factor.
x The ranches are large, but home ranges of eland are often also large. The fateof animals that left the ranches was often unknown (one released group ofeland reappeared on Shangani Ranch after an absence of two years).
x The groups of the less-common and thus more-costly species that wereavailable were often small, less than the 10 - 20 individuals that was thepreferred group size.
x Roan antelope (Hippotragus equinus) was a species that would have been reintroduced if groups for release could have been purchased at a reasonable
price.

Major lessons learnedx Need to release a sufficient number (suggest 50 - 100) of animals of target
species, including males and females of a range of ages.
x Hard releases (freeing the animals immediately they arrived at the releaseranch) seemed to be as effective as soft releases (when animals spent up to
two weeks in a pre-release boma).

141Mammals
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Funds were available to obtain and release significant numbers of animals
over a period of several years.
x The ranches were large, but nonetheless some released animals dispersed off
the ranches. In the early stages, the ranches had a ‘soft edge’ because atleast some of the neighbours were friendly towards wildlife. More recently,
Zimbabwe’s agricultural reform programme has hardened the edges. This
resulted, at least initially, in some species (e.g. giraffe, elephant) finding refugeon the ranches. But in the long-term, the presence of wildlife on the ranches
has attracted poachers who kill wildlife for bushmeat or trophies (e.g. elephanttusks, zebra skins). The high demand for meat in neighbouring mining
communities has promoted commercial poaching for bushmeat.
x Financial returns from trophy hunting on the ranches were primarily used tofund the anti-poaching activities necessary to maintain the wildlife populations.

References
Dunham, K. M., Robertson, E. F. & Swanepoel, C. M. (2003) Population declineof tsessebe antelope (Damaliscus lunatus lunatus) on a mixed cattle and wildlife
ranch in Zimbabwe. Biological Conservation 113: 111-124.
East, R. (1999) African Antelope Database 1998. IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist
Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 434pp.
Lorenzen, E.D., Heller, R. & Siegismund, H.R. (2012) Comparative
phylogeography of African savannah ungulates. Molecular Ecology 21: 36563670.

142

Mammals

Re-introduction of Père David’s deer “Milu” toBeijing, Dafeng & Shishou, China
Jiang Zhigang
Professor, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 100101 No. 1-5,
Beichenxilu, Beijing, China jinagzg@ioz.ac.cn

Introduction
Milu (Elaphurus davidianus) is listed as “EW” in IUCN Redlist, and is listed as
National Protected Wild Animal in China. Milu was extinct in wild in China. A
captive herd was assembled at Woburn Abbey, UK around the turning 20th
century. The Duke of Bedford donated 36 Milu to the Beijing Milu Park in 1985
and 1987. Another group of 39 deer from five British zoos was re-introduced to
Dafeng Milu Reserve on coastal marsh site in Jiangsu Province. Milu population
in Beijing Milu Park increased from 39 to 200 from 1985 - 2013, during the period
over 300 Milu were relocated to more than 50 reserves and parks all over thecountry while Milu in Dafeng reserve increased to nearly 2000 in 2013. Since
1997, deliberate releases to the wild have taken place in Dafeng (Hu and Jiang,
2002). Ninety-one Milu were translocated from Beijing Milu Park to Tianezhou,
Shishou, Hubei in 1993 and1995, where the Shishou Milu Reserve wasestablished. A flooding in Yangtze River in 1998 resulted in several cohorts ofMilu leaving the initial release area and forming permanent herds in other parts ofthe province, as well as around Dongting Lake in Hunan Province (Maddison etal., 2012).

Goals
x Goal 1: Identification of potential re-introduction sites within historic range ofMilu.
x Goal 2: Creating nature reserve and parklands for hosting the re-introduced
Milu.
x Goal 3: Forming selfsustained reintroduced Milu
population andgradually using the re-introduced Milu herd
as source for further
relocation.
x Goal 4: Monitoring of
disease andparasites in the reintroduced Milu
populations andmanaging habitat at
re-introduction sites.
Milu in Dafeng Reserve: 2010 © Jiang Zhigang

143

Mammalsx Goal 5: Releasing Milu to wild and re-establish wild Milu populations in the
country.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Establishing healthy self-sustaining breeding stocks of reintroduced Milu.
x Indicator 2: Relocation of the re-introduced Milu to other suitable sites in its
historical range.
x Indicator 3: Establishing wild populations of Milu in its historical range.
x Indicator 4: Using Milu as conservation education model to promoteconservation consciousness.
x Indicator 5: Learning experience from the case of Milu re-introduction for reintroducing other wild extinct species such as Przewalski’s wild horse (Equus
przewalskii), Saiga (Saiga tatarica) and one-horned rhino (Rhinoceros
unicornis) in the country.ȱ

Project Summary
Feasibility: After last glacial period, Milu was restricted to swamp andwetland in the region south of 43°N and east of 110°E in China. Population of Milu
declined due to human hunting and land reclamation as human population
expanded in Holocene. Milu was finally extinct in the field (Cao et al., 1992).
Nanyuan Royal Hunting Garden in the Qing Dynasty (1616 - 1911) hosted a last
herd of Milu, the landscape in the 200 km2 hunting garden in south suburb of
Beijing was a predominantly a wetland of swamp, ponds and lakes during that
period. At the end of 19th century, wall of the garden was first destroyed by aheavy flood in the Yongding River, and then by the cannon fire of the allied
foreign forces during the Second Opium War, the Père David’s deer escaped andwere hunted.
Before the demise of the royal herd of Milu in the Nanyuan, Milu had been
introduced into Europe. During the last decade of the 19th century, the 11th Dukeof Bedford gathered all last 18 Milu in the world to form a breeding herd at the
Woburn Abbey. The heavily inbred Milu safely passed though the genetic
bottleneck of inbreeding and adopted the vast open parkland of mid-England
estate. In the 1950s, number of Milu reached several hundreds (Beck & Wemmer,
1983). After culture revolution, the feasibility of re-introducing Milu to China was
explored.
Implementation: The first conservation re-introduction of Milu included twogroups of 20 (5 males:15 females) and 18 (all females) in 1985 and 1987,
respectively. After a careful search and evaluation by a group of zoologists,botanists, wildlife managers and officers the relic site of the Nanyuan Royal
Hunting Garden was chosen as the site of re-introduction. For the re-introduction,
the Beijing Milu Park (39°07’N, 116°03’E) was established.
Beijing Milu Park is 60 ha in area with Annual average temperature of 13.1Ԩ, andaverage precipitation of 600 mm. The land was dominated by reed (Phragmites
australis), and grasses, such as Eleusine indica, Ersagrostis cilianensis, Digitaria

144

Mammalssangunalis and Setaria
viridis. Where the grass isovergrazed, Amaranthus
roxburghianus dominates
the vegetation. Since there-introduction, Milu overgrazed on naturalvegetation in summer andautumn, thus original
vegetation inside the park
was damaged by overgrazing and droughts. The
park managers started toplant artificial grasslands
and rebuilt wetlands in thepark. The deer in the park
receive supplemental
feeding year round (Jiang
et al., 2008).

Author in Dafeng Reserve in 2007

Further population growth in Beijing Milu Park was restricted by its limited size,
thus, the park translocated its Milu to reserves and parks. More than 300 Milu
were sent over 50 sites all over China. The most important one was relocation to
Tianezhou on the riverside of Yangtze River in 1990s. Ninety-one Milu weretranslocated to Tianezhou, Shishou, Hubei Province in 1993 and1995, where theShishou Milu Reserve was established. A flooding of the Yangtze River in 1998
resulted in several cohorts of Milu leaving the initial release area and forming
permanent herds in other parts of the province, as well as around Dongting Lakein Hunan Province (Maddison et al., 2012). The second re-introduction of Milu
was carried out in August of 1986. A group of 39 Milu was selected from five UK
zoos. An even more extensive survey in eastern China for potential reintroduction site was conducted. Finally, the Dafeng State Forestry Farm waschosen which is located on the coast of Yellow Sea and was lightly populated.
Dafeng Milu Natural Reserve (33°05’N, 120°49’E) was established to host the reintroduced Milu..
The Dafeng Milu Natural Reserves is 2 - 4 m above sea level, with a sub-tropic
monsoon type climate. Annual average temperature is 14.1Ԩ and average annual
precipitation is 1,068 mm. The vegetation is dominated by cogongrass (Imperata
cylindrica), reed (Phragmites australis), locust false-indigo (Amopha fruticosa)
and locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) (Jiang et al., 2008). The original size of the
Dafeng Milu Natural Reserve was 10 km2, with 3 fenced paddocks of 273 ha. The
reserve purchased another 30 km2 land in 1995. In 1997, the reserve wasapproved by the National Nature Reserve Commission as a national nature
reserve (Jiang et al., 2000b).
Post-release monitoring: Wardens and veterinarians of Beijing Milu Park,
Dafeng national nature reserve and Shishou Milu national reserve routinely

145

Mammalsclosely monitored the reintroduced Milu.
Researcher and graduate
students from the instituteof Zoology, Chinese
Academy of Sciences,
Chinese Forestry
Academy and universities
conducted research
projects including
population monitoring on
the introduced Milu in
Beijing Milu Park, Dafeng
national nature reserveand Shishou Milu national
reserve. Threeinternational workshops on
Close-up of Milu
management andresearch on the re-introduced Milu were held in Beijing Milu Park in 2006 andDafeng reserve in 2011 and 2012, respectively. Recently, a team is monitoring
the field released Milu in coast marsh of Dafeng with satellite collars. Many
papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Major difficulties facedx Populations of Milu quickly reached the carry capacities of Beijing Milu Park,
Dafeng Milu nature reserve and Shishou Milu nature reserve.
x Lack of further field releasing sites for Milu in the country.
x Disease and parasites may break out occasionally in Milu populations.
x Released Milu may damage crops and thus cause conflict of interests between
reserves and local people.
x The problem of low genetic diversity may be still potential threat to the survivalof Milu, though we do not notice major phonological change in the population.

Major lessons learnedx A thorough investigation of cause of field extinction and biology of the species
is prerequisite for successful re-introduction.
x As first step of re-introduction, the Milu were released to fenced paddocks of alarge size (100 ha in Dafeng) under close monitoring and supplemented withfeed in winter.
x Actively looking for additional relocation sites such as parks, zoos, safaris andnature reserve as the number of re-introduced Milu increased.
x Expanding the size of nature reserve if possible, in case of Dafeng nature
reserve, more coastal march lands were acquired for the field released deer inthe reserve.
x A national level coordination scheme is needed for further field release andpopulation genetic management.

146

Mammals
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Milu is perceived as a national conservation priority and a flagship species in
the wetland ecosystems of the country.
x A consulting body for Milu re-introduction was formed, field surveys wereconducted in the former range of Milu and a master plan for Milu reintroduction was drawn by national wildlife management authority.
x Local governments welcomed the implementation of re-introduction of Milu,
because the Milu is legendary animal in Chinese history.
x Parks and natural reserves were established for the re-introduced Milu withveterinarians, wardens and budget from the local governments.
x Scientists conducted researches on ecology, behavioral, reproductive, andgenetic as well as disease prevention in Milu.

References
Beck, B. B. & Wemmer, C. M. (1983) The Biology and Management of an Extinct
Species: Père David’s Deer. Park Ridge: Noyes Publications.ȱ
Cao, K. (1992) Selection of suitable area for re-introduction of wild Père David’s
deer in China. Pp. 297-300 in Ohtaishi N and Sheng, H-L. (eds). Deer of China,
Biology and Management. Elserver Science, B. V. Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ȱ
Hu, H. & Jiang, Z. (2002). Experimental release of Père David’s deer in Dafeng
Reserve, China. Oryx 36(2):196-199.
Jiang Z., Li C., Yang D., Zeng Y. & Fang H. (2008) Père David Deer in China:
Current Status and Conservation Strategies. Pp. 1-8. In Ding, Y. (ed.) Milu
Research and Management. Nanjing; Nanjing Normal University Press..
Jiang, Z., Feng, Z. Yu, C., Zhang, L., Xia, J., Ding. & Y. Lindsay, N. (2000) Reintroduction and recovery of Pere David’s deer in China. Wildlife Society Bulletin28(3): 681-687.

147

Mammals

The re-introduction of Lichtenstein’s hartebeest
to Malilangwe Wildlife Reserve, south-eastern
Zimbabwe
Bruce Clegg1, Colin Wenham2, Sarah Clegg3 & Lisa Hywood4
1- Resident Ecologist, Malilangwe Wildlife Reserve, P. Bag 7085,
Chiredzi, Zimbabwe bruce@malilangwe.org
2- Wildlife and Estate Manager, Malilangwe Wildlife Reserve, P. Bag 7085,
Chiredzi, Zimbabwe colin@malilangwe.org
3- Resident Biologist, Malilangwe Wildlife Reserve, P. Bag 7085,
Chiredzi, Zimbabwe sarah@malilangwe.org
4- Director, Tikki Hywood Trust, Harare, Zimbabwe tikkihywoodtrust@bsatt.com

Introduction
Lichtenstein’s hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus ssp. Lichtensteinii) is an Africansavanna antelope inhabiting the ecotone between woodland and seasonally
flooded grassland (Booth, 1980). Historically the species occurred from Tanzania
southwards through central Africa to north-eastern South Africa. Althoughvulnerable to poaching, the species is labeled “of Least Concern” in the IUCNRed List of Threatened Species because key populations in Tanzania andZambia are currently stable. At the end of the 19th century the species was widelydistributed in what is now Zimbabwe (Selous, 1893). However, by the 1960’s
numbers had declined dramatically, with only a few herds remaining; these being
confined to a few privately owned ranches in the south-east (Booth, 1980). Lone
Star Ranch harboured the largest population, with approximately 38 animals
recorded in 1976 (Booth, 1980). However, by 1993 drought-induced mortality had
reduced this population to one known animal (Colin Wenham, pers. obs.).
In 1994, The Malilangwe Trust purchased Lone Star and Maranatha Ranches toform Malilangwe Wildlife
Reserve (see Clegg &O’Connor, 2012 for abiophysical description of
the reserve). A principal
objective of the Trust is torestore the historic
biodiversity of the reserve,and consequently reintroduction of
Lichtenstein’s hartebeest
became an importantmanagement goal.

Goals
Lichtenstein’s hartebeest © Bradley Fouche

148x Goal 1: Determine
whether suitable habitat

Mammalsfor Lichtenstein’s hartebeest exists after the catastrophic droughts in 1983 and1992.
x Goal 2: Establish a viable nucleus of breeding animals within a fenced
enclosure.
x Goal 3: Establish a self-sustaining, free-ranging population by releasing
animals from the breeding nucleus onto the reserve.

Success indicatorsx Indicator 1: Number of animals in the fenced breeding enclosure is growing ator close to the maximum intrinsic rate of increase.
x Indicator 2: In the absence of catastrophic events, the established free ranging
population is predicted to remain viable for 50 years.ȱ

Project Summary
Feasibility: On Lone Star, Booth (1980) showed that hartebeest selected forshallow, seasonally waterlogged, grassland depressions at the headward ends ofdrainage systems in dry woodland or bush vegetation. After Booth’s study in
1976, these vegetation communities, which are known as dambos, underwent
compositional and structural changes in response to severe droughts in 1983 and1992. Consequently, in 1996 a study was conducted to determine whether
suitable habitat for Lichtenstein’s hartebeest still existed at Malilangwe (Clegg,
1999). Despite significant compositional changes to the herbaceous layer, andsome bush encroachment by woody plants, the dambos at Malilangwe still
provided suitable habitat, so it was decided to go ahead with the re-introduction.
Implementation: A breeding nucleus of 30 animals (1 adult male and 29
adult females), that had been sourced from Choma, Zambia (10 in 1996 and 20 in1998) were kept in quarantine pens at Triangle for 21 days before being released
into a 500 ha enclosure that had been constructed in prime hartebeest habitat at
Malilangwe. By 2002, the number of animals had increased to 72, but mortality of
20 (18 from exposure) dropped the number to 61 in 2003. To spread the risk offurther catastrophic mortality, a group of 6 animals was moved in 2004 to asecond 500 ha enclosure that had been constructed in the north-east of thereserve. Animals in the enclosures were monitored daily by scouts on foot who
recorded the age and sex of each individual and the cause of any mortality. The
population in the first enclosure increased at an average rate of 30 % per annum,
which is close to the maximum rate of increase for an antelope of this size. In
June 2004, 24 animals (1 adult male, 12 adult females, 4 sub-adult males, 3
subadult female, and 4 juveniles) were released from the first enclosure; theremaining 26 being retained.
By October 2006, the free-ranging population had increased to an estimate of 51,
with a captive population of 43 (33 in the first enclosure and 10 in the second).
In 2007, the remaining 33 animals (3 adult males, 11 adult females, 4 subadultmales, 6 subadult females, and 9 juveniles) in the first enclosure were released
onto the reserve, and the enclosure dismantled. The captive animals in thesecond enclosure had increased to 12, and were retained as an insurance policy.
This population has grown at an average rate of 17 % per annum, and only in the149Mammalslast few years has itentered the exponential
phase of a logistic growth
curve (the populationstood at 26 in 2012).
Post-release monitoring:
Since 1999, an annual
census of the large
mammal species has
been conducted atMalilangwe using ahelicopter and distancesampling techniques. In
this way, estimates of thefree-ranging hartebeest
population have been
Attaching a radio-collar on hartebeest
derived annually from2004 to 2012. After an initial increase from 24 animals in 2004 to 81 in 2007 (thepopulation was boosted by a second release of 33 animals in 2007), the freeranging population has shown a steady decline to an estimate of 60 animals in2012. The main cause for this decline appears to be unsustainable levels of
predation of adult females. Small populations are highly sensitive to loss of theadult female age class, and mortality of as few as 4 adult females per year can
put a population of <100 into decline (Capon, 2011).
Although numbers increased rapidly in the enclosures, current levels of predation
by lion and other large carnivores will result in extinction of the free-ranging
population in the next 6 years, if it is not supplemented by further releases fromthe captive population.

Major difficulties facedx Elephant damage to the fences of the enclosures was a constant problem.
x In the enclosures, juvenile hartebeest were killed by leopards, which had to becaught and relocated.
x Lions were a serious threat because if they managed to access the enclosuresthey invariably killed adult hartebeest, which had a greater impact on growth ofthe population than the loss of juveniles. In the process of trying to remove a
lioness from the first enclosure, Malilangwe’s Wildlife Manager was mauled.
x Exposure during cold, wet periods in the dry season, when the hartebeests’
reserves were at their lowest, was an infrequent but significant cause of
mortality.
x Adult bulls are very aggressive, and will fight and kill subadult bulls (>I year) if
these are not removed from the enclosure.
x Balancing the requirements of a photographic tourist operation that relies
heavily on frequent sightings of the large carnivores, and the needs of a small
re-introduced antelope population that is highly sensitive to predation, is aparticularly difficult management problem. Capon (2011) showed that a lion

150

Mammalsdensity in excess of 0.05/km2 appeared to be unsustainable for a population ofsable antelope at Malilangwe. This may also be true for the hartebeest
population. The current lion density at Malilangwe is 0.07/km2, but it has beenas high as 0.1/km2 in the past.

Major lessons learnedx Successful re-introduction of a low density antelope is only possible underconditions of low predation. To establish a self-sustaining, free-ranging
population of hartebeest at Malilangwe the lion density should possibly be<0.05 km2.
x To achieve rapid growth of the breeding nucleus there should be sufficient
breeding animals (>30) to ensure that the population is positioned within the
exponential phase of the logistic growth curve. With an initial nucleus of only 6
animals, it took the population in the second enclosure five years to enter an
exponential growth phase.
x A massive outbreak of anthrax occurred at Malilangwe in 2004. Despitemortality of several species in the enclosures, no hartebeest succumbed to thedisease. Hartebeest appear to be particularly resistant to anthrax.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The re-introduction can only be considered partially successful because theestablished free-ranging population is currently not self-sustaining, withextirpation being prevented only by periodic supplementation from the captive
population.ȱ

References
Booth V. R. (1980) A study on Lichtenstein's Hartebeest, Alcelaphus Lichtensteini(Peters 1852) and its habitat in south eastern Rhodesia. MSc thesis, University of
Pretoria, South Africa.
Capon S. D. (2011) The ecology and potential factors limiting the success of sable
antelope in south-eastern Zimbabwe: Implications for conservation. MSc thesis,
University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Clegg B. W. (1999) Plant Ecology and Degradation of Basalt-Derived Dambos in SemiArid Southeastern Zimbabwe. MSc thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
Clegg B. W. & O’Connor T. G. (2012) The vegetation of Malilangwe Wildlife Reserve,
south-eastern Zimbabwe. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 29(3), 109131.
Selous, F. C. (1893) Travel and Adventure in South East Africa. Rowland Ward and Co.
Ltd., London, England.

151

Mammals

An investigation into the effect of individual
personality on re-introduction success, examples
from three North American fox species: swift fox,
California Channel Island fox and San Joaquin kit
fox
Samantha Bremner-Harrison1,2, Brian L. Cypher2 & Stephen W.R. Harrison1,2
1- School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent
University, Brackenhurst Lane, Southwell, England, UK
Samantha.bremnerharrison@ntu.ac.uk, Stephen.harrison@ntu.ac.uk
2- California State University – Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program,
PO Box 9622, Bakersfield, California 93389, USA, bcypher@esrp.org

Introduction
Swift fox (Vulpes velox) and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) aresmall, den-dwelling foxes found in North American arid grassland habitats. The
Catalina Channel Island fox (Urocyon littoralis catalinae) is endemic to Catalinaisland. Swift fox (SWF) are listed by the IUCN as Least Concern, but listed in
Canada as Threatened (COSEWIC, 2009) and as a Category One species under
the US Endangered Species Act (USFWS, 2001). The kit fox is listed as Least
Concern, however the sub-species San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) is listed as
Endangered under the US Endangered Species Act (USFWS, 1998). The
Catalina Channel Island fox (CCIF) is listed as Critically Endangered (IUCN,
2008). Decline of the species’ were associated to anthropogenic factors. Extreme
habitat loss caused a loss of >90% the historic range of both SWF and SJKF, withdecline also attributed to non-target predator control, whilst CCIF numbers
crashed due to an
outbreak of distemper. As
a result, there have been
on-going recovery efforts
for each species,
incorporating captive
breeding and reintroduction (SWF and
CCIF), habitat restoration(SWF, SJKF and CCIF)
and re-introduction
feasibility planning (SJKF).

San Joaquin kit fox

152Mammals
Goals
x Goal 1: Development of methods to determine individual personality type via
an assessment of boldness.
x Goal 2: Demonstrate repeatability of tests to show individual stability of
personality type.
x Goal 3: Monitor assessed individuals either post-release or for 1+ years postbehavioral assessment.
x Goal 4: Evaluate the effect of personality on survival post-release and theeffect of habitat differences on population-level personality and fitness
variables.
x Goal 5: Identification of optimal levels of boldness relative to habitat
conditions.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Calculation of a boldness score for each assessed individual.
x Indicator 2: Evaluation of within population personality variation.
x Indicator 3: Evaluation of between population personality variation.
x Indicator 4: Obtaining post-release/post-assessment survival and fitness dataon a sample size that allows statistical determination of a relationship between
personality and survival, movement and reproductive output.

Project Summary
Feasibility: One factor affecting the success of re-introduction is intraspecificbehavioral variation. The existence of different personality types, e.g. boldness,
indicates adaptive strategies within a species that are acted on by natural
selection (Wilson & Richards, 2000). Inappropriate boldness levels may havedeleterious effects on fitness. With levels of boldness subject to natural selection,
it is possible that release candidates with optimal levels of boldness for a sourcehabitat similar to the release site may be more likely to survive than individuals
from a source population with differing selection pressures than the release site.
However, it is also likely that behavioral variation is key within a release
population to ensure the ability of the founders to adapt to environmentalpressures. Developing an assessment of the likely behavioral response of anindividual to re-introduction was the overall goal across the three projects. The
aim was to find a means of predicting the likely response of an individual to thenovelty of release via a simple behavioral personality test, and implement thisknowledge to improve survival and re-introduction success. The first projectassessed personality of individual captive-bred SWF and survival after release ata site with predation (Bremner-Harrison et al., 2004). The second projectassessed the effect of personality on survival and reproductive output of CCIF
released in an environment with no predators (Bremner-Harrison et al., 2005).
The final project evaluated the effect of personality in two free-living populationsof SJKF in the San Joaquin valley of California, USA, with differing habitats(urban and rural). These two populations are possible source populations for aplanned re-introduction.

153

Mammals
Implementation: Aboldness score wascalculated for 34 captivebred SWF using two
repeats of a four x novelobject test prior to release.
A boldness score wascalculated for 11 captive
CCIF using a reduced testof a two x novel-object
test. Three measures ofboldness were calculated
for free-living SJKF: ahandling boldness scoreassessed during trappingand handling (T/H); an
extended novel object test
Fox trapping in Lokern(ENOT: two x novel object(1 novel food and 1 novel threat) + two x baseline assessing pups) and a rapid
novel object test (RNOT: 1 x novel-object test assessing juveniles and adults).
Post-release monitoring: Thirty-one SWF were released onto the Blackfeet
Indian Tribal Reservation in Montana, USA; 16 were radio-collared. Foxes weremonitored intensively for 6 weeks, weekly/fox for the following 4.5 months, andagain intensively for a 2-week period 6 months post-release to determine survival.
Nine radio-collared CCIF were released in the final year of a four-year reintroduction program on Catalina Island. Post-release monitoring was conducted
twice-weekly/fox. For SJKF the T/H test assessed 87 urban:67 rural. The ENOT
assessed 24 urban:9 rural, with 21:1 radio-collared. The RNOT assessed 27
urban:27 rural, all radio-collared. Post release monitoring for 1 year postboldness testing aimed to locate each SJKF a minimum of once per week,
recording survival, dispersal data, and reproductive data. The relationshipbetween the variables listed and boldness was assessed for each fox species.
In a habitat with predators it was determined that SWF that died (n = 5) were
those with higher levels of boldness (t14 = 2.942, P < 0.01). Boldness scores werepositively correlated with the total distance moved from release site (r14 = 0.588,
p<0.02) and the mean distance moved per telemetry fix (r14 = 5.574, p<0.02), themean distance moved between fixes was significantly greater for foxes that died
(U = 6, p<0.02).
In a predator-free habitat released CCIF had no mortalities. However, CCIF
showed a trend towards foxes with higher boldness having increased
reproductive output. For SJKF, the urban habitat had no predation but vehiclecaused mortality and food resources were consistent, but there were limited
dispersal opportunities. The rural habitat had predation risks, food resources
fluctuated and dispersal opportunities were unlimited. Overall, urban foxes werebolder than rural foxes (T/H: t149=2.52, P<0.01; ENOT: t29=3.05, P<0.005; RNOT:154

Mammals
t43=2.85, P<0.01), and there were a wider range of boldness scores across urban
foxes, indicating a greater variability in the expression of behavioural type. Urban
adults and juveniles were bolder than rural (T/H: t63=2.15, P<0.05; RNOT:
t17=2.30, P<0.05), but there was no difference between urban vs. rural pups (T/H
and ENOT test for baseline and novel threat). Within populations there was nodifference between boldness across ages classes of urban foxes but rural adults
were less bold than rural juveniles and pups (t6=-2.12, P=0.07). The differences inboldness between and within habitats across age classes indicate young bolder
foxes are more likely to be selected against than their shyer conspecifics. Rural
foxes that died had higher boldness than surviving foxes (t33=-2.01, P=0.05), witha similar trend in urban foxes. However, bolder rural foxes that survived toreproductive age reproduced in their first year (t17=2.058, P=0.05) and had
increased litter sizes (F18=4.729, P<0.05).

Major difficulties facedx Limited data: In the SWF project 31 foxes were released, 16 of which wereradio-collared. Survival and movement was not obtained for the remaining 15
foxes as the stakeholders in the project did not wish trapping to be conductedat the site during the period of the study.
x Appropriate tests for free-living animals: The behavioral tests were originallydesigned for use on captive animals. Conducting the tests on free-living
individuals highlighted the need for modification of the tests to produce robust
data on wild animals.
x More intensive monitoring required: While the three studies produced
informative insights into how personality can potentially influence reintroduction success, more intensive monitoring of individuals would produce
greater information about dispersal movements and resource use. Limited
numbers of personnel in the SJKF project meant that there was a limit to theamount of time that could be spent monitoring each fox. In addition, there werea large number of behavioral tests to be conducted in the short period of time
before pups dispersed from the natal den, however in the interest of consistentevaluation of behavioral type only one observer conducted the test which
limited the number of dens that could be observed.
x Limited animals for testing: As the behavioral analysis was conducted as partof ongoing conservation efforts, the number of animals available for testing
were dependent on either the numbers captive-bred or the numbers available
to be tested, i.e. number of individuals born or trapped. While the numbers
available produced informative data regarding the effects of personality on reintroduction, in some instances (especially CCIF) data collected was not of themagnitude to conduct statistical analysis. While this does not restrict
disseminating information to conservation organizations via project reports, it
limits the capacity to disseminate to a wider audience through scientificjournals.

Major lessons learnedx Boldness levels of individuals may be inappropriate or put the individual at a
disadvantage for habitat conditions: Foxes that had very high levels ofboldness showed higher levels of mortality due to both predation and vehicle-

155

Mammals
associated mortality thanthose with lower boldness.
Predicting the likelihood ofindividuals to survive relative
to the mortality risk at arelease site may allow for
determining either theplacement of individuals
within the site or levels of pre-release training required.
While it is recommended thata range of behavioral types
be released, it may beadvisable in particularly highrisk situations to delay
releases of particular
individuals until the predator
density is reduced if deemed
appropriate.
x Levels of boldness may
influence the movement of
an individual within a releasesite: Very bold foxes showed
a greater propensity for
Processing foxes trapped along water canaleither increased total
in Bakersfieldmovement (SJKF) or formoving around more between daily radio-telemetry fixes (SWF). This resulted
in bolder foxes either leaving the release/study site or having increased
mortality associated to increased movement. This was likely due to foxes thatmoved around more having a greater risk of encountering a predator, or
alternatively being in unfamiliar terrain with limited knowledge of escape dens.
Therefore it was concluded that foxes with overly high levels of boldness may
be at a disadvantage when released at a site with high predation risk. The
movement data suggests it is likely that individuals of particular personality
types will explore their new release site in different ways. For example, bolder
individuals may explore the release site more thoroughly and be more likely todisperse out of the site, but may also be more likely to find food resources andpotential mates. Shyer individuals may remain closer to their release site,
expose themselves less to mortality risks but may be less likely to locate
adequate resources and potential mates. Intensive monitoring would haveprovided information regarding these theories; however current and futurestudies are focused on exploring these areas to determine whether it ispossible to produce a release placement strategy in regards to resource
availability and predator risk based on personality type.
x Bolder animals that survived were those that reproduced in their first year andhad bigger litters: This suggests there is a trade-off between high boldness
having a greater risk of mortality but the potential for greater reproductive
output. Therefore, while bolder animals may be more likely to be predated on

156

Mammalsor put themselves at risk relative to anthropogenic threats these individuals arealso more likely to facilitate recruitment in the founding release population
faster than shyer individuals.
x Captive-bred SWF litters and SJKF litters in both the urban and rural habitat
showed variation in boldness levels: This supports the view that boldness is anadaptive trait with variation in the litter allowing a greater potential for there
being individual personality types in the litter who will be suited to current
environmental conditions. The reduction in boldness levels in the higher age
classes indicates bolder SJKF were selected against at a young age.
However, the continuing presence of variation in litters suggests it is anadaptive strategy to continue to produce variation in pups. Therefore, it isrecommended that a founder population contains representatives of all
behavioral types to ensure the potential for the population to adapt undervariable environmental conditions, or if there is variation within the release site.
It may be advantageous in some instances to consider releasing founders withbehavioral types in certain proportions depending on habitat pressures, andthen varying the mix in subsequent releases to ensure variability. For
examples, in release sites where predators are present the initial releases
could comprise of a majority of shy individuals, but gradually switch to a higher
proportion of bolder individuals as density increases and the need fordispersers to create linkage with neighboring populations arises.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Co-operative partnerships and financial support: A broad range oforganizations supported these projects. The SWF project was facilitated by the
Cochrane Ecological Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, the Blackfeet Fish, Game
and Wildlife Department in Montana and Queen’s University of Belfast.
Financial support was provided by The Department of Education for Northern
Ireland. The CCIF project was a co-operative effort between the California
State University - Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program and theCatalina Island Conservancy. The former provided financial support andpersonnel while the latter provided access to animals and logistical support
such as accommodation and transport. The SJKF project was conducted bypersonnel from the California State University - Stanislaus Endangered
Species Recovery Program with funding provided by the Central Valley
Program Conservation Project (CVPCP), a funding source administered by the
US Bureau of Reclamation.
x Local community support: Both the SWF and the CCIF project experienced
high levels of support from the community. Community feeling regarding SJKF
was considered varied within the urban habitat; however, the majority ofpeople encountered were supportive. The SWF project in particulardemonstrated community support through the cooperation of the Blackfeet

157

MammalsIndian tribal community. Swift fox are considered a culturally significant animal
to the Blackfeet, therefore they were highly supportive in terms of allowing
access to land, passing on information regarding fox sightings, den locations
and assisting with monitoring.
x Development of behavioral ethograms and boldness tests: Initial work was
conducted on captive individuals. While working on captive foxes was afunction of the re-introduction process for SWF, it allowed for effective
development and modification of the behavioral tests. Close range observationof foxes habituated to the observer allowed for development of an extensive
ethogram that was then modified for the CCIF and SJKF projects.ȱ
x Adaptation of tests for use in the wild: The original behavioral test wasdeveloped for captive foxes and relied upon the individuals remaining in a
fixed location for the 1-hour testing periods. This method was generally applied
successfully to SJKF pups who remained within the immediate vicinity of thenatal den during the testing period. However, difficulties were encounteredwith locating natal dens between tests as adults move pups between den sites
as a means of predator avoidance and as fleas build up in dens. Intensive
monitoring of parents allowed all pups to be located and behaviorally tested.
The original test was not particularly suited for juvenile and adult SJKF as
shortly after emerging from the den individuals would leave to hunt. The
CVPCP provided an extension of contract and funding to allow for effective
testing of adults and juveniles using a modified behavioral testing method.ȱ

References
Wilson, W. G. & Richards, S. A. (2000) Evolutionary stable strategies for
consuming a structured resource. American Naturalist 155: 83 - 100.
Bremner-Harrison, S., Prodohl, P. A., & Elwood, R. W. (2004) Behavioural trait
assessment as a release criterion: boldness predicts early death in areintroduction programme of captive-bred swift fox (Vulpes velox). Animal
Conservation 7: 313 - 320.
Bremner-Harrison, S. & Cypher, B. L. (2005) Island fox behavioural assessment
on Santa Catalina. Report prepared for Institute of Wildlife Studies and CatalinaIsland Conservancy.
Bremner-Harrison, S & Cypher, B. L. (2011) Re-introducing San Joaquin kit fox tovacant and restored lands: identifying optimal source populations and candidate
foxes. Final Report for US Bureau of Reclamation/Central Valley Program
Conservation Project. 52 pp.

158

Mammals

Establishing new populations of European mink in
Hiiumaa and Saaremaa Island, Estonia
Tiit Maran1,2 & Madis Põdra1,2
1- Foundation Lutreola at Tallinn Zoo, Paldiski road 145, Tallinn 13522, Estonia
maran.tiit@gmail.com
2- Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences Estonian University of Life
Sciences Kreutzwaldi 62 51014 Tartu, Estonia

Introduction
European mink (Mustela lutreola, Linnaeus, 1761) is a small semi-aquatic
mustelid inhabiting the banks of forested rivers and streams. Its historical range
covered most of the European continent except Scandinavia and parts ofBalkans. Over the last 150 years its original range has reduced drastically. The
current range consists of few isolated and shrinking fragments (Maran, 2007 andreferences therein). There is no data available about any extant viable wild
population. The main factors operating the extinction are i) habitat loss, ii) overexploitation and iii) impact of alien American mink (Maran et al., 2011). In
Estonian legislation the species belongs to the first and the most strict protection
category. Since 2011 it is listed in IUCN Red List as Critically Endangered
species. It is legally protected in all range states. In European Union it is listed inappendixes II and IV of the Habitat Directive and considered to be a priority
species of the Community. The release operation has been conducted in two
islands: Hiiumaa (1,000 km2 ) and Saaremaa (2,400 km2 ).

Goals
x Goal 1: Remove the American mink (Macrovison vison) feral population inHiiumaa Island.
x Goal 2: Establish
European mink island
population in Hiiumaa
Island up to the size ofassessed post-wintercarrying capacity: 50 92 mink.
x Goal 3: Improve theriparian habitats in
Hiiumaa Island toincrease the postwinter habitat carrying
capacity to 88 – 109
mink.
x Goal 3: Establish
European mink island
European mink
population in159

Mammals
Saaremaa Island up to thesize of assessment
carrying capacity of 150 –300 mink.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Americanmink removed from
Hiiumaa Island.
x Indicator 2: Breedingwild population: size close
to estimated carrying
capacity in Hiiumaa(Dagö) Island.
x Indicator 3: Breedingwild population: size close
to the estimated carrying
capacity in Saaremaa

Typical mink habitat(Ösel) Island.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The estimation of the carrying capacity based on the pilot
studies were conducted in both island (unpublished). For Saaremaa Island asecond pilot study was conducted to assess the capacity of core areas instead ofthe entire island. The post-winter carrying capacity of three core areas wasassessed to be around 58 – 73 mink. The base for these release operations has
been the conservation breeding of the European mink in Tallinn Zoological
Gardens (in the frame of the EAZA EEP program), and breeding facility there
hosts around 100 mink.
Implementation: The first releases on both islands were regarded as
experiments to evaluate the feasibility of the operation. The release in Hiiumaa
Island has been conducted yearly since 2000. In total, 475 (2012) mink has beenreleased there:x In 2000 - 2001, hard release combined with preconditioning was tried. The
mortality of released animals was excessively high.ȱ
x In 2002 - 2003, the feasibility of pregnant female’s release was tested as amean to achieve a fast increase in wild-born mink. The females survived, but
the litter disappeared at age of around two months.ȱ
x Since 2004 only yearlings born in release enclosures in Hiiumaa Island and in
Tallinn Zoo have been released.ȱ
x In 2000 - 2003 the released mink were radio-collared to collect information
about their post-release behavior.ȱ
x In 2012, a pilot release was conducted in Saaremaa Island; 11 radio-collared
mink were released there and their post-release behavior was followed for twomonths.

160

Mammals
Several studies have resulted from Hiiumaa operation:x Maran et al. (2009) found that the mortality of released animals was thegreatest during the first 1 - 1.5 month, the males mortality was lower than thatof the females and that the main factor causing mortality were larger
predators, like fox, stray dogs and bird of prey.
x Põdra et al. (2012) found that the atypical food prevailing immediately after the
release in mink diet was substituted to typical wild mink diet within 30 days.
x The post-released movements of mink were analyzed in Harrington et al.
(submitted 2012).
The release operation in Hiiumaa was regularly highlighted in local and national
mass-media. The public awareness study conducted in 2004 (unpublished)
revealed very high awareness among locals (97%) and highly positive attitude(>85%) to the project. Number of spawning-ponds for common amphibians havebeen excavated close to mink habitats to mitigate the negative effect land
reclamation activities may have to important prey species. In addition, in
collaboration with government agencies, the habitat quality of stream habitat was
improved in several locations.
The main concerns have been the following:x Suitable habitats patches in the island are scattered and none of them forms a
sufficiently large source habitat for mink. As a solution, a running-water habitat
improvement project was planned by the State, but is likely to be abandoned
due mismatch between various formal governmental procedures.ȱ
x The low level of breeding in the wild.ȱ
x EU demanded anti-rabies vaccination campaign, which obviously hyperincreased the abundance of medium-sized carnivores and is suspected tonegatively effect the establishment of the European mink population.ȱ
x The pilot release in Saaremaa Island (2012) was not promising as seven minkof 11 mink died within the first month after release and 71% of these were
killed by fox or otherpredators. The
following conclusions
have been drawn: i)selected release site
was suboptimal, ii) theattitude of local
inhabitants to theproject was highly
positive, and iii) the
further release
operations may not be
feasible due to the highabundance of foxes.
Post-release monitoring:
In Hiiumaa Island yearlymonitoring started in 2000

Captive bred European mink161

Mammals
after release. There
has been more orless steady increasein size of the postwinter population
size (around 30 - 35
animals) andbreeding in the wild
has been observed.
However, thedemographic
structure of the
population is biased
towards old and/or
released animals.
The causes ofField researchers working on releasing mink
insufficient
reproduction in thewild remain unclear. It is suspected that either the spatial structure with nocompact source habitat area available or the male’s abnormal mating behavior(Kiik et al., 2013) might be behind it. The comparison of various monitoring
techniques (track counting, live-trapping, mink-rafts and trail cameras) has raised
the issue of reliability of data collected under different monitoring schemes.

Major difficulties facedx Unstable funding complicates the planning and performance of the operation.
x Unforeseen negative factors like the rabies vaccination campaign jeopardizes
the operation.
x The spatial structure of the habitat distribution in the island is important factor
and this was not taken into account in the feasibility study.
x Inflexibility of state conservation procedures is incompatible with species
conservation action needs.

Major lessons learnedx The flexibility and open decision-making over the actions of the operation is
crucial.
x Positive attitude of local inhabitants largely depends upon information flow, thepersonal contacts with local opinion leaders are critical; with time it is more
complicated to keep the public information flow consistent as different
stakeholders of the project will share information from their perspectives andneeds.
x The administrative and political considerations of wider scope, but with serious
implications to the outcome release operation are difficult of mitigate.
x Instead of overall carrying capacity of the island the core areas have to beevaluated. Scattered habitat patches without one strong source habitat arelikely to result in lower than expected level of reproduction.

162

Mammalsx Conventional single-species approach must be replaced to more holistic
approach with attention to relations to other species, to the habitat and humaninteractions.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Good team-work and very tight connections between in situ and ex situ teams.
x Rigid government procedures cause serious delays in the operations.
x Unstable funding will result in less effective operation.

References
Harrington, L., Põdra, M., MacDonald, D. W., Maran, T. (in press) Post-release
movements of captive-born animals - are we collecting the right data? Animal
Conservation.ȱ
Kiik, K., Maran, T., Naglk, A., Ashford, K. & Tammaru, T. (2013) The Causes of
the Low Breeding Success of European Mink (Mustela lutreola) in Captivity. Zoo
Biology 999 : 1 - 7
Maran, T. (2007) Conservation biology of the European mink, Mustela lutreola(Linnaeus 1761): decline and causes of extinction. Dissertations, Tallinn
Universityȱ
Maran, T., Põdra, M., Põlma, M., Macdonald, D. W. (2009) The survival of captive-born animals in restoration programmes - case study of the endangered
European mink Mustela lutreola. Biol Conserv 142: 1685 - 1692ȱ
Maran, T., Skumatov, D., Palazón, S., Gomez, A., Põdra, M., Saveljev, A., Kranz,
A., Libois, R. & Aulagnier, S. (2011) Mustela lutreola. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded
on 01 January 2013.ȱ
Põdra, M., Maran, T., Sidorovich, V. E., Johnson, P. J. & Macdonald, D. W.
(2013) Restoration programmes and the development of a natural diet: a casestudy of captive-bred European mink. Eur. J. Wildl. Res 59: 93-104.

163

Mammals

Re-introduction of greater one-horned rhino inManas National Park, Assam, India - under the

Indian Rhino Vision 2020
Bibhab Kumar Talukdar1, Bishan Singh Bonal4, Amit Sharma2,
Kushal Sarma3 & S.P. Singh5
1- Aaranyak and International Rhino Foundation, 50 Samanwoy Path, Survey,
Beltola, Guwahati – 781 028, Assam, India bibhab@aaranyak.org
2- WWF-India, Block A-16, Flat No. 103, Games Village, Basistha, Guwahati,
Assam, India
3- Department of Surgery, College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agriculture
University, Khanapara, Guwahati – 781022, Assam, India
4- Central Zoo Authority, Annexe-VI, Bikaner House, Shahjahan Road,New Delhi – 110 011, India
5- Office of PCCF (Wildlife), Assam Forest Department, Basistha,
Guwahati – 781029, Assam, India

Introduction
The greater one-horned rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) is listed in IUCN Red List as
Vulnerable while in CITES as Appendix I. The species is also included in
Schedule I of the Wildlife (protection) Act 1972 enacted by the Government ofIndia ensuring high priority in conservation of the species. The greater onehorned rhino once ranged throughout the entire stretch of the Indo-Gangetic
Plain of the Indian subcontinent,along the Indus, Ganges andBrahmaputra river basins,from Pakistan to the IndianBurmese border, including partsof Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan but
excessive hunting reduced theirnatural habitat drastically. Today,
about 3,250 rhinos live in the wild in
India and Nepal out of which 2,500
are found in India's Assam alone.
They prefer the alluvial plain
grasslands of the Terai and
Brahmaputra floodplain. As a resultof habitat destruction and climaticchanges their range has gradually
been reduced and today, their range
has further shrunk to a few pockets insouthern Nepal (Chitwan National
Park (NP), Bardia National Park andSukhlaphanta Wildlife Reserve),
Uttar Pradesh of India (Dudhwa NP),
Greater one-horned rhino
northern Bengal (Garumara National164

Mammals
Park and Jaldapara
Wildlife Sanctuary) andthe Brahmaputra Valley(Kaziranga National
Park, Orang National
Park, Manas National
Park and Pabitora
Wildlife Sanctuary).

Goals
x Goal 1: Range
expansion of therhino to potential
habitats within
Assam by the year
2020 through wild to
Rhino captured and collared at Pabitora forwild translocation.
x Goal 2: To increase
release in Manas National Park
the rhino populationin the wild to about 3,000 in Assam by 2020.
x Goal 3: To conserve existing grassland habitats in Assam through reintroduction of rhinos.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: How many rhinos captured at donor rhino bearing areas andtranslocated to recipient sites within Assam.
x Indicator 2: Rhino population increase in rhino bearing areas in Assam.
x Indicator 3: Infra-structure enhancement in recipient rhino bearing sites.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The Indian Rhino Vision 2020 was initiated in 2005 which is acollaborative initiative of Assam Forest Department, Bodoland Territorial Council,
International Rhino Foundation, World Wide Fund for Nature and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. A rhino task force was constituted in 2005 to promote the plan ofIndian Rhino Vision 2020. Since 2005 until April 2008 feasibilities of enhancing
habitat and security to cater the need of rhinos in the recipient sites were
thoroughly assessed and followed up with infra-structure development to ensurethat the recipient site is capable monitor them to protect translocated rhinos andhabitats. Interaction with fringe communities of the recipient sites were
undertaken to generate and enhance their awareness on conservation issues,
specifically on rhinos to build up community support to ensure the future of therhinos. An indepth security assessment was carried out in the recipient sites
along with habitat assessment to ensure that ground is set to receive translocatedrhinos.
Implementation: After habitat and security assessment was done and reportsubmitted to the Rhino Task Force of Assam, for rhino translocation within Assamwhich is one of the key output of the IRV 2020, a Translocation Core Committee

165

Mammals(TCC) was formed by the
Rhino Task Force toinitiate steps to start rhino
capture and Translocation.
After improving thesecurity infrastructure in
Manas, the first batch ofrhino translocation wasplanned in April 2008 from
Pabitora WLS to Manas
NP. Accordingly two malerhinos were captured in
Pabitora WLS andtranslocated to Manas NP.
Both the rhinos were radio
collared. The initial plan is
to capture and translocate
Monitoring released rhino on motorbikes
20 rhinos to Manas NP ofwhich 10 rhinos each to be captured from Pabitora WLS and Kaziranga NP andtranslocated to Manas NP. Since April 2008 until March 2012, 18 rhinos were
captured and translocated to Manas NP of which 10 were captured from Pabitora
and 8 from Kaziranga. Rhinos were captured during morning and captured rhinos
were put into a wooden crate and then loaded into Truck for transportation to
Manas NP whih is the recipient site. The trucks carrying captured rhinos movefrom the capture sites (Pabitora WLS and Kaziranga NP) to release site (Manas
NP) in the evening so as to reach Manas NP by early morning. Rhinos are thenreleased in the wild in Manas NP in early morning.
Post-release monitoring: All the rhinos released in the Manas NP under IRV
2020 are fitted with VHF radio collars and are being monitored daily by a
dedicated team using telemetry equipment. The monitoring is carried out roundthe clock using vehicles, trained elephants, motorcycles, etc. and after initialtracking of the rhinos, attempt is made to physically observe them. All the rhinos
are also ear notched and physical identification is done with the help of theirunique identification marks. The monitoring efforts are recorded using predesigned formats and is entered into a GIS platform for analysis and outputs andannual monitoring reports are produced.

Major difficulties facedx Procurement of tranquilizing drugs from abroad.
x Unpredictable weather.
x Keeping the team motivated specially the team involved in patrolling andmonitoring in Manas.
x No dedicated manpower for the program, skilled and experienced persons of
the state offer voluntary service as such timelines needs to be flexible.

166

Mammals
Major lessons learnedx Good understanding and team work.
x Plan in advance and execute the plan within timeline.
x Procurement of tranquilizing drugs often takes more time than expected due tocomplicated import procedures in India.
x Short expiry time of the imported tranquilizing drugs and as such time boundcapture using the drugs is important before drugs get expired.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Good coordination and team spirit to make it success.
x Commitment of the Government and other partners to make it success.
Acknowledgments: The authors who are members of the Translocation Core
Committee set up by the Rhino Task Force of Assam offers its sincere sense of gratitude
to following persons for their assistance and support - M. C. Malakar, S. Chand, Late D. M.
Singh, A. Swargoyari, C. R. Bhobora, S. Dutta, D. D. Gogoi, S. K. Sarma, M. Tamuly, U.
Bora, N. Mahanta, M. L. Smith, B. Dutta, A, Talukdar, D. Dutta, R. Barman, P. J. Bora, K.
Barua, P. Basumatary, B. Choudhury, T. Aziz, A. C. Williams, S. Ellis, R. Singh, D. Ghosh,J. K. Das and all field staffs of capture and release sites.

References
Bonal. B.S., B.K. Talukdar & A. Sharma. (2009) Translocation of Rhino in Assam.
Tigerpaper, Vol. 36 (1): 7 - 12. January-March 2009.ȱ
Emslie, R. H., Amin, R. & Kock, R (editors) (2009). Guidelines for the in situ Reintroduction and Translocation of African and Asian Rhinoceros. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. vi+115p.ȱ
A, Swargowari & A, Sharma. (2012) Manas Recovery, The Stripes, NTCA, May June 2012, pg. 12 - 13167

Mammals

Re-introduction of tule elk to Point Reyes National
Seashore, California, USA
Peter J. P. Gogan1, McCrea A. Cobb2, Natalie B. Gates3& Reginald H. Barrett4
1- U. S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center,
2327 University Way, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA peter_gogan@usgs.gov
2- U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, .Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge,
1390 Buskin River Road, Kodiak, AK 99615, USA mccrea_cobb@fws.gov
3- National Park Service, Point Reyes National Seashore 1 Bear Valley Road Point
Reyes, CA 94956, USA Present address: National Park Service, Haleakala National
Park PO Box 369 Makawao, HI 96768, USA natalie_gates@nps.gov
4- Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management, College of Natural
Resources University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA rbarrett@berkeley.edu

Introduction
Tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes), a subspecies endemic to California, washistorically found in large herds throughout much of central and coastal California.
Market hunting during the California Gold Rush decimated these herds, and by
1895, only two to 10 elk remained. This remnant group was protected and served
as the source for early relocation efforts (McCullough, 1971). Early efforts weregenerally unsuccessful but did establish a herd in California’s Owens Valley,outside their historical range, in 1933. The herd grew rapidly and supported six
controversial hunts between 1943 and 1969. In an effort to limit hunting,concerned preservationists formed the Committee for the Preservation of Tule Elk
in 1960. Public pressure resulted in the California State Legislature passing a law
in 1971 that halted hunting until either state-wide numbers reached 2,000, or nofurther unoccupied elk habitat existed. This law prompted the California
Department of Fish andGame to begin reintroducing tule elk
throughout their former
range. In 1976, the U.S.
Congress passed a
resolution that concurredwith state law and directedfederal agencies to makelands available for reintroductions within thesubspecies’ historical
range. Point Reyes
National Seashore was
identified as a potential
translocation site.
Male elk with Pacific Ocean in the background© Jeff Wilson

168Mammals
Goals
x Goal 1: Establish andmaintain viable
populations of tule elk
within the subspecies’
native range at Point
Reyes National
Seashore, California.
x Goal 2: Manage tuleelk using minimal
intrusion to regulate
population size, where
possible, as part ofnatural ecosystemprocesses.
x Goal 3: Provide for a
Tomale Point from the air © Reg Barrett
free-ranging tule elk
herd at Point Reyes
National Seashore.
x Goal 4: Research and monitor the elk populations and their habitat over time.
x Goal 5: Provide the public with interpretation and information on tule elk
conservation biology and management.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Re-introduced tule elk do not experience extirpation or become
exposed to the threat of extirpation.
x Indicator 2: Re-introduced tule elk are allowed to become self-regulating to theextent possible.
x Indicator 3: A tule elk herd not restricted in their movements by fencing is
successfully established outside the original fenced release site.
x Indicator 4: Research and long-term monitoring of tule elk and their habitat at
Point Reyes are incorporated in to an adaptive management program.
x Indicator 5: Tule elk are readily accessible to the public for viewing andinformation on their life cycle and conservation status is available to the public.

Project Summary

Feasibility: Point Reyes National Seashore (288 km 2) historically supported
more than 1,000 tule elk, as indicated by biological specimens and historicalaccounts (McCullough, 1971). By the mid-1800s, tule elk were extirpated from
Point Reyes due to agriculture, logging and market-hunting. In 1976, Point Reyes
was identified as a potential re-introduction site in state and federal conservationplans. It was decided that the ideal tule elk release site within Point Reyes
needed to be a confined area separated from domestic cattle operations where
the re-introduced elk could be held in a small acclimation pen prior to release (i.e.,
soft release). The northernmost 10.3 km2 of the Point Reyes Peninsula (Tomales
Point) met these criteria: a 5 km fence at the base of the Point could confine elk
and the existing cattle grazing lease for the area had expired.

169

Mammals
Fig. 1. Showing exponential growth of the population

Implementation: Ten tule elk (2 males:8 females) were translocated to aholding pen at Tomales Point in March, 1978. These 10 elk and seven additional
calves born in the pen (4 males:3 females) were released in September 1978,and shared the range with cattle until the following year. The re-introduced elk
seemingly flourished during the first few months following release. However, by
mid-summer 1979, one adult male died and a second adult male was severely
emaciated and was removed from the range. Both males had deformed antlers.
The females and calves were provided supplemental feed from September 1979
to April 1980 to alleviate apparent malnutrition evident from emaciation and lightcolored brittle pelage. Two female elk born in the pen in 1978 were culled in
March 1980 after exhibiting emaciation and severe diarrhea. In an effort tosupplement the genetic diversity of the original re-introduced herd, an additional
three adult males were re-introduced to Tomales Point in December 1981, butthese elk disappeared in early 1982.
Post-release monitoring: Tule elk at Point Reyes have been monitored
closely since their re-introduction. The severe diarrhea observed in the herd
shortly after their re-introduction was determined to be the result of Johne’s
disease (Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis) (Jessup et al., 1981), and thelight colored pelage and antler deformities were attributed to trace element
deficiency (Gogan et al., 1989). Following an initial period of slow growth, theherd exhibited approximately 20 years of exponential growth (Cobb, 2010) (Figure1). By 1998, the herd numbered approximately 450 animals (4 elk/ha).

170

Mammals
The rapid herd growth at Tomales Point raised concerns over potential negative
impacts that a high density elk herd may have on native flora and fauna.
Additional concerns were raised over the potential for the expanding elk
population to overshoot the area’s ecological carrying capacity, leading to habitat
degradation, and then crash to a lower abundance, resulting in a secondary
genetic bottleneck. In response to these concerns, the National Park Service
considered alternative measures that included no action and various
combinations of actions including culling, contraception, translocations, andremoval of the elk fence at Tomales Point (National Park Service, 1998).
Ultimately, a decision was made to evaluate the effectiveness of translocation andartificial population control methods within the framework of adaptive
management. Between 1997 and 2001, 30 to 50 elk cows at Tomales Point were
contracepted annually with porcine zona pellucida (PZP), which effectively
prevented pregnancy for one year. In 1998, biologists captured and translocated45 elk cows and bulls from Tomales Point to an unrestricted region of Point
Reyes (Limantour) following a test and cull screening program for Johne’s
disease, thereby establishing a free-ranging herd beyond Tomales Point.
Following this management intervention, elk at Tomales Point exhibited periodic
swings in numbers from 1998 to 2012, suggesting that the herd may havereached a stochastic carrying capacity (Figure 1). Shortly after release at
Limantour, two to three elk moved approximately 10 km from the release site andestablished a second free-ranging herd (D Ranch) on cattle ranchlands. The
newly established herds initially exhibited a pattern of early population growthsimilar to that observed at Tomales Point, but then began to increase rapidly.
With abundant forage resources, these newly established herds are predicted toincrease exponentially (Cobb, 2010). Rapid growth of the D-Ranch herd
combined with the elk’s habitat preferences has caused concern among cattle
ranchers within the Seashore over elk use of forage resources, which may
escalate as elk numbers increase (Cobb, 2010).

Major difficulties
facedx Trace element
deficiency and Johne’s
disease threatened theinitial success of the
Point Reyes tule elk reintroduction.
x Male tule elk
introduced to Tomales
Point to enhance thegenetic diversity of theinitial herd did notsurvive.
x Presence of Johne’s
disease made tule elk
at Point Reyes

Ranger and female elk at Tomales Point@ McCrea Cobb

171

Mammals
unsuitable as a source for
future state-wide reintroductions, as dictatedby state law, and required
screening (test and cull)prior to establishing a new
free-ranging herd within
Point Reyes.
x The potential threat of
disease transmission to
the insular tule elk at Point
Reyes, specifically
Chronic Wasting Disease(CWD), made it difficult to
supplement the herd to
mitigate the potential for
inbreeding depression.
Visitors viewing elk at Tomales Point © NPS
x A lack of effective
population-limiting predators at Point Reyes allowed for rapid irruptive growthof the elk herds. The limited area available to elk at Tomales Point led to ashort lived fertility control program and one time removal of elk for relocation.
The expansion of the free-ranging Limantour herd has led to concerns among
local cattle ranchers.

Major lessons learnedx Screen for nutritional conditions within domestic and wild species at releasesite prior to the re-introduction. Trace element deficiency in elk at Tomales
Point was likely unavoidable due to naturally low levels of certain traceelements (copper and selenium) in the underlying soils and bedrock.
Screening for diseases may not be practical as the presence of many diseases
cannot be determined by screening.
x Identify potential population regulation factors prior to re-introduction.
Knowledge of potential population limiting factors (or the lack thereof) may
allow predicting population growth based upon outcomes elsewhere andthereby allow identification of potential future management actions.
x Address means of alleviating potential inbreeding depression.
x Recognize the likelihood of public involvement in future management actions
and identify a socially acceptable means of any possible future population
control prior to re-introduction.
x Quantify resource selection to predict areas of likely range expansion andpotential conflicts with human activities prior to a re-introduction. This may
allow for proactive human-wildlife conflict management.

172

Mammals
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x A self-sustaining herd of tule elk was established at the original release site at
Point Reyes and a second free-ranging herd was established using progeny
from the first re-introduction.
x Concerns over the potential transmission of diseases to and from tule elk at
Point Reyes blocked plans to manage the herd as part of a meta-population.
x For the first 20 to 30 years post re-introduction, potential conflicts between tuleelk and cattle ranching operations have been minimal, despite their close
proximity.
x Tule elk at Point Reyes have displayed no outward signs of inbreeding
depression, even though they have some of the lowest genetic diversity of any
tule elk herdx Ready opportunities for viewing of tule elk at Point Reyes enhance public
understanding of the area’s rich natural history.
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does
not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References
Cobb, M. A. (2010) Spatial ecology and population dynamics of tule elk at Point
Reyes National Seashore, California. Dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA.
Gogan, P. J. P., D. A. Jessup, & M. Akeson. (1989) Copper deficiency in tule elk
at Point Reyes, California. Journal of Range Management 42:233-238.
Jessup, D. A., B. Abbas, D. Behymer, & P. Gogan. (1981) Paratuberculosis in tuleelk in California. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
179:1252-1254.
McCullough, D. R. (1971) The tule elk: its history, behavior, and ecology.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.
National Park Service. (1998) Point Reyes National Seashore Tule Elk
Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Point Reyes National
Seashore, CA, USA.

173

Mammals

Re-introduction of Arabian gazelles in a fenced
Protected Area in central Saudi Arabia
Moayyad Sher Shah, M. Zafar-ul Islam* & Ahmed Boug
National Wildlife Research Center, Taif, Saudi Arabia* - mzafarul.islam@gmail.com

Introduction
Historically, the Arabian gazelle (Gazella arabica) locally known as Idmi occurred
across most of the Arabian Peninsula from the Araba Valley in southern Israel,along the Hejaz and Asir Mountains in western Saudi Arabia, through Yemen,
Oman and into the Emirates. In Saudi Arabia the Arabian gazelle population has
been declined dramatically throughout its range since the middle of the 20 th
century (Habibi 1986), and the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2012) currently ranks thisspecies as ‘Vulnerable’ (A2ad).
Small relict populations of Arabian gazelles used to occur in Al Khunfah andHarrat al Harrah in the north of Saudi Arabia (Wacher, 1993; Seddon et al., 1997),
and on the Tihama coastal plain in Wadi Hali (Islam pers. obs.) 80 km south of Al
Qunfidah, while animals recorded near Al Farah (Boug et al., 2012). On the
Farasan Islands a strong population of about 1,000 individuals survived (Wronsky
et al., 2011, 2012), and in two protected areas (Ibex Reserve, Uruq Bani Ma’arid)
Arabian gazelles were released from 1990 to 2007 (Islam et al., 2012). Most
records of natural Arabian gazelle populations in Saudi Arabia originate from thewestern part of the Kingdom, i.e. the Asir, Sarawat and Hejaz Mountains.
Historically Arabian gazelle used to occur in Mahazat as-Sayd Protected Area incentral part of Saudi Arabia and were exterminated by anthropogenic and otherpressures. Since theArabian gazelles presence
was confirmed frominterviews of local people.
The Strategy and Action
Plan of the National
Wildlife Research Center(NWRC) suggested the reintroduction of Arabiangazelle (Islam et al., 2009)
should occur and 40 (12males:28 females) captive-bred animals weresuccessfully released in2011 & 2012. This projectis particularly significant
as it is one of the firstArabian gazelle at night © M.Z. Islam
successful releases for the174Mammals
species in over twenty
years. After many years ofdedicated work to identify
and conserve different
species of gazelles in
Saudi Arabia, it was
successfully released. The
release is part of theongoing efforts in theKingdom to conserve avariety of antelopes, an
initiative that is strongly
supported by the Saudi
people.

Goals
x Goal 1: To re-establish
Arabian gazelles release in MZT bywild and self-sustaining
H. H. Prince Bander © D. Kifle
populations of Arabiangazelle in Mahazat asSayd Protected Area in Saudi Arabia.
x Goal 2: Manage the re-introduction of the herds in the protected areas.
x Goal 3: Re-introduce the animals in suitable habitats.
x Goal 4: Study the ecology and biology of the Arabian gazelle in protected area.
x Goal 5: Balance between grazing and browsing animals in Mahazat.

Success indicatorsx Indicator 1: Healthy breeding Arabian gazelle population in Mahazat as-SaydProtected Area.
x Indicator 2: The captive herd at KKWRC is maintained for re-introduction
programs for other protected areas.
x Indicator 3: The re-introduction of Arabian gazelle in Mahazat for more than
two years, which now has a breeding population and considered to be a partial
success.
x Indicator 4: Productivity by wild Arabian gazelles high.
x Indicator 5: Society and government supports re-introduction and Mahazat has
been suggested for national and international tourists.

Project Summary
Feasibility: Arabian Gazelles were previously occurred in Mahazat area (22°15'N - 41°40'E), which is tract of open desert steppe habitat of tropical and arid
climate with gentle topography in southwest of Saudi Arabia c.150 km northeastof Taif. Historically the species had been extirpated, primarily by excessive
hunting. After the identification of the area as wildlife reserve it was fenced andproperly protected from livestock grazing, within a few years the recovery of thevegetation increased the chances of re-introduction of several species in thereserve as compared to areas outside the Reserve, which was overgrazed and175

Mammals
disturbed. The local community was taken in confidence during the process andSaudi Wildlife Authority got full support both from civil society and theGovernment for the re-introduction of native wildlife. Arabian gazelles wereobtained from King Khalid Wildlife Research Center (KKWRC). All thetranslocated gazelles were born in captivity at KKWRC.
Implementation: Arabian gazelles were captured just before dark and put in
individual crates constructed of plywood and measuring 1.0 m x 0.36 m x 0.90 m.
Crates could be opened from both ends and had 30 - 40 ventilation holes of 1 cm
diameter. Animals were transported the 800 km to Mahazat at night by truck.
Upon arrival at the Reserve the gazelles were placed in a quarantine enclosures(500 m x 500 m) and features to those at the KKWRC. Shade, food and water
were provided in enclosure. Between March 2011 and January 2012, two groupsof animals were released from the pre-release enclosure into wild when thevegetation condition was favorable.
All animals were softly released by opening gates of pre-release enclosure andanimals were allowed to leave of their own, while water and alfalfa was provided
outside of the enclosure for three weeks. All animals, which were radio-tagged
were monitored on daily basis by ground telemetry and at least once a week byaerial telemetry using Maule aircraft and date, time, location, activity, interaction
with sand gazelles, habitat and group compositions were observed.
First Release: In 2011 the first group of 17 (4 males:13 females) Arabian gazelles
was transferred from KKWRC to Mahazat on 14th March 2011 by road. Age ofgazelles was between 2 - 6 years old and ranged between 3 months old calf to 10
years old female. Radio-collars were secured to each individual with tag numbers.
One female died on 19th March 2011 in release pen before release. On April 8 th,2011 two female Arabian gazelles were released directly from boxes by His
Highness Prince Bandar bin Saud bin Mohammed Al Saud (SWA President).
Remaining 14 gazelles (4 males:10 females) kept in pre-release enclosure werereleased softly by opening gate of enclosure.
2nd Release: In 2012 the second group of 23 (8 males:15 females) gazelles wastransferred from KKWRC to Mahazat on 12th February 2012. Age structure of thisgroup received is mostly 2 - 4 years old and ranged between 1 to 5 years old
animals. One female gazelle was recorded dead in the pre-release enclosure
before release on 21st February 2012. This group of 22 Arabian gazelles was
softy released by just opening the enclosure gate on 6th March 2012.
All animals were tested for tuberculosis, vaccinated against rabies, foot andmouth disease, rinderpest, and pasteurellosis, marked with either eartags, marker
collars, or radio transmitters, and placed in quarantine pens for a few months andsoft released by opening the gate of the enclosure.
Post-release monitoring: In summer of 2011 and 2012, when the vegetation
mostly dried off, a total of eight Arabian gazelles were recorded dead, mostly justafter the release from the first release between May and November 2011. Five176

Mammalsgazelles (1 male:4
females) went missing due
to radio-collar failure andone radio collar fell of one
female. These animals
were not recorded again
till date.
Only one female wasfound dead on 31st March2012 among the second
released group of 22
animals. Mortalities were
controlled by further
improving the releasemethod, by releasing themin winter months not as
Arabian gazelles in Mahazat © M. Z. Islam
2011 and also by
decreasing stress on animals during the second release. Another factor for
successful release was the fact that the Reserve received good rainfall and thatmade the reserve green. Post release dispersal of Arabian gazelles have beenrecorded from the intensive monitoring programs. After the release theproductivity of wild gazelles was high and after one year of release, the gazelles
started breeding. Five radio-tagged females gave birth to one calf after one yearof release and other females would produce calves too.
Breeding records of the gazelles: The first wild born Arabian gazelle calf wasrecorded in Mahazat on 28th August 2012 near the fence. This calf was almost
one month old when recorded with the group. Three other females delivered one
each by the end of September 2012. The offspring show more adaptability to thewild than to their captive-bred parents and other females were also recorded
pregnant. The present population of Arabian gazelle in Mahazat Reserve is
between 30 - 35 (exactly 29: 11 males:14 females:4 juveniles) animals aremonitored on a regular basis. Studies related to its habitat use, feeding ecology,
range and space use, and group composition are been carried out in Mahazat.

Major difficulties facedx Maintain long-term regular monitoring.
x Lack of skills for mass capture techniques for Arabian gazelles.
x No study on the genetic diversity of gazelle in released sites has been done
recently.

Major lessons learnedx When wide-ranging species are confined to restricted areas, even if suchareas are large, it is essential that an effective population management plan isin place BEFORE any re-introduction is carried out and that the plan isproperly implemented. If this is not done, large-scale mortalities will occur.

177

Mammalsx Prior to any transplantation, range conditions in the release area have to be
improved and the area protected from livestock exploitation. Once pasture
conditions show adequate signs of improvement and the site is adequately
protected, re-introduction of the animals can be contemplated.
x The time of release should coincide with suitable vegetation conditions.
x Keeping the animals in pre-release enclosures within the re-introduction site to
get them acclimatized to the natural environment and provide minimal amountof food and water.
x Regulate tourism in re-introduction areas as this can lead to increased habitat
degradation.
x A public-awareness program should in place to inform citizens of the biologicaland historic significance of the Arabian gazelle in the society.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The Arabian gazelle was locally extinct in the south-western Saudi Arabia andnow we have breeding populations through the captive-breeding and reintroduction programs.
x The population of Arabian gazelle withstood the drought without further
supplemental re-introduction support.

References
Boug, A., Islam, M. Z., Shehry, A. & Wronski, T. (2012) Camera trapping confirms
persistence of Arabian Gazelles (Gazella arabica) in the Asir Mountains, Saudi
Arabia. Zoology in Middle East 57: 3-10.
Haque, M. N. & Smith, T. (1996) Re-introduction of Arabian Sand Gazelle Gazellasubgutturosa marica in Saudi Arabia. Biological Conservation 76: 203-207.
Islam, M. Z. Watcher, T., Boug, A. & Wronski, T. (2011) Population developmentof re-introduced Arabian Gazelle in the western Empty Quarter (Uruq Bani
Ma’arid Protected Area), Saudi Arabia. IUCN Re-introduction Book 3: 180-184.
Islam, M. Z.; Knutson, C. & Boug, A. (2010b) Strategy and Action Plan to Reduce
the Risk of Mass Mortalities of Reintroduced ungulates in the Mahazat as-SaydProtected Area in Saudi Arabia. GNUSLETTER, IUCN. Vol 28 (2): 9-15.
Islam, M.Z., K. Ismail & A. Boug (2010a) Catastrophic die-off of globallythreatened Arabian Oryx and Sand Gazelle in the fenced protected area of thearid central Saudi Arabia. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(2): 677-684.

178

Mammals
Ostrowski, S. & Williams, J. B. (2006) Heterothermy of free-living Arabian sandgazelles (Gazella subgutturosa marica) in a desert environment. J Exp Biol 209:
1421-1429.
Seddon, P. J., Y. van Heezik & I. A. Nader (1997) Mammals of the Harrat alHarrah protected area, Saudi Arabia - Zoology in the Middle East 14: 37–46.
Wacher, T. J. (1993) Gazelle and camel surveys: Harrat Al Harrah and Al
Khunfah Protected Areas, Saudi Arabia. Unpublished Report, King Khalid Wildlife
Research Centre, Thumamah, Saudi Arabia.

179

Mammals

The restoration of elk in Ontario, Canada, 1998 2012: research and management implications
Rick Rosatte
Senior Research Scientist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Researchand Development Section, Trent University, DNA Building, 2140 East Bank Dr.
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, K9J 7B8 rick.rosatte@ontario.ca

Introduction
Elk (Cervus elaphus) or wapiti were historically distributed across much of North
America. However, during the 1800s they were extirpated from much of theirrange, including Ontario, Canada, presumably due to unregulated harvesting,changes to habitat associated with settlement, and extermination by landowners
due to elk competition with livestock and damage to crops and property.
Numerous restoration projects were initiated across North America during theearly 1900s in an effort to re-build elk populations. One restoration project inOntario during the 1930s was successful at restoring elk to the province.
However, an extinction order was issued during the 1940s and 1950s due to theincorrect belief by provincial officials that elk were spreading giant liver flukes(Fascioloides magna) to cattle (Rosatte et al., 2007). As a result, elk were legally
hunted in Ontario until 1979. A few of those elk survived and during the mid1990s, two small herds of about 50 elk (offspring of surviving elk) still existed in
the Burwash area of central Ontario. During 1998 to 2001, 443 elk acquired from
Alberta, Canada, were released in 4 areas of Ontario in an attempt to bolster the
Burwash area herds and restore elk to other areas of Ontario (Rosatte et al.,2007). Research projects were implemented at all release sites to provide data forthe effective management of elk in Ontario and in 2010 a provincial Elk
Management Plan was implemented.

Goals
x Goal 1: To restore a
species that had been
extirpated from Ontario,
Canada during the 1800s.
x Goal 2: To determine
the environmental impactof restoring elk in Ontario.
x Goal 3: To implement
research and monitoring
programs that would
provide data for decision
making regarding themanagement of elk in
Ontario.
Cow, Calf and bull elk © R. Rosatte

180Mammalsx Goal 4: To provide social and economic benefits e.g. recreational opportunities
such as harvesting and viewing, for the residents of Ontario.
x Goal 5: To enhance biodiversity in Ontario.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Sustainable elk populations in Ontario.
x Indicator 2: Mortality of elk is low and elk productivity and calf survival is high.
x Indicator 3: Elk interactions with humans are minimal.
x Indicator 4: Elk competition with other ungulates such as deer is minimal.
x Indicator 5: Elk damage to the environment is minimal (including disease/parasite spread).ȱ

Project Summary
Feasibility: Historically, elk were found in some areas of Ontario,
suggesting that certain habitats in the province could support elk populations.
During the mid to late 1990s, the Plan for the Restoration of Elk in Ontario wasdrafted and approved by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). The
plan identified six broad geographic areas of the province where elk could be
potentially restored and the recommendation was that at least 200 elk should be
released in each area selected as a release site. A habitat supply model wasused to determine which areas of the province could support elk populations.
Each area was ranked according to elk ecological variables, mortality risk,
potential for elk interaction with humans, and logistics of restoring elk in that area
(Bellhouse & Broadfoot, 1998).
Implementation: Ontario’s elk restoration program was a multi-partnered
collaboration with members from provincial and federal governments, colleges
and universities, private organizations, and volunteers. Elk Restoration Advisory
and Technical Committees were established to coordinate the overall
implementation and delivery of the Ontario elk restoration program. In addition,
Local Implementation Committees (LIC’s) were established in the release areas
to oversee release site logistics. Elk were captured and processed (tested for
diseases such as brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis, administered anti-parasitic
agents, sexed and aged, and were fitted with radio collars and ear-tags) at Elk
Island National Park, Alberta (Rosatte et al., 2007). Elk were not accepted forshipment to Ontario unless they were declared disease-free by Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) veterinarians. Elk were shipped to Ontario via Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) trailers or commercial stock trailers. Upon
arrival in Ontario elk were placed into holding pens to recover from the 1 to 2 day
journey. A total of 443 elk were released after a variable holding period at fourareas in Ontario: the Lake of the Woods (LOW) area near Kenora (104 elk), theLake Huron North Shore (LHNS) area near Blind River (47 elk), the Nipissing/French River (NFR) area near Sudbury (172 elk), and the Bancroft North Hastings(BNH) area near Bancroft, Ontario (120 elk) (Rosatte et al., 2007). The Ontario
elk restoration plan had identified six potential areas in Ontario that could receive
elk. However, following a risk assessment, a moratorium on the shipment andrelease of additional elk in Ontario was implemented in 2001 due to the perceived

181

Mammals
risk of importing Chronic
Wasting Disease (CWD)
into the province. Ontario
currently (January 2013)
remains free of CWD.
Post-release monitoring:
Following the release of
the elk in Ontario during
1998 to 2001, program
staff, volunteers, college
and university students,
monitored their
movements and survival
using radio-telemetry as
most of the elk werecollared. Twelve graduate
Rick Rosatte with drugged elk © J. Neuhold
student programs werealso initiated at four Ontario universities during 1998 to 2012 to study the
dynamics of the elk herds at the four elk release areas. From 1998 to 2004,
mortality of released elk was about 41%. Causes of mortality included predation
by wolves (primarily in the NFR and LOW release areas), illegal shooting,collisions with vehicles, infections, and emaciation (Rosatte et al., 2007).
However, mortality has since declined as elk became acclimated to their new
home in Ontario. It was also found that in some of the release areas the length oftime the elk were kept in pens prior to release had an effect on their dispersal
distance. In fact, extended holding periods (up to 4 months) promoted philopatry(Ryckman et al., 2010). Another research study determined that there was amoderate amount of dietary overlap between elk and resident white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) in the BNH release area (Jenkins et al., 2007). McIntosh
et al. (2007) found that about 59% of elk sampled in the BNH release area were
infected with meningeal worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis); however, the full
impact of that parasite on elk survival in Ontario has yet to be determined(Bellhouse & Rosatte, 2005). Research on the dynamics of elk populations in thefour release areas in Ontario continues to-date (2013).
A provincial Elk Management Plan was developed with public input andimplemented by OMNR in 2010. This plan aligns with the Cervid Ecological
Framework which is in place to manage cervids (moose, elk, deer, caribou) at theecosystem or landscape level in Ontario. Monitoring of elk to date has revealed
that the BNH and LHNS elk populations are doing extremely well. In fact, a hunt
was initiated in the BNH area during 2011 to assist with managing the herds at adesired population objective (400 to 600 elk in the BNH core release area which
is about 2,500 km2) and provide recreational opportunities to Ontarians. The elkhunt may also help to reduce human/elk conflicts especially on agricultural landsin the BNH area. Elk in the NFR area suffered high mortality during the initialstages of restoration due to wolf predation and a variety of other mortality factors.
That population has struggled but currently (2013) appears to be recovering.

182

Mammals
However, the LOW elk population appears to be struggling due to a variety offactors. The provincial elk population estimate for the four core elk ranges in
Ontario during 2012 was 648 to 916 elk.

Major difficulties facedx Transport of elk in trailers for 24 to 58 hours continuous driving during winterconditions was stressful to elk as well as the truck drivers.
x Elk escaped from one of the release area pens (BNH) on day 1 of the holding
period and dispersed over a 27,000 km2 area (Rosatte et al., 2007).
x Elk mortality was initially high following release due to a number of factors
including wolf predation, drowning, collision with vehicles, illegal shooting,
infections and emaciation.
x Had to address concerns raised by naturalist groups and hunters regarding theenvironmental impacts of releasing elk in Ontario.
x Had to assess the risk of Chronic Wasting Disease being imported into Ontario
via shipment of elk from Alberta.
x Conflicts with area farmers has become an on-going challenge.
x Divisive issue as to whether elk should have access to supplemental foodsources.
x Acknowledged the potential for restored elk to interbreed with escaped captive
elk, red deer, and hybrids in Ontario and attempts have been made to remove
escaped captive animals from the landscape.
x Determining if a re-introduction is successful and deciding when to cease
efforts to sustain a herd/population that is facing continued decline.

Major lessons learnedx Elk should be placed in holding pens prior to release for 1 to 4 months to allow
them to recover from the stress of relocation, acclimatize to their new
environment, and promote fidelity to the release site area.
x Prime animals should
be selected forrestoration to maximize
productivity during theinitial stages ofrestoration.
x Elk released in areas ofhigh predator (e.g.
wolves) density will in
all likelihood
experience highmortality during theinitial stages ofrestoration.
x Hunters need to be
educated to be certainof their target when elk
Helicopter preparing to capture elk for radio
are released into areas
collaring near Bancroft, Ontario © Rick Rosatte

183

Mammals
where there are hunting seasons for species such deer and moose, otherwise
elk mortality due to illegal shooting will likely be high.
x Human/elk conflicts will occur in areas containing agricultural croplands, andco-operative work is needed to develop effective tools for minimizing conflicts.
x If elk are restored to an area, populations need to be monitored and acomprehensive elk management plan is imperative to deal with disease/parasite management as well as human conflict issues.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Dispersion of elk away from the release site areas resulted in some animals
not contributing to productivity.
x Wolf predation combined with other mortality factors has suppressed
population increase during some years in the Lake of the Woods andNipissing/French River elk release sites.
x Little predation of elk combined with high survival and productivity has resulted
in significant population increases in the Bancroft North Hastings and Lake
Huron/North Shore elk release areas.
x During the initial stages of the restoration program (1998 - 2004), illegal
shooting accounted for 25 known elk mortalities.
x There was a moderate level of dietary overlap between elk and resident whitetailed deer.
x Some undesirable interactions with humans e.g. in some areas, elk/humanconflicts have occurred in the vicinity of agricultural lands.
x Overall, the program was a success due to the collaboration of nearly 20organizations, including provincial and federal governments, universities,
private organizations, and volunteers.
x A provincial Elk Management Plan was implemented to provide direction to
manage elk in Ontario.
x Elk research and monitoring programs provided input for elk management
decisions.
Acknowledgments: The Ontario elk restoration and research program was acollaborative effort involving the following organizations: the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency, Parks Canada, Elk Island National Park, Cambrian College, Trent University,
Lakehead University, Laurentian University, the University of Guelph, Sault College,
French River Resorts Association, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Ontario FurManagers Federation, Safari Club International (Ontario and Ottawa chapters), as well as
the numerous volunteers associated with each elk release area. The manuscript wasreviewed by the following OMNR staff: Dr. C. J. Davies, D. Stetson, V. Ewing, E.
MacDonald, J. Holder and G. Lucking.

184

Mammals
References
Bellhouse, T. & Broadfoot, J. (1998) Plan for the restoration of elk in Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Internal report. Ontario, Canada, 47pp.
Jenkins, D. A., Schaefer, J. A., Rosatte, R. C., Bellhouse, T., Hamr, J., & Mallory,
F. (2007) Winter resource selection of re-introduced elk and sympatric whitetailed deer at multiple spatial scales. Journal of Mammalogy 88: 614-624.
McIntosh, T., Rosatte, R., Campbell, D., Welch, K., Fournier, D., Spinato, M., &Ogunremi, O. (2007) Evidence of Parelaphostrongylus tenuis infections in freeranging elk (Cervus elaphus) in southern Ontario. Canadian Veterinary Journal
48: 1146-1154.
Bellhouse, T. & Rosatte, R. (2005) Assessment of the potential for negativeinteraction between re-introduced elk (Cervus elaphus) and resident white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in their wintering areas in Ontario, Canada.
Mammalia 69: 35-56.
Rosatte, R., Hamr, J., Young, J., Filion, I., & Smith, H. (2007) The restoration ofelk (Cervus elaphus) in Ontario, Canada: 1998-2005. Restoration Ecology 15: 3443.
Ryckman, M., Rosatte, R., McIntosh, T., Hamr, J., & Jenkins, D. (2010) Postrelease dispersal of re-introduced elk (Cervus elaphus) in Ontario, Canada.
Restoration Ecology 18: 173-180.

185

Mammals

Re-introduction of bison to the Wind River Ranchin northern New Mexico and Native American
lands in the western USA
Jim Stone1 & Brian Miller2
1- Executive Director of the Inter-Tribal Buffalo Council, 2497 West Chicago St.,
Rapid City, South Dakota, 57702 USA jstone@itbcbison.com
2- Scientist, Wind River Ranch Foundation, P.O. Box 27, Watrous,
New Mexico 87753 USA brimill@desertgate.com

Introduction
Bison (Bison bison) were catalogued as Near Threatened by the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) in 2012. Bison, a mega-herbivore in North America,
numbered around 30,000,000 when Euroamericans arrived. During the 1870s
and 1880s, all but about 1,000 were slaughtered in a conscious attempt toremove the primary resource for Plains Indians, disrupt Indian lifestyle andculture, and clear the way for settlers and cattle. The slaughter also removed a
species from the ecosystem that played a key role in the maintenance of healthy
grasslands. Efforts to conserve the few remaining bison began around 1900. The
return of bison can reestablish hope and culture to tribes, as well as re-establish
health to a badly abused grassland ecosystem. Even though there are presently
400,000 bison in North America, 97% of them are managed for meat, not forconservation and ecological function. Since 1992, the Inter-Tribal Buffalo Council(ITBC) has restored 15,000 bison to tribal lands, yet the bison is still the only
major ungulate that has not recovered following the wildlife declines of the 19 th
century. The Wind River Ranch (WRR) and the ITBC currently seek to expand
research on the ecological role of bison in grassland health.

Goals

Bull bison and cow in typical habitat

186x Goal 1: Establish aconservation herd at alevel that will allow bison
to perform their ecological
function on the grassland.
x Goal 2: Research theecological function ofbison in grassland health.
x Goal 3: Analyze thegenetics and lineage ofthe animals in the herd.
x Goal 4: Cooperate with
the ITBC on bison
research, management,
and cultural issues.

Mammals
Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Maintainbetween 40 and 60
adult equivalents in thebison herd, adjusted
according to conditions
on the ranch. The herdis half owned by the
Jicarilla Apache andhalf by the WRRF.
x Indicator 2: Performing
research on the role ofbison as the native
mega-herbivore in afunctioning grassland.
We have had one pilot
Adult bison with calf © Jim Stone
study, one MS projectthat is completed, andone 5 year study that is in its first year.
x Indicator 3: The genetic research is ongoing. It has identified one completely
new lineage, and another lineage that comes from the Yellowstone herd.

Project Summary
We began managing the WRR in January of 2005, following several years ofdrought and grazing by a herd of horses. We rested the grass until 2007, when
we started grazing nine bison owned by the Jicarilla Apache Office of Cultural
Affairs (JAOCA). Our intention was to give their herd a head start until they could
get permission to graze bison on tribal lands. In 2008, the ITBC donated 35 morebison to the JAOCA herd at the WRR. The JAOCA donated 3 females and one
male from that group to the WRR. In 2009 and 2010, WRR grazed a dozen bisonfrom the Picuris Pueblo. WRR then bought those bison from the Picuris tribe.
Presently, there are 68 individuals of various ages from calves to adults in theherd, with half owned by the WRR and half owned by the JAOCA. The bison
respect our 1.2 m high barbed wire external fence. We have removed internal
fences except for a trap when we want to put bison in the corral.
The WRR and ITBC cooperate on this herd of bison, with the ITBC paying thesalary of a bison caretaker during 2011. We manage the bison as a conservation
herd, and to assist tribes with bison. Because we want to investigate the role ofbison in grassland health, we maintain a number of bison that is large enough tohave ecological impact, but not so large as to degrade grasses. When we haveexcess animals, they are sold to other tribes, sold for meat, or enter the JAOCA
free meat program. We periodically monitor the grass condition, and each fall weassess the amount of grass we have for winter grazing. We do this by mapping
the grass conditions around the ranch, and estimating the pounds of grass peracre in those various areas. We convert the various ages of bison into adultequivalents of 450 kg and assume that each adult equivalent will eat about 9 kg of
grass per day (2% of body-weight). We then calculate how many bison can live187

Mammalson the grass for the nextnine months. As aconservation herd, we aretrying to move closer to a
50:50 sex ratio, although
at present we are biased
toward females. Genetic
analyses, bothmitochondrial DNA andnuclear DNA, indicatedthat these bison represent
the Yellowstone lineage
as well as several that are
in a lineage not previously
described.
Bison in Yellowstone during winter © Jim Stone

A pilot study and a
Master’s Thesis have bothshown that bison break piñon, juniper, and yucca that advance onto thegrassland. Similar to elephants in Africa, bison probably played a role in halting
the transition from grassland to savannah to woodland, a transition that has
degraded millions of acres of grassland in the western U.S. as well as causing
arroyo formation. Arroyos lower the water table and reduce the productivity of thesurrounding grassland. An ongoing study at WRR by the Denver Zoo isinvestigating flora and fauna associated with bison compared to cattle. WRR and
ITBC are planning to develop more studies of the bison’s role in grassland
function.
The ITBC is composed of 57 tribes, and the organization’s members currently
have a population of 15,000 bison on 51 reservations in 19 states. Bisonhistorically had a wide range in North America so the number of tribes interested
in restoring bison for cultural reasons is varied. Of great importance to tribes isregional research on how bison restore lands that were grazed by cattle. This
allows tribes to determine what changes and progressions can be seen in theirown restoration efforts. The Southwest is a unique ecosystem, and that makes it
hard for Southwestern tribes to extrapolate from previous efforts by northern
tribes. The documented results of the WRR/ITBC restoration will be of the utmost
importance to the regional tribes, allowing them to develop management
principles that are science based.

Major difficulties facedx Finding grant money to do the research.
x The WRR has only about 4,600 acres and is not large enough to have a large
bison herd.
x They reproduce well and are long-lived, so we need to watch numbers, but the
ITBC has been able to help move excess animals to other tribes.

188

Mammals
Major lessons learnedx The role of bison in preventing the transition of grassland to savannah towoodland.
x That bison are much easier to work with than many people say.
x Cooperation between like-minded groups is important for long-term
conservation of bison.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The fecundity of bison and the cooperation between the ITBC and the WRRF.ȱ

References
Lott, D. F. (2002) The American bison: A natural history. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California.
Isenburg, A. C. (2000) The destruction of the bison: An environmental history
1750 - 1920. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York Inter-Tribal
Buffalo Council website: www.itbcbison.comȱ
IUCN (2012) IUCN Redlist of threatened species. Version 2012.1.
www.iucnredlist.orgȱ

189

Mammals

Restoration of wisent population within the
Carpathian eco-region, Europe
Kajetan Perzanowski1 & Wanda Olech2
1- Carpathian Wildlife Research Station, Museum and Institute of Zoology,
Polish Academy of Sciences. Ogrodowa 10, 38-700 Ustrzyki
Dolne, Poland StacjaKarpacka@miiz.waw.pl2- Department of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Warsaw University of Life
Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Introduction
The wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus L.), fairly common in the
Carpathian eco-region (a mountain range of about 210,000 km2) in Medieval
Ages, finally disappeared there by late 18th century, due to overhunting andgradual habitat loss. First attempts for its re-introduction date back to the 1960s(Poland and Ukraine). The restitution project involving five countries (Poland,
Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and Hungary) was initiated in the late 1990s. By
2012, there are 6 free ranging wisent populations counting together over 350
individuals and seven breeding enclosures (100 animals). Planned activities
concentrated on increment of wisent numbers, the extension of their range and an
improvement of the genetic pool through prescribed supplementation withselected individuals from captivity. The species has IUCN status Vulnerable. It is
divided into two genetic lines, Lowland with VU status and Lowland-Caucasianclassified as Endangered (EN) because of decreased population size. The
species is listed in Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and on Annexes II* andIV of the EU Habitats and Species Directive. In Polish Red List the species has
category EN and most countries in which the species occurs have national
management plans. The European Bison Conservation Centre established in lastyears is responsible forcoordination andinformation exchange.

Goals
x Goal 1: Theestablishment of a viablemeta-population of thespecies in the Carpathian
eco-region.
x Goal 2: An
improvement of present
genetic structure of
Carpathian herds.
x Goal 3: An extension of
the present range of thespecies in the eco-region.
Wisent bull in Romania © Kajetan Perzanowski

190

Mammalsx Goal 4: An increase of
a number of freeranging herds.
x Goal 5: An introductionof a routine monitoringof all free ranging herds
in the region.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Reachingan effective population
number over 500
individuals.
x Indicator 2: An increaseof underrepresented
founders in the gene
Release at Bieszczady National Park
pool of this population.
© Kajetan Perzanowskix Indicator 3: An
establishment of freeranging herds in Romania and Slovakia.
x Indicator 4: Spontaneous migrations of animals outside of herds’ home ranges.
x Indicator 5: Acceptance of free ranging wisents by local communities.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The Carpathians are the largest and most important linkage forwildlife between the south-eastern and central part of the continent. This
mountain chain remains mostly forested (from about 30% in Hungary up to over
60% in Romania), including the largest in Europe stretch of natural mountain
forest dominated by fir and beech. It is also a mainstay of a majority of nativelarge mammals including almost all European large predators: brown bears,
wolves and lynx. The wisent, extirpated from the region some 200 years ago, wasthe last surviving species of large grazers, contributing in the past to themaintenance of grassland communities and forest mosaic. Gradual encroachmentof settlements into mountain valleys, and the development of livestock based
local economy have led to the fragmentation and the loss of a large part of natural
habitats. Economic and political changes after the World War Two did not
facilitate a cooperation in the field of nature conservation within the region. A
majority of forests, and a considerable part of cultivated land became state
controlled and subject to central planning. First attempts to bring back wisents to
the region were undertaken independently some 50 years ago in Poland andUkraine, but internationally coordinated project became possible only by the endof the 1990s of the 20th century.
Implementation: The project was initially based upon already existing freeranging herds (two in Poland and two in Ukraine) but gradually it was extended to
Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary. According to the guidelines determined by theEuropean strategy for the conservation of the species (Pucek et al., 2004),
concerned with separate maintenance of two genetic lines (Lowland and Lowland

191

Mammals–Caucasian), since firstwisent released there
belonged to the latter,
further introductions
followed the same rule.
The source of new
animals are geneticallyselected from various
breeding centers ofEurope. Because of
exceptionally high levels
of inbreeding within thespecies, the main criterion
for their choice is thegenetic distance andfounder representation.
The genetic evaluation is
Loading of wisents in Ukraine
based on pedigree© Lukasz Polawski
analysis as well as on
DNA genotyping, mainly microsatellites. In the beginning of the project, allinvolved countries did not belong to the EU, so an import of animals was legallyand logistically quite complicated. Now, only Ukraine remains outside of the EU
so large part of necessary arrangements and paperwork is much easier. A
serious problem remain however health related issues, since as Bovines, wisents
may transmit various diseases dangerous to the livestock including foot andmouth disease, brucellosis or TB. Also the legal status of this species is not thesame all over the Europe, ranging from fully protected to being listed among
cattle. So far in countries of western Europe, wisents are maintained only incaptivity and their release to the wild is considered as highly controversial,
however there are plans for such experiments in Germany, Sweden, Holland andDenmark.
Post-release monitoring: In countries where wisents enjoy the freedom,
their numbers, population structure and movements are monitored either byForest Service or national park personnel. As a rule, samples of tissue arecollected from dead animals, and in the case of Polish population also seasonallysamples of feces as an indicator of parasitic infestations. Since 2002, in the
majority of cases, wisents released to the wild were fitted with radio-collars
allowing to verify their interactions with wild animals and follow their fate. There isan exchange of information on this subject among neighboring countries (Poland,
Slovakia and Ukraine), and results of monitoring are published on regular basis incommonly accessible international journals.

Major difficulties facedx Problems connected with transfer of animals between countries (health status)and between EU and non EU countries (legal status).
x Obtaining a consensus with local stakeholders.
x Lack of stable financial support for established free ranging herds.

192

Mammalsx Uncontrolled losses of animals due to poaching in Ukraine.

Major lessons learnedx The project was carried out in countries of various economic conditions anddifferent legislations regarding nature conservation so every time a different
approach was required to tackle any arising issues.
x A key for the success of newly established herds is an acceptance of thepresence of introduced animals by local communities.
x There is a threshold regarding the size of a population (about 40 animals),
below which its numbers grow very slowly and the population remains
vulnerable to extinction.
x Free ranging herds should be monitored on long term basis, including:population census, spatial distribution, and mortality causes.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x A number of people dedicated to the conservation of this species.
x High level of social acceptance for the species in countries of the region.
x Fairly well maintained natural and semi-natural habitats.
x Well-developed methods for captive breeding of the species.
x Broad access to captive animals suitable for introduction to the wild.

References
Kuemmerle, T. , Perzanowski, K., Akçakaya, H. R., Beaudry, F., Van Deelen, T.,
Parnikoza, I. Khoyetskyy, P., Waller, D. & Radeloff, V. (2011) Cost-effectiveness of different
conservation strategies to establish a European bison metapopulation in the Carpathians.
Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 317-329.
Laszczak, E., Ostapowicz, K., Kuemmerle, T., Perzanowski, K., Radeloff, V. & ozak, J.
(2012) Combining habitat suitability analysis, cost analysis and graph theory to better
assess the connectivity of habitat networks: European bison in the Carpathians. BiologicalConservation 146:188-196.ȱ
Olech, W. & Perzanowski, K. (2002) A genetic background for reintroduction program of theEuropean bison Bison bonasus in the Carpathians. Biological Conservation. 108, 2:221228.
Perzanowski, K. & Olech, W. (2007) A future for the European bison Bison bonasus in the
Carpathian ecoregion. Wildlife Biology 13,1: 108-112.
Perzanowski, K. & Marszaáek, E. (2012) Powrót Īubra w Karpaty/The return of the wisent to
the Carpathians. RDLP w KroĞnie, 254 pp.
Pucek, Z. (ed), Belousova, I. P., KrasiĔska, M., KrasiĔski, Z. A. & Olech, W. (2004)
European bison. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan., IUCN Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK, 55 pp.

193

Mammals

Re-introduction of wood bison in Russia
T. P. Sipko1, A. L. Popov2 & J. S. Sivtcev2
1- Institute Ecology and Evolution RAS, 119071, Moscow, Russia sipkotp@mail.ru
2- Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Yakutia, 677005,
Yakutsk, Russia popal48@rambler.ru

Introduction
In the Pleistocene and early Holocene, bison inhabited almost the entire territoryof Russia. In historic times, its range began to dwindle and became fragmented(Lorenzen et al., 2011). The main reasons for this were climate change andpersecution by humans. Up till the 7th - 10th century, the bison lived in the transBaikal and Baikal regions (Ermolova, 1978; Vereschagin & Baryshnikov, 1985).
To the south of Yakutia the bison populations merged about 2,000 years ago(Lazarev et al., 1998), and to the northeast of Siberia about 3,000 years ago(Flerov, 1977; Sipko 2009). According to K.K. Flerova (1977 & 1979) bison ineastern Siberia are almost identical to modern wood bison (Bison b. athabasckae)
now found in Canada and these animals are listed on CITES. The high degree ofsimilarity in the ecosystems of both Canada and Russian Siberia has identified aninterest in the return of wood bison. For this purpose, two sites were selected on
the territory of Yakutia. An important element in the idea of this project was theneed to create the most isolated population of wood bison, giving assurance thatthe animal form will be retained, in case of any mishap threatens them in Canada.

Goals
x Goal 1: Establish a breeding center for these animals, to preserve the genepool of this species. The isolation provided by the great distance guarantees
the obstacles from simultaneous occurrence of any threat to these animals.
x Goal 2: Return species previously present in the ecosystem of Siberia.
x Goal 3: Raise theproductivity of
ecosystems.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Achievesustainable regenerationof herds and get theoffspring of calves born inSiberia.
x Indicator 2: Assembleon the territory of Yakutia
a genetically diverse
population.

Wood bison (Bison b. athabasckae)194

Mammalsx Indicator 3: Get practical examples of successful bison re-introduction in thewild of Yakutia.

Project Summary
The project for the re-introduction of wood bison in Russia was implemented by
the importation of 90 bison from Elk Island National Park in Canada. The animals
were brought in groups of 30 individuals for several years. The history of thewood bison started in 1965 when 23 individuals were delivered which became thepopulation founders. Also we assumed that the imported bison had all the genetic
polymorphism. The imported bison have successfully adapted to the local climate
and the low winter temperatures. This is an important consideration, since inDecember - January the average temperature is -400ɋ and the temperature isoften below -500ɋ. In the summer season there is a large number of mosquitoes
and heat, which is a problem for ungulates.
Wood bison were placed in two breeding centers, located at a distance of 200 km
from each other and in a place with a low density of domestic animals. This isimportant to ensure the biosecurity of the bison. The bison began to successfully
reproduce, and their population dynamics can be seen in table 1. Supplementary
feeding is available only during the winter but a few experiments were also
conducted on male bison without supplementary winter feed in the wild. Theseexperiments were successful and the results will be integrated into more
successful management of the wild bison.
Table 1. An update of bison numbers from the two breeding centers
Year
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Breeding Center, Lenskii Stolby National Park
Imported from Canada

30

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Birth

0

0

6

7

8

10

5

?

Death

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

Removed

0

0

0

6

7

8

9

5

Year end total

28

26

32

33

34

36

32

27

Breeding Center, Timpinay National Park Sinyy
Imported from Canada

0

0

0

0

0

30

0

30

Imported from
Buotoma

0

0

0

6

7

8

9

5

Birth

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

?

Death

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

Year end total

0

0

0

6

13

49

60

95

GRAND TOTAL

28

26

32

39

47

85

92

122

195

Mammals
Major difficulties
faced

Overview of the Yakutia territoryx This project is ongoingwith support and funding
from the Government of
the Republic of Yakutia,
which ensures its
sustainable development.
x Problems of adaptation
to the harsh climate of thisunique region were
overcome as well.
x A problem remains withthe presence of bears
living in the nearby
national parks.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:n/aReferences
Eermolova N. M. (1978) The mammal fauna valley Angara later antropogene.
Novosibirsk, Nauka, P. 1 - 220
Flerov K. K. (1977) Bison North-East Siberia/in: mammoth fauna and its Habitatin the antropogene environment. USSA, L., P. 39-56
Flerov K.K. 1979. Systematics and evolution//Bison. The morphology,
systematics, evolution, ecology. M., Science, P. 9-127.
Lorenzen E. D., David Nogués-Bravo, Ludovic Orlando, Jaco Weinstock, Jonas
Binladen, Marske K. A., Andrew Ugan, Borregaard M. K., Gilbert T. P., Rasmus
Nielsen, Simon Y. W., Ted Goebel, Graf K. E., David Byers, Stenderup J. T.,
Morten Rasmussen, Campos P. F., Leonard J. A., Klaus-Peter Koepfli, Duane
Froese, Grant Zazula, Stafford T. W., Kim Aaris-Sørensen, Persaram Batra,
Haywood A. M., Singarayer J. S., Valdes P. J., Boeskorov G. G., Burns J. A.,
Davydov S. P., James Haile, Jenkins D. L., Kosintsev P. A., Kuznetsova T.V.,
Xulong Lai, Martin L. D., McDonald H. G., Dick Mo, Morten Meldgaard, Kasper
Munch, Elisabeth Stephan, Sablin M. V., Sommer R. S., Sipko T. P., Eric Scott,Suchard M. A., Tikhonov A. N., Rane Willerslev, Wayne R. K., Alan Cooper,
Michael Hofreite, Sher A. V., Beth Shapiro, Carsten Rahbek & Eske Willerslev

196

Mammals

Release of wood bison from transport crates

Species-specific responses of Late Quaternary megafauna to climate andhumans. Nature ʋ 479 P. 359 - 364.
Lazarev, P. A., Boeskorov G. G. et al. (1998) Mammals of the antropogena of
Yakutia. Yakutsk, Publishing YNC SO RAS, 167 p.
Sipko, T. P. (2009) European bison in Russia - past, present and future.
European bison Conservation Newsletter. Warszawa. Vol 2, P. 148 - 159.
Vereshchagin, N. K. & Baryshnikov, G. F. (1985) The extinction of mammals in
the Quaternary period Mammals of Northern Eurasia. North Eurasia in the
Quaternary period. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute of the USSR Academyof Sciences, Leningrad, vol. 131, p. 3-38.

197

Mammals

Establishment of a desert bighorn sheep
population to the Fra Cristobal Mountains,
New Mexico, USA
Mike Phillips,
Executive Director, Turner Endangered Species Fund, 1123 Research Drive,
Bozeman, MT 59718, USA mike.phillips@retranches.com

Introduction
Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) were once prolific in New
Mexico, occupying most arid mountain ranges in the southern part of the state.
Over-hunting and disease transmission from livestock are two primary reasons forthe dramatic decline in bighorn sheep numbers throughout the West during theearly 1900s; desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico responded similarly. In 1980,
the desert bighorn sheep was placed on New Mexico’s endangered species list
(Goldstein & Rominger, 2003). That led to a concerted recovery effort that
included re-introduction projects to establish populations throughout southern
New Mexico, including the Fra Cristobal Mountains. Efforts to establish desert
bighorn to the Fra Cristobal Mountains in southwestern New Mexico began in
1995 as a collaboration between the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish(NMDGF) and the Armendaris Ranch (owned by conservationist andphilanthropist Ted Turner) (Goldstein and Rominger 2003).
That year 13 rams and 24 ewes were translocated from the fenced bighorn refuge
managed by NMDGF to the Fra Cristobal Mountains. The releases marked the
beginning of the only effort in New Mexico to establish the species on private
land. In 1997 an additional seven radio-collared rams were released in the Fra
Cristobals.

Goals
x Goal 1: Restore a selfsustaining population ofdesert bighorn sheep tothe Fra Cristobal
Mountains that is large
enough to persist over along period of time (>100years) with little or no
human intervention.
x Goal 2: Manage therestored herd toaccommodate a
Desert bighorn sheep at Eagle Rock198

Mammals
recreational fee hunt thatgenerates funds to offset
the cost of therestoration project.
x Goal 3: Publish
important findings fromthe restoration project toadvance the science of
restoration ecology.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Presence ofa collaborative working
relationship with thestate of New Mexico inwhich roles andresponsibilities aredefined.
x Indicator 2: Reintroduction of anadequate number ofdesert bighorn sheep tocatalyze population
establishment.
x Indicator 3:
Establishment of amonitoring and researchframework that is
adequate to support
adaptive management of
the restoration project tomaximize the probabilityof success.

Desert bighorn sheep translocation

Project Summary
In 1997 the Turner Endangered Species Fund (TESF) took a leadership role inthe desert bighorn restoration project. In the ensuing 15 years TESF worked
collaboratively with the Armendaris Ranch and NMDGF to monitor bighorns andcougars and their interactions on a near daily basis. TESF also spearheaded
several research projects that aimed to advance sheep population establishment.
Diseases, acquired primarily from domestic sheep, had for more than a century
dominated the documented and suspected causes of extinction of wild bighornfrom causes other than hunting (Singer et al., 2001). But the mid-1990s it became
known that the proximate cause of most mortalities leading to extinction of small
populations of desert bighorn turned out to be not disease but predation.
mountain lions (Puma concolor), or cougars, emerged as the main predator(Goldstein & Rominger, 2003).

199

Mammals
In New Mexico cougar
predation dominatedamong the factors
responsible for the demiseor poor performance offive desert bighorn
populations that the state
had actively managed
from 1992 through 2002.
In several othersouthwestern locations,biologists also recognize
cougar predation as amajor impediment tobighorn herd reestablishment andreplenishment (Rominger
Release in the Fra Cristobal Mountains in
et al., 2004). Six of the
Armendaris Ranch, New Mexico
seven radio-collared rams
released in the Fra Cristobal Mountains in 1997 were killed by cougars within 18
months. Curiously, few bighorn biologists prior to the 1980s had thought cougar
predation very important as a desert bighorn mortality factor (Geist, 1971).
While the circumstances that led to cougar predation becoming an importantfactor affecting the persistence of desert bighorn sheep populations are not wellunderstood, the importance of the factor is undeniable. From this simple fact wedesigned a restoration scheme that focused on cougar monitoring and removal,using lethal means, to minimize cougar predation of sheep that inhabited the Fra
Cristobal Mountains. The intensity of cougar control was inversely related to theperceived threat represented by the animal(s) in question. Adult females withdependent young that restricted movements to the Fra Cristobal Mountains
represented a pronounced threat to sheep and were immediately targeted forremoval. In contrast, wide-ranging adult males were identified as a modest threat
and only targeted for removal if they restricted movements to areas frequented bysheep.
From 1997 through mid-year 2011, we used telemetric monitoring and remotecamera “traps” to document cougar use of the Fra Cristobals and to instruct
removal actions. During this period we removed 34 cougars from the area.
Concurrent with this by May 2011 the sheep population had grown to include 200
to 220 animals and had catalyzed (through emigration) a second population on
the nearby Caballos Mountains (about 20 km south) that included 65 to 75 sheep.
This “meta-population” of 265 to 295 sheep was the largest in New Mexico andincluded over 40% of all sheep in the desert bighorn sheep in the state. The Fra
Cristobals/Caballo mountains meta-population was the principal reason that the
New Mexico State Game Commission removed the species from the state list ofimperiled species in November 2011.

200

Mammals
Just prior to delisting TESF recognized the successful restoration of desert
bighorn sheep by approving the removal of 16 ewes from the Fra Cristobal
Mountains for conservation purposes. On 30th October 2011 these animals were
captured and translocated to suitable habitat elsewhere in New Mexico toadvance the species’ security. This management action represented the first timein history that desert sheep have been restored to private property and managed
so successfully that the herd grew to sufficient size to serve as a “donor
population” to support range-wide conservation efforts. Starting in 2012 the Fra
Cristobal Mountains desert bighorn sheep population became the target of arecreational harvest of trophy rams.
Given that only a small percentage of rams breed, an annual harvest of a few“trophy” rams can be sustained without affecting population vigor and persistence.
During the fall of 2012 six bighorn rams, including five that qualified for the Boone& Crockett record book (www.boone-crockett.org), were harvested. Three ofthese animals were harvested according to permits issued by NMDGF to the
Armendaris Ranch. The ranch was able to sell these permits to hunters for US$
165,000. From this total the Armendaris Ranch donated US$ 55,000 to offset thecost of operating the Beau Turner Youth Conservation Center in Florida.
Cougar management continued in 2012 as well. By mid-December of that year
ranch personnel working in tandem with NMDGF had removed five lions from themountain, including three males and two females. Work plans for 2013 andbeyond include continued monitoring and management of cougars to minimize
predation on sheep along with recreational, high dollar hunts of trophy rams.

Major difficulties facedx Blending management actions and research efforts in a manner that informed
adaptive management while not compromising the growth capacity of thenascent population of desert bighorn sheep.
x Maintaining a field crew
capable of successfully
carrying out the chronicmonitoring underdifficult field conditions
to ensure completion ofmanagement actions
and research efforts
necessary to ensure
the restoration of a
viable population ofdesert bighorn sheep.
x Maintaining collegial
and effective relations

Cougar photographed by remote camera

201

Mammals
between the state of New Mexico and the owner of the land to which the
sheep were released.
x Balancing the tension created by establishing lethal control of cougars as arequisite to desert bighorn sheep restoration.

Major lessons learnedx Predator control, in this case involving cougars, to promote the growth of aprey population, in this case involving endangered desert bighorn sheep, iscontroversial and has notable potential to create tension within a restorationteam and between the general public and the restoration team.
x All members of the restoration team, from field biologists to senioradministrators, need to be forever mindful of the difficulty of overcoming themany forces that operate against endangered species restoration efforts
including environmental, logistical, fiscal, intellectual, and socio-political.
x It is difficult to blend monitoring activities and research efforts in a manner that
does not compromise the project’s principal aim - restoring a viable population.
This potential to compromise success can create tension within a restorationteam over the proper role of research in an endangered species restoration
project.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Implementation of a systematic approach to minimize if not completely
eliminate cougar predation of desert bighorn sheep.
x An effective collaborative partnership between private non-governmental
conservation organizations and the New Mexico Department of Game andFish.
x A clear understanding that restoration of a viable population of desert bighorn
sheep would require an extended period of time over which chronic, near daily
fieldwork would be needed to provide current information about sheep andcougars to inform management actions.
x A private landowner deeply committed to endangered species restoration.

References
Geist, V. (1971) Mountain sheep: a study in behavior and evolution. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Goldstein, E. & E. Rominger. (2003) Plan for the recovery of the desert bighorn
sheep in New Mexico, 2003-2013. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish,Santa Fe.

202

Mammals
Rominger, E. M., H. A. Whitlaw, D. L. Weybright, W. C. Dunn, & W. B. Ballard.
(2004) The influence of mountain lion predation on bighorn sheep translocations.
Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 993-999.
Singer, F. J., L. C. Zeigenfuss, & L. Spicer. (2001) Role of patch size, disease,and movement in rapid extinction of bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology
15:1347-1354.

203

Mammals

Twenty years of captive breeding and reintroduction of the eastern barred bandicoot in
Victoria, Australia
Amy Winnard1, Richard Hill2, Peter Courtney3, Graeme Coulson4,
Dan Harley5 & Marissa Parrott6
1- Research Associate, Department of Zoology, The University of Melbourne,
Victoria 3010, Australia amy.winnard@unimelb.edu.au2- Senior Biodiversity Officer, Department of Sustainability and Environment, 147
Bahgallah Road, Casterton, Victoria 3311, Australia Richard.Hill@dse.vic.gov.au
3- Senior Curator, Melbourne Zoo, Zoos Victoria, P.O. Box 74, Parkville, Victoria
3052, Australia pcourtney@zoo.org.au
4- Associate Professor, Department of Zoology, The University of Melbourne,
Victoria 3010, Australia gcoulson@unimelb.edu.au5- Threatened Species Biologist, Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria,
P.O. Box 74, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia dharley@zoo.org.au
6- Reproductive Biologist, Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria, P.O.
Box 74, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia, mparrott@zoo.org.au

Introduction
The eastern barred bandicoot (EBB; Perameles gunnii) is a small (<1kg)
nocturnal marsupial. It is solitary, short-lived (2 - 3 years) and highly fecund (i.e.
up to 5 litters a year; average litter size 2 - 3). EBBs are omnivorous andopportunistically exploit a wide variety of invertebrates and some plant matter.
The EBB was once found across the Basalt Plains of Victoria, Australia. The
original vegetation was perennial tussock grassland with areas of grassy
woodland, but 99.9% of this habitat has been destroyed or modified for
agriculture. The introduction of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) caused a catastrophic
decline in the EBB
population and by 1989
only 150 - 300 individuals
remained. The last wild
population was declared
extinct in 2008. The first
EBB management plan
was developed in 1989
and re-introduction has
been attempted at eightsites with varying success(Hill et al., 2010). Only twoof these sites currently
support extant
populations. The Victorian
EBB is listed as
Endangered on the
Commonwealth
Eastern barred bandicoot

204Mammals
Environment Protection
and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999
and Critically Endangeredon the Advisory List of
Threatened Vertebrate
Fauna in Victoria 2007.

Goals
x Goal 1: The long-term
objective of the easternbarred bandicoot
recovery program is tominimise the probabilityof extinction by
establishing at least
Typical habitat of the eastern barred bandicoot
two self-sustaining reintroduced populations
which total a minimum of 2,500 individuals.
x Goal 2: Establish self-sustaining re-introduced populations totalling at least
1,000 individuals, within 5 years (2009 to 2014).
x Goal 3: Prevent further loss of genetic diversity by managing captive andreleased populations as one meta-population.
x Goal 4: Maintain a viable insurance population in captivity.
x Goal 5: Maintain and enhance community and institutional support.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Self-sustaining populations established at a minimum of two large
re-introduction sites.ȱ
x Indicator 2: At least 1,000 EBBs in “wild” populations by 2014, and 2,500 EBBs
in “wild” populations by 2024.ȱ
x Indicator 3: Less than 5% loss of genetic diversity of the species from theinception of the captive breeding program,ȱx Indicator 4: Multiple captive facilities for holding and breeding EBBs to spreadrisk and provide a source of animals for re-introduction.
x Indicator 5: Active recovery team with effective working partnerships between
government, zoos and university researchers.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The EBB was formerly widespread in Victoria, occupying a total
range of three million hectares. Following European settlement and theintroduction of feral predators, in particular the red fox, bandicoots suffered asignificant decline. The EBB requires structurally complex habitats with dense
cover for nesting, adjacent to open areas suitable for feeding, but 99.9% of thepreferred grassland habitat has been cleared or modified for agriculture. By 1972,
the EBB was extinct throughout its mainland home range, except for a small
population within a 600 ha area in Hamilton, Victoria. In 1982, the first (interim)

205Mammalsmanagement prescriptions and PVA were produced in an attempt to conserve thespecies and the final plan was released in 1989. In 1988, EBBs were considered
at risk of extinction and trapping was conducted to commence a captive breeding
program (Hill et al., 2010).
Implementation: In 1988, ~40 EBBs were caught to start an intensive breeding
program, in which 19 founders produced 54 young. The first EBB re-introduction
site was Woodlands Historic Park in 1989, closely followed by Hamilton
Community Parklands in 1991 (Winnard & Coulson, 2008). Both sites are
surrounded by a predator barrier fence and had initial success, but both went
extinct due to a combination of drought, fox incursions and overgrazing byeastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) and European rabbits (Oryctolagus
cuniculus) (Winnard & Coulson, 2008). Five unfenced re-introduction sites werealso established on public and private land with fox control conducted regularly.
All sites failed quickly, with the exception of Mooramong, a working sheep farm.
This population persisted for 17 years, but is now undetectable by trapping. Dueto the devastating effect foxes have on small re-introduced populations of EBBs,
the Victorian Government’s Department of Sustainability and Environment Animal
Ethics Committee halted all releases into areas that could not be maintained fox
free. Although sensible, this limits the number of sites in which EBBs can bereleased and significantly increases the expense of re-introductions, as building
and maintaining predator barrier fences is costly.
Currently two sites hold healthy populations of bandicoots and are considered to
be at carrying capacity. Mt. Rothwell, a 400 ha fenced reserve established in
2002 currently houses the largest EBB population, but the exact population size isunknown. In 2005 the Hamilton Community Parklands predator barrier fence was
upgraded, bandicoots were released in 2007 when all foxes had been removed,and EBBs are now spread throughout the reserve. The first island trial
introduction commenced on fox-free French Island, Victoria, in mid-2012 andreleases into fenced areas at Woodlands Historic Park and Werribee Open
Range Zoo are planned to commence in late 2012. Genetic analyses of the 20year breeding program, in which 1,078 young have been produced, show that
there was a significant loss of genetic diversity within EBB populations prior to thecommencement of the captive program, with slight, but steady, reduction in
genetic diversity during the breeding and release program (Weeks, 2010).
Investigations into techniques to maintain or improve genetic diversity andreproductive fitness, including mate choice research, are underway. Based on
genetic and population analyses, a meta-population management plan with anincreased number of captive breeding pairs is proposed, but further research into
the success of translocated bandicoots when re-introduced into an establishedpopulation is required.
Post-release monitoring: Post-release monitoring generally occurs quarterly
over two nights, with cage traps set on established grids. In large or unfenced
reserves, trapping is focused on the area with the most EBB activity (i.e. foraging
digs and/or spotlight sightings). However, the Mt. Rothwell reserve contains othersmall mammals that saturate the traps and reduce EBB capture rates. Here,206

Mammals
camera traps have been
deployed annually tomonitor the population, but
animals need to be caught
in order to implement the
new meta-population
management plan. Radiotracking has been used todetermine foraging andnesting locations, but
attaching radiotransmitters to this species
is problematic. Bandicoots
have a low tolerance forcollars, and several othermethods of attachingtransmitters have all
Monitoring of released bandicoot
resulted in short
attachment times (5 days – 5 weeks). Tail mounted transmitters have been themost successful method to date, but provide only short-term data (<35 days).
Intraperitoneal transmitters are currently in use for a 12-month trial on French
Island. Whilst they provide several months of battery life and overcome theattachment problems, their short operating range (about 50 m) limits their value.
Despite these difficulties, tracking shows that bandicoots usually nest withinwoodland areas, changing nest location regularly, and forage at night in the open
grasslands. After release into an empty reserve, male bandicoots investigate
large areas before settling, whilst females tend to stay in the area of release.
Trapping has shown that bandicoots are heaviest and produce the most young
during the cooler wetter months, whereas in summer, the numbers trapped
decreases and animals are more commonly in poor condition.

Major difficulties facedx The introduced red fox is the major threat to EBB populations. Foxes arewidespread throughout Victoria and are difficult to control, making predator
barrier fences essential. Constructing and maintaining predator fences
significantly increases the costs of EBB recovery and reduces the number ofsites available for release.
x There is a lack of suitable habitat to establish release sites because 99.9% of
native grasslands have been destroyed or modified.
x Herbivore populations can increase rapidly in fenced reserves causing
significant habitat degradation by overgrazing. Kangaroo control is difficult
because there is a strong protective response towards these iconic species
and rabbit control can negatively affect EBBs, which have been known tooccupy rabbit burrows.
x Captive breeding facilities are limited. Bandicoots can live to six years old in
captivity, but do not breed past ~3 years old. Post-reproductive animals can fillenclosures required by breeding animals. Furthermore, if release sites are notavailable, the housing of young bred in captivity can halt future breeding.

207

Mammalsx The presence of manyother small mammal
species that saturate thetraps at Mt. Rothwell makemonitoring and trapping
EBBs difficult. New
trapping techniques are
required to monitor the
population, to trap animals
for translocation as part ofthe meta-population andto increase the genetic
diversity of the captive
breeding population.
Juvenile (joey) eastern barred bandicoot

Major lessons learnedx The Victorian EBB would be extinct without the captive-breeding program
initiated by Melbourne Zoo. All recovery potential has been driven by the
success of captive-breeding and release. This highlights the importance ofearly intervention in collecting founders to establish captive populations of
threatened species.
x Foxes are the key threatening process for the EBB. Populations are unable tomaintain themselves unless foxes are permanently eradicated from the area.
This involves surrounding reserves by a predator barrier fence, as well as
continuous fox monitoring and control. The quality of habitat is less critical tothis species.
x Managing each re-introduced population as a separate entity has not been
ideal. The small size of reserves increases the likelihood of stochastic events
having a detrimental effect on populations and can contribute further to theloss of genetic diversity. New release sites that can sustain large populations
plus managing as a single meta-population will assist in the conservation ofthis species.
x Successful long-term captive breeding programs for marsupials are rare. Thisis an example of a long-term program in which animals have not decreased in
reproductive rate for more than 20 years. However, careful management of
space is imperative, as breeding is restricted by lack of suitable enclosureswhen young cannot be released. The meta-population model for the EBB
requires breeding animals to be cycled in and out of the wild every two years
to maintain genetic diversity. This model is also being applied to several otherthreatened species.
x The EBB recovery team was restructured in 2011 and three groups wereformed: the science, operational and business groups. These groups meet on
an as-needed basis and are overseen by a strategic group. A review day isheld annually in which members of all groups discuss progress and future208Mammals
directions. This reorganization has led to more effective decision making andimplementation.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Early re-introductions of EBBs failed due to a combination of the presence of
the introduced red fox, overgrazing by native and exotic herbivores, andpersistent drought.
x Mt. Rothwell and Hamilton Community Parklands have remained fox free andhave been successfully managed to maintain healthy EBB populations. Bothare now considered to be at carrying capacity and new release sites aresought.
x The long term captive breeding program for the EBB has been intensively
managed to maintain reproductive fitness and genetic diversity.
x Strong relationships between different partners in EBB conservation havebeen imperative for the survival of this species.

References
Hill, R., Winnard, A., Watson, M. (2010). National recovery plan for the easternbarred bandicoot (mainland) Perameles gunnii unnamed subspecies. Victorian
Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Melbourne.ȱ
Weeks, A. (2010). Genetic diversity in Victorian eastern barred bandicoots.
CESAR Bio21 Institute, The University of Melbourne, Vic, Australia.ȱ
Winnard, A. L., Coulson, G. (2008). Sixteen years of eastern barred bandicoot
Perameles gunnii reintroductions in Victoria: A review. Pacific Conservation
Biology, 4: 34-53.ȱ

209

Mammals

Restoration of black-tailed prairie dogs to Vermejo
Park Ranch, New Mexico, USA
Dustin Long
Biologist, Turner Endangered Species Fund, P.O. Box 131, Cimarron,
NM 87714. USA dustin.long@retranches.com

introduction
The black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus; hereafter “prairie dog”) is a
fossorial, colonial, ground squirrel native to the western grasslands of the UnitedStates, southern Canada and northern Mexico. Recent estimates indicate prairie
dogs occupy about 810,000 ha range-wide, representing a ~97% decline from
historical occupation levels. This decline is primarily due to sylvatic plague (anexotic disease), loss of habitat and poisoning. Prairie dogs are a keystone
species and numerous other grassland species, including the black-footed ferret(Mustela nigripes; Federally Endangered; IUCN: Endangered), burrowing owl(Athene cunicularia), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), swift fox (Vulpes velox)
and mountain plover (Charadrius montanus; IUCN: Near Threatened), aredependent on or are strongly associated with prairie dog colonies. Mid-19 th
century accounts of travelerson the Santa Fe Trail innorthern New Mexico describe
numerous prairie dogs on the
shortgrass prairie in and around
Vermejo Park Ranch (VPR).
When VPR was purchased by
Ted Turner in 1996, prairie
dogs occupied <200 ha in a
24,280 ha shortgrass prairie
landscape. Restoration ofprairie dogs on VPR began in
1997 and translocation efforts
began in 1999. From 19992006, 45 translocations werecompleted increasing colony
acreage from 202 ha in 1997 to
3,950 ha in 2012.

Goals
x Goal 1: To restore theestimated early historicabundance of prairie dogs on
VPR.
x Goal 2: To use prairie dog
restoration to enhancebiodiversity and improve theBlack-tailed prairie dog

210

Mammals
status of existing imperiled species. A benchmark for the project is theestablishment of a self-sustaining population (i.e., >30 breeding adults) of
black-footed ferrets that meets federal recovery objectives for the species.
x Goal 3: To develop, refine and publish prairie dog translocation methods andthe lessons learned during the project.
x Goal 4: To establish a large, ecologically intact and stable prairie dog complex
on the shortgrass prairie that provides the opportunity for scientific researchfrom single organism interactions to landscape level functions.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: A minimum of 50% of translocated prairie dogs should survive thefirst year post-release.ȱ
x Indicator 2: Newly established prairie dog colonies should persist and colony
expansion should progress at 25% annually. As prairie dog colonies become
established and the population increases dispersing prairie dogs should
establish new colonies abrogating the need for future translocations.
x Indicator 3: Prairie dog associated species (i.e., burrowing owl, swift fox,
ferruginous hawk and mountain plover) should utilize newly establishedcolonies and populations should increase as prairie dog colonies expand.ȱ

Project Summary
Feasibility: No other North American grassland species evokes such strong
emotions as does the black-tailed prairie dog. Conservationists and ecologist view
prairie dogs as a native keystone species whose presence is necessary tomaintain healthy grasslands with all the attendant species, assemblages andprocesses. Ranchers and farmers often view prairie dogs as competitors for alimited grass resource whose presence can leave the land absent palatable
forage for livestock and in an early seral stage rendering it unsuitable for many
agricultural purposes. In addition, the threat of listing under the Endangered
Species Act has further hardened opinions. Recent efforts by several Federal
agencies to compensate landowners for lands occupied by prairie dogs may help
mitigate the concerns of both parties.
Prairie dogs alter the landscape upon which they live in several ways but two aremost obvious. First, prairie dogs are soil engineers. They excavate deep (5 m)and extensive burrows (33 m in length), and create large mounds of soil at burrow
entrances (Hoogland, 1995). Numerous mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians
and insects use prairie dog burrows as refugia. Second, prairie dogs consume
and clip (non-consumptive) the vegetation around burrows. Without anunobstructed viewshed prairie dogs quickly fall prey to a host of predators.
Moving east from the Rocky Mountains onto the Great Plains the climate
becomes increasingly mesic and vegetation shifts from one short in stature(shortgrass prairie) to a landscape dominated by taller grasses (mixed grassprairie). Prairie dogs in the shortgrass prairie require minimal vegetative height
reduction (normally via light ungulate grazing) in order to maintain a suitableviewshed, however, as grasses shift to taller representatives typical of the mixedgrass prairie, intense early season grazing by large ungulates or other treatments

211

Mammals(i.e., burning, mowing) to reduce grass height become necessary for prairie dogcolony persistence and growth.
Implementation: Standardized procedures for establishing black-tailed prairie
dog colonies in unoccupied habitat (sites without pre-existing burrows) throughtranslocation were developed and published during this project (Truett & Savage,
1998; Long et al., 2006). Briefly, prairie dogs were captured in late spring throughlate summer using either live traps or were flushed from burrows using a water/
soap mixture. Immediately after capture, prairie dogs were transferred to an
onsite indoor quarantine center and held for 1 - 2 weeks to ensure they weredisease free. After the initial quarantine period, prairie dogs were moved to a
prepared soft-release site and held on-site for an additional 3 - 5 days before
release. Soft-releases sites were selected and prepared for occupation by prairie
dogs based on the following criteria: soil type, vegetation type, proximity to project
area boundaries and to other colonies, and for the potential for small colonies toexpand and merge forming a single large colony. Once a site was selected 15 30 artificial burrows, each with a below-ground nest box buried to a depth of 1 m,
were installed. Prairie dogs were then transported to the site and placed into an
above-ground cage fitted over the artificial burrow, effectively preventing escapefrom the soft-release apparatus. Portable electric netting was installed around thesite to discourage access by mesopredators (primarily badgers) and bison that
often trampled above ground cages resulting in the premature release of prairie
dogs. After a 3 - 5 day acclimation period, above-ground cages were removed
and prairie dogs were released. Prairie dogs continued to use the artificial
burrows several years after they had established natural burrows.
Post-release monitoring: Short-term post-release monitoring of translocatedprairie dogs involved inspecting release sites daily until prairie dogs became
accustomed to the site and began to excavate natural burrows. On most sites
prairie dogs began to establish natural burrows within a day of release, however,it often took several weeks for prairie dogs to dig burrows of sufficient size, depth
and complexity for them to safely occupy. At ~2 weeks post-release, we
conducted visual counts to determine the number of surviving prairie dogs. For
most translocations, the 2-week post release monitoring indicated a >50%
retention rate. Long-term monitoring of established translocations consisted ofannual areal mapping and density counts (prairie dogs/ha). Data collected fromthese measurements provides a reliable index to the number of prairie dogs living
on VPR during a given period. Colony areal growth from 1997 - 2012 varied from5% - 50% with an average annual increase of 22%. Prairie dog densities during
this period averaged 25 prairie dogs/ha. Both areal growth and prairie dog density
were strongly correlated with spring/summer precipitation. Lower than average
precipitation resulted in less vegetative growth which resulted in lower prairie dog
densities yet higher areal growth (prairie dog colonies expanded in search of
forage). High precipitation years resulted in higher densities (higher pup
production) and lower areal growth. Black-tailed prairie dog coverage on VPR has
increased from 202 ha in 1997 to 3,950 ha in 2012 with a notable increase inbiodiversity and abundance of associated species including black-footed ferrets.

212

Mammals
Major difficulties
facedx Establishing colonies
during dry years proved
to be very difficult.
Excavating burrows
requires substantial
effort on the part ofprairie dogs and during
dry years thevegetation was neither
sufficient nor nutritious
enough to meet theenergy requirements ofprairie dogs. In
addition, the soil
Post-release monitoring in typical habitat
tended to be “harder” indry years further
limiting the ability of prairie dogs to establish burrows.
x Badger predation during and immediately following soft-releases. Badgers
would occasionally dig up below-ground soft release cages and predate theprairie dogs living in them. Badgers would also exploit the relative shallowness
and simplicity of newly established burrows in the weeks immediately following
release. In cases of severe predation by badgers a supplemental prairie dog
release was required. Predation on recently released prairie dogs by otherpredators (e.g., coyotes, raptors) was more frequent but generally lessdamaging than that of badgers.
x Limiting prairie dog colony growth in specific areas so that colonies do not
expand onto adjacent properties. Currently, neighboring landowners aresupportive of our efforts to restore prairie dogs and associated species but that
goodwill would undoubtedly diminish if VPR prairie dog colonies were to
expand onto and colonize neighboring properties.

Major lessons learnedx Develop an open, constructive and civil relationship with all stakeholders
including adjacent landowners and government agencies. To the extent
possible these relationships should be developed prior to project initiation.
x Take a long-term view of the project envisioning complete success. What does
the project look like in the future and what are the challenges to maintaining
the program? An example from this particular project would be our rather quick
and unexpected shift from managing for prairie dog colony growth to one ofrestricting colony growth.
x Understand and prepare for those challenges and setbacks (e.g., disease)which can reasonably be expected to occur during the different stages of the
project.

213

Mammals
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x We reviewed the successes and failures of similar projects, routinely visitedand communicated with other individuals and organizations involved in similar
projects, and were open to new ideas. A thorough review of previous prairie
dog translocation efforts, including Gunnison’s (C. Gunnisoni) and Utah prairie
dogs (C.parvidens), and black-tailed prairie dog habitat requirements coupledwith a willingness to experiment and good record keeping allowed us to makeinformed decisions, detect trends and respond quickly to setbacks.
x We have fostered a good working relationship amongst all stakeholders anddeveloped broad-based support, which is meaningful in the success of any
large-scale restoration effort involving a controversial species.
x Severe prolonged drought has affected our efforts establish a self-sustaining
population of black-footed ferrets on the prairie dogs at VPR. Black-footed
ferret populations have fluctuated since first released in 2008 in apparent
response to spring/summer precipitation levels. In 2010, >20 black-footed
ferrets were identified living on VPR prairie dog colonies. Severe drought in2011 reduced black-footed ferret populations to ~5 individuals.

References
Hoogland, J. L. (1995) The black-tailed prairie dog: social life of a burrowing
mammal. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.ȱ
Long, D. H., K. Bly-Honness, J. C. Truett, & D. B. Seery. (2005) Establishment of
new prairie dog colonies by translocation. Pages 188-209 in J. L. Hoogland, (ed.)
Conservation of the black-tailed prairie dog: saving North America’s western
grasslands. Washington, DC: Island Press.ȱ
Truett, J.C., and T. Savage. 1998. Re-introducing prairie dogs into desert
grasslands. Restoration and Management Notes 16:189-195.

214

Mammals

The release of northeast Bornean orangutans to
Tabin Wildlife Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia
James G. Robins1,2, Marc Ancrenaz3, Jason Parker2, Benoit Goossens4,5,6,
Laurentius Ambu6 & Chris Walzer7
1- Tabin Orangutan Project, Tabin Wildlife Reserve, Lahad Datu,
Sabah, Malaysia stleonards4@hotmail.co.uk
2- Orangutan Appeal UK, 11 Forest Hall, Brockenhurst, Hants,
SO42 7QQ, UK jbpvet@aol.com
3- HUTAN – Kinabatangan Orangutan Conservation Programme, PO Box 3109,
90734 Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia marc.ancrenaz@yahoo.com
4- Danau Girang Field Centre, c/o Sabah Wildlife Department, Wisma Muis, 88100
Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia goossensBR@cardiff.ac.uk
5- Organisms and Environment Division, Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff
University, Biomedical Sciences Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3AX, UK
6- Sabah Wildlife Department, Wisma Muis, 88100 Kota Kinabalu,
Sabah, Malaysia ambu56@gmail.com
7- Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine,
Savyoenstrasse 1, A-1160, Vienna, Austria chris.walzer@fiwi.at

Introduction
Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus sp.) are declining due to habitat
destruction and fragmentation, hunting, and other human encroachment into theirpreferred habitats (Singleton et al., 2004; Wich et al., 2008), and are classified as
Endangered (EN, A2c) (IUCN, 2012). A highly visible consequence of habitat loss
is the presence of hundreds of displaced orangutans in rescue and rehabilitation
centres throughout their range. The majority of remaining wild orangutans arelocated outside protected areas in forests that are exploited by humans or that are
being converted for agriculture, thus it is likely that the number of orphaned
animals arriving at
rehabilitation centres willcontinue to rise. Since theearly 1960s, hundreds oforangutans have passed
through Sepilok
Orangutan Rehabilitation
Centre. Many of these
individuals were
subsequently released by
the Sabah Wildlife
Department (SWD) into
Tabin Wildlife Reserve(TWR), yet nothing is
known regarding reintroduction outcomes.
The reserve (5°15'–5°
10'N, 118°30'–118°45'E),
Bornean orangutan © James Robins

215

Mammals
which encompasses 1,205 km2 of protected primary and secondary lowland
dipterocarp forest, has an estimated orangutan population of 1,400 individuals, ata density of 1.26 per km2 (Ancrenaz et al., 2004). Tabin was first gazetted as a
Wildlife Reserve in 1984, and is jointly managed by the Sabah Forestry and
Sabah Wildlife Departments.

Goals
x Goal 1: Provide much needed data on the outcomes of re-introducedorangutans by conducting long-term regular post-release monitoring of all
released individuals.
x Goal 2: Provide individual ex-captive orangutans with an opportunity forenhanced welfare through re-introduction to their natural environment.
x Goal 3: Evaluate the efficacy of current rehabilitation protocols in Sabah basedon the behavioural results of rehabilitants compared to wild orangutans. In
doing so, assisting rehabilitation managers in the future to produce viable
release candidates.
x Goal 4: To test, and help to develop, the use of emerging technologies
designed to facilitate post-release monitoring, i.e. subcutaneous telemetrytransmitters.
x Goal 5: Engage local people through the delivery of an educational awarenessprogram targeting nearby stakeholders, schools, and communities. This isdesigned to i) provide increased protection to the release site against illegal
encroachment; ii) engender a sense of ownership and shared objectives
among the local community.ȱ

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: The collation of long-term intensive behavioral data from reintroduced orangutans in Sabah, precisely documenting re-introduction
progress and outcomes.
x Indicator 2: Complete nutritional independence of rehabilitants, and thedevelopment of a healthy, stabilised post-release weight.
x Indicator 3: Demonstrably similar behavioral repertoires when compared withwild orangutans ranging in similar habitats.
x Indicator 4: Adequate integration of rehabilitants with wild orangutans toinclude reproduction and successful infant rearing.
x Indicator 5: The production of a larger number of viable orangutans for reintroduction through the development of improved rehabilitation protocol.
x Indicator 6: Demonstrably similar behavioral repertoires when compared withwild orangutans ranging in similar habitats.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The Tabin Orangutan Project is an orangutan post release
monitoring program co-managed by Orangutan Appeal UK (OAUK) and the SWD,
and was formed under the guidance of the Sabah Wildlife Advisory Panel. Field
assessments conducted by Kinabatangan Orangutan Conservation Program, alocal partner NGO, sought to determine the most appropriate release location
within Tabin by i) identifying areas with sufficient year round food resources; ii)216

Mammalsconsidering the proximity ofneighbouring plantations, humansettlements and roads; and iii) an area’s
topography and general accessibility for
researchers conducting the post-release
monitoring. This analysis led to theselection of an area of regenerating
forest in western Tabin. The site had thehighest density of fruiting trees known tobe part of the orangutan’s diet in Sabah,and the most diverse range of foodspecies of five separate locations
sampled. It encompasses one of the few
flat areas of significant size in the area,
and is dissected by a rarely used exlogging road resulting in fast access todaily nesting locations by truck and on
foot. The location is rarely ventured to byhumans; the nearest settlement being
the research base camp located 2.5 km
away. Other sparsely populated
communes close by are the SWD
headquarters and a small tourist resort
located 8 km away. To facilitate ongoing
Collecting data in the forest
assessment of seasonal fluctuation of© Elizabeth Winterton
food availability, we establishedphenology plots where all orangutan
food trees are scored by trained observers each month for their abundance offruits, leaves, and flowers. A network of additional trails was also established toease the tracking process.
Implementation: Selection of individual apes to be released was based on
pre-release behavioural and medical screening. Release candidates wereobserved within the semi-wild confines of Sepilok/Kabili reserve during theirrehabilitation phase, with orangutans deemed inadequate for release due to poor
natural foraging skills, over familiarity with humans, inappropriate substrate use
and locomotive patterns (e.g. too much time spent on the ground), and, hypersociality with conspecifics. All animals were a minimum of 6 years old at their ageof release. The medical histories of all candidates were scrutinised for signs of
persistent illnesses or susceptibility to disease, and they underwent periodic
veterinary examinations which measured body weight, rectal temperature, pulse
and breathing rate, heart and lungs auscultation, membrane colour, hydration
status, and general body condition. To prevent the introduction of novel diseases
into a naive ecosystem, animals were tested for potentially transferable diseases
including tuberculosis, hepatitis B, and malaria. We also took blood samples formeliodosis, full blood counts and a wide biochemistry panel. Faecal smears weretaken to investigate the presence of intestinal parasites, and each animal was
dewormed to prevent any transfer of parasites to the release site.

217

Mammals

The anatomical structureof an orangutan’s neckand their predominantly
arboreal lifestyle preclude
the use of radio collars as
seen with chimpanzees(Tutin et al., 2001). In
attempting to overcome
this most fundamental of
problems, which has long
constrained opportunities
for thorough post-release
monitoring of orangutans,the Research Institute ofWildlife Ecology in Vienna(FIWI) developed a
School visit © James Robins
subcutaneous radio
telemetry device and implantation method for use on this project. Surgicalprocedures to fit these transmitters lasted approximately 25 minutes and werecarried out with no adverse effects to any animal.
Post-release monitoring: Five minute nest-to-nest focal interval samplingrecords information on activity; social interaction; substrate use and height; and,
response to human researchers. We also continuously record data on foodspecies; plant parts eaten; feeding patch duration; and nest-building behaviour.
Ranging is monitored by way of GPS track logs which provide data on eachanimal’s home range, nest locations, and daily distance travelled. Veterinary
checks of released animals replicate the periodic examinations undertaken before
release. Body weight is measured wherever possible although we often
experience variance in sampling timing due to the unwillingness of the animals to
submit to examination. In the absence of physical symptoms, we use any
significant changes in activity levels, such as apparent lethargy or reductions innormal foraging, to gauge ill-health.
Three orangutans were released in 2010 using a hard release strategy with nosupplementary food offered. In 2012 experiments began with the soft release ofan additional five animals whereby food is offered on an ad-hoc basis.
Orangutans are released in small groups of 1-3 individuals. We have three
confirmed outcomes so far: one animal dispersed in month six, one died in month
10, and the other died in month 12. All individuals have integrated adequately withwild orangutans, and all have experienced varying degrees of post-release weightloss in their first few months after release. One released female has given birth toan infant male and both are healthy at the time of writing. The project is ongoing.

218

Mammals
Major difficulties facedx Maintaining contact with exploratory and fast moving animals over steep,undulating and broken terrain.
x Limited range of radio telemetry equipment in hilly terrain and bad weather.
Some transmitters also failed earlier than anticipated. The reasons for thefaults may not be easily discovered as recapturing and recovering devices
would be highly invasive for animals that have already been released.
x Cutting dependency on humans - even the more independent of rehabilitatedorangutans may view humans as an easy source of food. We witness many
instances of begging behaviour, particularly in response to increased
supplementation. This is an unavoidable legacy of rehabilitated great apes
spending much of their infancy reliant upon humans for most theirdevelopmental needs.
x Balancing short-term welfare with long-term chances of thriving: i)
supplementing an animal’s diet can be at the expense of their developing
sufficient natural dietary diversity, which is all they are able to rely on once
monitoring stops; ii) post-release veterinary examinations may cause unduestress and inhibit gradually developing independence - we encountered aworrying situation at one animal’s routine three month examination when his
pulse and temperature rose to high levels, and he became very stressed,
rendering the basic parameters fundamental to a clinical assessment
effectively meaningless. Equally, orangutans are incredibly stoic and may only
show signs of severe illness after a condition is already well advanced, thus
calling into question the efficacy of using behaviour as the primary means ofassessing health.
x Inappropriate training environments to facilitate acquisition of key skills needed
to survive post-release: i) twice daily food supplementation for tourism
purposes in rehabilitation centres may quell the need for independent foraging
and learning; ii) Tabin is a secondary regenerating forest, while therehabilitation facility at Sepilok is located in a virgin jungle reserve. The
crossover of available food species is not identical, which may explain a heavy
dependence on lower quality fall back species that we have seen post-release.

Major lessons learnedx For animals that require short-term medical treatment or close observation, it
is important to have a holding cage/facility located within, or very close to, therelease forest. This prevents the need to transport an animal back to its
original rehabilitation centre, thus limiting psychological stress and restricting
the likelihood of transferring disease between two areas. While a full-time
veterinary presence may not be necessary for small group releases, regularexternal input offers a fresh perspective on the behavioural and physical healthof an animal, and is crucial to increasing survivorship. In addition, non-invasive
measures of health should be pursued. Despite encountering difficulty ingaining regular access to weigh the more independent animals, a stabilised
healthy weight developed during the first year after a re-introduction, combinedwith complete dietary independence and good health, is likely to be the mostimportant determinant of long-term survival. Given that a reluctance to submit
to physical examination should be viewed positively, it would be ideal to219Mammalsdevelop a method for non-invasive weighing in the field. Similarly, monitoringparasite loads provides another non-invasive method for assessing health. At
pre-release it is important to avoid over enthusiastic pre-release worming
regimes, while regulating exposure to allow some development of immunityx Researchers should familiarise themselves with the wider release location,and try to anticipate movements away from any core areas previously
identified during the pre-release phase. To maintain contact with animals,
particularly in the first few months of their re-introductions, we needed to cut
trails as we went. However, once more permanent trails had been establishedcovering a larger area; we lost contact with the animals much less frequentlyx Deciding when to stop following re-introduced rehabilitants is not an exact
science and must be judged based on an individual’s progress, and theirnatural desire to disperse. If animals are however not performing well, and are
unable to learn from latterly re-introduced animals, they should be returned to
the rehabilitation facility on welfare grounds. Given that all re-introductionmortality statistics are heavily influenced by the duration of post-release
monitoring, the longer an animal can be monitored, then the truer the picture of
re-introduction successes/failures and the reasons behind themx Small group releases have enabled long-term post-release monitoring of all of
our re-introduced animals so far. Depending on the number of staff available tore-introduction managers, and assuming nest-to-nest follows are conducted,
we recommend that animals are followed intensively (>three days per week).
This minimises the likelihood of losing contact while also allowing for eachanimal’s health and behavioural status to be checked on a regular basisx Re-introduction marks the beginning of the most challenging aspect of theentire rehabilitation process. As such, post release monitoring projects
involving great apes must be conducted thoroughly over several years for its
data to be most valuable. To most precisely document post-release outcomes,
it is vital to equip an animal with a tracking device. Today we are using radiotelemetry, although there are still limitations associated with this. Further
technological development may soon produce satellite devices that last forseveral years, and for some rehabilitants this may dispense of the need for apotentially disruptive, and expensive, human presence on the groundSuccess of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The project has contributed to the refinement of never before trialled implanted
radio telemetry transmitters, which, in turn, has assisted researchers to stay inregular contact with all newly released animals.
x Large amounts of intensive behavioural data have for the first time beencollected on the fate of individual rehabilitated orangutans.
x It is too early to assess the impact this research may have on shaping future
rehabilitation protocol. More data must first be collected, analysed, and acted
upon, from a larger number of orangutans, before judgement can be made on

220Mammals
this goal. However, the confirmed deaths of two out of three animals released
during the hard release stage of the project demonstrate that in some cases
rehabilitant orangutans are unable to survive without post-release support.
Periodic weight loss displayed by others when not regularly supplemented also
raises preliminary questions over both the suitability of the release site, andthe current rehabilitation protocols in use in Sabah. In contrast, the carriage
and subsequent birth of a healthy baby from a released rehabilitant mother is
encouraging.
x It remains unclear how well prepared many orphaned orangutans are forthriving in a natural forest. Learning from similarly aged conspecifics or fromhuman care givers is no substitute for an extensive mother/offspring learning
period as experienced by undisturbed wild infants and juveniles.

References
Ancrenaz, M., Gimenez, O., Ambu, L., Ancrenaz, K., Andau, P., et al. (2004)
Aerial Surveys Give New Estimates for Orangutans in Sabah, Malaysia. PLoS
Biol, 3 (1): e3. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030003
IUCN (2012) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species v. 2012.1. Http://
www.iucnredlist.org [accessed 2 May 2012]
Singleton, I., Wich, S. A., Husson, S., Stephens, S., Utami Atmoko, S. S.,
Leighton, M., Rosen, N., Traylor-Holzer, K., Lacy, R. & Byers, O. (eds.) (2004)
Orangutan Population and Habitat Viability Assessment: Final Report. IUCN/SSC
Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN.
Tutin, C.E.G., Ancrenaz, M., Paredes, J., Vacher-Vallas, M., Vidal, C., Goossens,B., Bruford, M.W. & Jamart, A. (2001) Framework for the release of wild-bornorphaned chimpanzees into the Conkouati Reserve, Congo. Conservation
Biology, 15 (5), 1247-1257
Wich, S. A., Meijaard, E., Marshall, A. J., Husson, S., Ancrenaz, M., Lacy, R. C.,
van Schaik, C. P., Sugardjito, J., Simorangkir, T., Traylor-Holzer, K., Doughty, M.,
Supriatna, J., Dennis, R., Gumal, M., Knott, C. D. & Singleton, I. (2008)
Distribution and conservation status of the orang-utan (Pongo spp.) on Borneo
and Sumatra: how many remain? Oryx, 42 (3), 329–339

221

Mammals

Release of the western subspecies of chimpanzee
in Guinea, West Africa
Tatyana Humle1, Christelle Colin2, Matthieu Laurans2,3, Céline Danaud2,3 and Estelle
Raballand2,3,4
1- DICE, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Marlowe
Building, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR, UK T.Humle@kent.ac.uk
2- Projet Primates France, Chimpanzee Conservation Center, 140 Residence
Boisserette, Rue du Stade, 73190 Challes-les-Eaux, France wara_guinee@yahoo.fr
3- Chimpanzee Conservation Center, Faranah, Republic of Guinea
matlaur@hotmail.fr
4- Project Primate Inc. 2032 Belmont Rd, NW, Apt # 520, Washington, DC 20009, USA
esthel@yahoo.com

Introduction
Throughout their range across Africa, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) arethreatened with extinction due to habitat destruction, disease and unsustainablelevels of hunting and capture (IUCN 2008), in spite of being protected by national
and international laws. All four known subspecies of chimpanzee (Eastern: P. t.
schweinfurthii; Central: P. t. troglodytes; Nigeria-Cameroon: P. t. ellioti; Western:
P.t. verus) are classified as Endangered (IUCN 2008) and listed on Appendix I of
CITES. Although current total population estimates are imprecise, the second
most threatened subspecies after P. t. ellioti is the Western subspecies (P. t.
verus) with 21,300 - 55,600 individuals and c.50% found in Guinea (Kormos et al.,2003). Unfortunately, the majority of chimpanzees in Guinea are found outside
protected areas. The bushmeat and pet trade, as well as the exacerbation ofhuman-chimpanzee conflict situations, have resulted in recent years in asignificant increase in the number of orphan chimpanzees. The Chimpanzee
Conservation Center (CCC), located in the north-western edge of the Mafou corearea of the High Niger
National Park (HNNP), is
the only Pan African
Sanctuary Alliance(PASA)-accredited
sanctuary caring for
chimpanzee orphans in
Guinea. The CCC has
been rehabilitating
confiscated chimpanzees
since 1997 and releasing
selected suitable
candidates since 2008.

Goals
Released chimpanzees © CCC

222

x Goal 1: Successfully
release a group ofMammalsrehabilitated chimpanzees and reinforce the numbers and genetic diversity of
the wild chimpanzee population within the HNNP.
x Goal 2: Contribute to the long-term conservation of the HNNP bystrengthening law enforcement activities and efforts led by government
agencies and authorities locally and fostering government commitment toprotecting the national park-one of two in the entire country.
x Goal 3: Increase environmental and conservation education efforts locally andnationally to influence both public-opinion and attitudes and policy-makers at
the local and national level.
x Goal 4: Enhance our understanding of the release-potential of chimpanzees,
the relationship between rehabilitation procedures and release success, andgenerally contribute to improving best practise guidelines for the rehabilitation
and release or re-introduction of chimpanzees.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Self-sufficient and healthy released individuals exhibiting speciesspecific ranging and association patterns either forming a fission-fusion socialgrouping of their own (eventually accommodating wild immigrant females) or
having successfully integrated a wild chimpanzee community.
x Indicator 2: Successful reproduction of released individuals and infant survival
rate comparable to wild conspecifics living under similar environmental andclimatic conditions.
x Indicator 3: Decrease in the anthropogenic pressures and threats to the habitat
and wildlife within the HNNP compared to baseline assessments pre-release.
x Indicator 4: Increase in wildlife populations within the HNNP compared to prerelease data.
x Indicator 5: Increase in environmental awareness at the local and national
level contributing to the eventual demise of the pet trade and to positivechanges in people’s attitudes and behaviour towards chimpanzees.
x Indicator 6: Number of scientific publications, thesis, dissertations and otheracademic documents or media outputs based on project activities, results andfindings.

Project Summary
Feasibility: Finding a suitable release site was a key step in the feasibility
stage and a challenging affair since no single site in Guinea can fully comply with
the IUCN Re-introduction Guidelines for Great Apes (Beck et al., 2007). After
careful consideration of the 1998 National Chimpanzee Survey Report by R. Ham
and nationwide maps of vegetation distribution and protected areas network, fourareas were selected for survey as potential release sites (Raballand, 2004). Four
major selection criteria served to compare each site (Humle et al., 2010). The first
criterion was habitat suitability. The habitat had to provide i) sufficient food in
quality and distribution across seasons, ii) suitable nesting sites and tree species
appropriate for nesting, and iii) access to natural sources of water should water
be a limiting factor. The second was distance from human habitation andsettlement; distance to villages and settlements had to exceed 20 km, unlessaccess was hindered by a geophysical barrier, e.g. a river. The third criterion was
the protection status of the area and current and future anthropic pressures on223

Mammalsthe local fauna,
chimpanzees (if present)
and the habitat. Areas
where it is culturally and/or
religiously taboo to kill
chimpanzees andconsume their meat andthat already benefitted
from a legal protection
status were favoured overothers. In areas where
human activity is strictly
prohibited, protectionlevels could be reinforced
readily if necessary incollaboration with thesupport of national,
High Niger National Park survey
regional and/or local
government agencies. Therefore governmental support was secured early on.
The fourth criterion was the distribution and status of wild conspecifics. Since
clear risks are associated with releasing chimpanzees in an area harbouring wild
conspecifics (e.g. attacks, potential resource competition, disease transmission),
it was decided that the future release site was not to overlap extensively with thecore area of a wild community, while being able to sustain the group of released
individuals. Finally the selected site was an area in the northern part of the Mafou
core area (554 km2) in the High Niger National Park, 32 km by road from the CCC
facility (Raballand, 2004). This site was distant from human settlement andpresented two river networks (the Niger and the Mafou rivers) potentiallyrestricting ranging of the released individuals into the buffer zone of the park. The
environment is dominated by savanna interspersed with dry and riverine forest
patches. The release site revealed a low wild chimpanzee density and peripheral
usage of the release zone (30 km2) by wild conspecifics.
Implementation: Selection of suitable release candidates was based on theirlong-term rehabilitation at the CCC as a social group (7 - 11 years) andindividuals’ ability to demonstrate species-specific social and ecological skills
necessary for their survival in an environment similar to the release site. Prior torelease, release candidates were screened for diseases to ensure their wellbeing
upon release and to prevent disease transmission to wild conspecifics. Released
candidates were also genetically screened to confirm that they belonged to theWestern subspecies. A first socialized group of 6 males (1 adolescent and 5
adults) and females (1 adolescent and 5 adults) was released in June 2008 and asecond group of 5 individuals (2 adults males and females with one infant-one of
the males was one of the original released individuals) supplemented the firstcore release group in August 2011. All adults were wild-born.
For post-releasing monitoring purposes, the to-be-released chimpanzees werefirst equipped with mock collars 5 to 12 months prior to release (Humle et al.,224

Mammals
2010). All fully adult sized males were then equipped with VHF/GPS store-onboard/ARGOS radio collars and most of the females were fitted with simpler VHF/
GPS store-on-board collars. Two adolescent chimpanzees and one adult maleand female were not fitted with functional collars. A large cage and enclosure wasbuilt at the release site to facilitate release procedure. Transport was done byroad in individual transport cages; released individuals were mildly to fully
anaesthetized to minimise stress during transport and to cloud their sense of
direction with respect to the location of the CCC facility.
Post-release monitoring: The CCC decided to implement a minimal in situ
post-release monitoring strategy. The reasons for this were four-fold: i) promote
weaning from human contact; ii) minimize potential risk of aggressive behaviour
by males towards monitoring teams; iii) minimize potential risk of diseasetransmission from humans to chimpanzees, especially as all released individuals
had been medically screened prior to release; iv) facilitate integration of released
females into wild communities and promote their natural behaviour and survival
skills. In situ monitoring thus involved i) daily location of their whereabouts either
via VHF transmitters every 30 min. between 6:30 am and 7:30 pm or the remote
Argos system, ii) periodic visual sightings (once every 2 - 3 months) aimed atevaluating their health condition.

Major difficulties facedx Initial soft release protocol involving a period of acclimatization at release site
in in situ built cage and enclosure could not be adhered to for two main
reasons: i) a bushfire during months preceding the release burnt down theenclosure, and ii) not all release candidates could be moved to release cageas it was not designed to hold 12 individuals day in day out. Five males were
therefore initially transported to the release cage 4 to 12 weeks prior to therelease and the other seven individuals were subsequently transported to therelease site the day of the release.
x Scattering of individual males and some females during the initial stages of
release (within the first and second days) possibly caused by lack of completegroup acclimatization at release site prior to release: this compelled retrieval
missions, aimed at reuniting dispersed individuals and at returning them to therelease site; during one of the missions, one adult male failed to recover fromhis anaesthesia due to human error. The scattering also led to losing track of
three non-collared individuals. However, they were sighted a year later in azone with wild chimpanzees; they were healthy and are presumed to be still
alive.
x Ability of some released chimpanzees to cross the Niger River during the dry
season: this large river was predicted to act as an impassable boundary
demarcating the northern limit of the release zone. This situation inevitablyraised concerns about the potential increased risk of encounter between
released chimpanzees and humans in the park’s buffer zone thus compelling
management to confine core release group members in the release cage forseveral weeks annually at the end of the dry season. The chimpanzees arethen released once water levels swell back to impassable levels.

225

Mammalsx Challenge in securing
necessary funding for long-term post-release
monitoring beyond the firstyear, especially linked tothe expense of thesophisticated tracking
collar systems used for
distance monitoring. We
expect post-release
monitoring to continue foranother three years
although this will depend
on future performance on
release successindicators.
Education in schoolsx Death of two new-borns
among three post-releasebirths (the first was recorded 16 months post-release): presumably by baboons
widely ranging across the northern area of the Mafou core area; this group of
baboons comprises more than 200 individuals; the nature of wounds on themother (the infants’ corpses were never retrieved) indicated the highprobability of a baboon attack. However to date the survival rate of new-borns
is 33% which is within range of wild counterparts.

Major lessons learnedx Value in i) soft group release of individuals well acquainted with one anotherand rehabilitated together: in spite of initial split, most released individuals now
form a cohesive unit group behaving comparably to a small wild chimpanzee
community and ii) releasing candidates during period of high fruit availability tomaximize their initial survival and minimize food stress upon release,decreasing necessity for provisioning.
x Importance of ecological and social competence of release candidates: it isvital that release candidates are equipped with the necessary social andecological skills to survive in release environment (familiarity with range offood items, including fallback foods during periods of fruit scarcity, locatingwater sources, dangers including predators such lions and leopards andpotentially wild conspecifics) - two males were brought back to the CCC; these
two males exhibited poorer ecological and social skills respectively comparedwith the other 14 candidates.
x Importance of conducting pre-release assessment of future release site andbehavioural evaluations of release candidates during preparation phase. The
CCC has an on-going behavioural assessment program which aims to identify
suitable release candidates, to improve future assessments of rehabilitation
and release success, and to help inform future release projects.
x Value of GPS store-on-board and Argos system: males ranged initially further
than the females and were relocated thanks to the Argos collar system,
although average transmission rate was on average only 13.2% in a relatively

226

Mammals
open and topographically uniform environment. The downloaded GPS data
contributed to our understanding of the released chimpanzees’ habitat
preferences, social dynamics and ranging patterns without having to observe
individuals at a close distance (Humle et al., 2010) - the downside to thissystem is the requirement to replace collars approximately every 12 months
for continued post-release monitoring purposes.
x Although it is possible to release adult male chimpanzees, the release successof young adult female chimpanzees is greater than for males since young adultfemales are more likely to integrate wild communities (Humle et al., 2010), andare less likely to incur fatal injuries from wild conspecifics should any bepresent (none were recorded during this project) and to take risks, e.g. incrossing challenging boundaries such as rivers.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Self-sufficiency and adaptation of core-release group (now consisting of 8
individuals) to release zone: the core release group has settled in a definedhome range within original surveyed release zone; group members
demonstrate fission-fusion social dynamics and a reproductive ratecomparable to wild chimpanzees.
x Released chimpanzees have adapted well to the presence of wild
counterparts: Only one minor attack by wild chimpanzees on monitored
release individuals was ever reported since the project began and at least one
young adult female has integrated a wild chimpanzee community.
x Increased protection of the Mafou core area at least in its northern area: due topresence of monitoring staff in buffer zone and around passable river-crossing
areas, in addition to increased deployment of park and local military
authorities’ patrols in and around core-area, and of road blocks and law
enforcement initiatives, e.g. moratorium on commercial fishing along the Niger
river in areas bordering the core area of the Mafou.
x Increased mobilization and awareness of the local and national authorities andlocal communities to the value and importance of the Niger River and the park,a site of high priority for the conservation the Western subspecies ofchimpanzee (Kormos et al., 2003).
x ‘Insurmountable barriers’ are not what they seem: annual issue with rivercrossing during dry season months has hampered the project’s success;released chimpanzees’ incursions into the buffer zone could pose a risk tohumans which management is unwilling to take. The implications are severe in
relation to the project’s success unless the reason(s) why some of thechimpanzees (esp. males) cross the river can be identified with confidence
and addressed. Bushfire management may be a possible solution, since all
crossing events coincided with the presence of bushfires in release zone.
Sustained education efforts specifically focused on how to behave when
encountering a chimpanzee can also help alleviate these concerns; however,227

Mammalsthese can never quite fully eliminate a risk which could jeopardise the releaseproject.
Acknowledgements: This project could have never materialized without theassistance of the CCC local and expatriate staff, as well as volunteers from Projet Primates
France (PPF) and Project Primate Inc. (PPI) and the support of numerous funders
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFW), the Arcus Foundation, the Edith J.
Goode Trust fund, the Fondation Brigitte Bardot, Fondation Le Pal Nature, IPPL-UK, IPPLUS, the Tusk and Fauna and Flora International (FFI). We are also deeply grateful to
PASA for advice and help during the entire release process. We would also like to thankMrs Christine Sagno, former director of the Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forêts and Mr
Aboubacar Oulare, director of the Direction Nationale de la Diversité Biologique et desAires Protégées for their invaluable support.

References
Beck, B., Walkup, K., Rodrigues, M., Unwin, S., Travis, D., & Stoinski, T. (2007).
Best Practice Guidelines for the Re-introduction of Great Apes Gland,
Switzerland: SSC Primate Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union.
Humle, T., Colin, C., Laurans, M. & Raballand, E. (2011) Group Release of
Sanctuary Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the Haut Niger National Park,
Guinea, West Africa: Ranging Patterns and Lessons So Far. International Journalof Primatology 32: 456-473.
IUCN. (2008) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species In IUCN (Ed.). Switzerland:
Gland.
Kormos, R., Humle, T., Brugière, D., Fleury-Brugière, M.-C., Matsuzawa, T.,
Sugiyama, Y., et al. (2003). Status surveys and recommendations: country
reports: The Republic of Guinea. . In R. Kormos, C. Boesch, B. M.I. & T. M.
Butynski (Eds.), Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan: West African
Chimpanzees (pp. 63-76). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN/SSC
Primate Specialist Group.
Raballand, E. (2004) Proposal for the Release of chimpanzees into the Parc
National du Haut Niger, Guinea Chimpanzee Conservation Center.

228

Mammals

Preliminary observations from a welfare release ofwoolly monkeys in the Colombian Amazon
Sara E. Bennett*, Jhon Jairo Vásquez, Leoncio Sánchez, Luis Sinarahua,
Aladino Murayari, Angélica Martínez, Lina Peláez & Juan Millán
Fundación Maikuchiga, Parque Nacional Natural Amacayacu, Sede
Administrativa, Av. Vásquez-Cobo No. 15-60, Leticia, Amazonas, Colombia* - nomiosarabennett@yahoo.com

Introduction
Humboldt’s woolly monkey (Lagothrix lagotricha), the largest primate throughout
most of its geographical range, is a sensitive indicator of human influence in theUpper Amazon region due to its extremely low reproductive rate and need forlarge areas of undisturbed primary forest. Populations were decimated in the
1960s and 1970s due to the global demand for exotic pets and spotted cat skins(the monkeys were the preferred bait in the cat traps). National laws and the
CITES convention reduced the volume of exploitation, but the species is still in
decline due to habitat loss and overhunting. It is categorized as VU in Colombia
and VU A3cd by the IUCN.
The taxonomy of Lagothrix
is an unresolved issue ofconservation importance.
The IUCN follows Groves’
recognition of 4 species,
based on morphologicalcharacters, while theColombia Red List follows
more recent cytologicaland molecular evidence
consistent with a single
species with four
geographical subspecies.
Amacayacu National Park,
like other protected areasin the Colombian Amazon,shares jurisdiction for mostof its area with indigenous
reserves whose
inhabitants have legal
rights to the traditional use
of natural resources.
Woollies have been locallyextinguished from much of
the southern part of theFemale Humboldt’s woolly monkeypark.
© Angélica Martínez A.

229

Mammals
Goals
x Goal 1: Establish a self-sustaining
troop of woolly monkeys rescued
from the wildlife trade in an area of
local extinction that is now protectedby the community.
x Goal 2: Consolidate andstrengthen support in the local
indigenous community for their ban
on hunting woolly monkeys andother threatened game species intheir territory.
x Goal 3: Evaluate re-introduction/
supplementation of woolly monkeys
as a potential conservation tool forthe management of a threatened
species, for ecosystem restoration inareas of local extinction, and as anelement in the campaign against
illegal wildlife trafficking.
x Goal 4: Use the specific case ofwoolly monkeys, a threatened andecologically important species, tofacilitate the improvement of
coordination and interpretation ofcurrent
legal norms so that reRehabilitated individuals
introduction/supplementation
can be© Angélica Martínez A.
a more available and better - defined
tool for species and ecosystem management in Colombia.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Survival of the liberated individuals.
x Indicator 2: Species-typical behavior of the liberated individuals in terms ofsocial interactions, foraging, use of substrate, and use of habitat.
x Indicator 3: Support, participation, and cooperation from the local indigenous
community for both the maintenance of the hunting ban and for protection of
the liberated troop.
x Indicator 4: Application of lessons learned in regional and national natural
resource management planning.

Project Summary
Feasibility: Results reported here are from an ongoing pilot study for a
possible long-term project conceived gradually as part of the evolution of thecontinuing discussion of natural resource use among Amacayacu National Parkand the indigenous communities in its southern zone of influence. In 2004, theMocagua Indigenous Reserve (most of which overlaps with the Park) made acollective decision to stop hunting threatened game species in its territory, with a230

Mammals
special emphasis on the woolly monkey. The creation in the Park of a rescue
center for orphaned primates confiscated from the illegal wildlife trade and asmall, community-based NGO to administer this function in collaboration with thePark and the regional government agency for natural resource management(Corpoamazonía) were direct results of this agreement. At first, the rescue center
simply served as an organic regional solution to the enforcement of anti-wildlife
trafficking laws; activities were focused on the humane management of theconfiscated victims. Healthy orphans of various primate species were free-living in
natural habitat with conspecifics and with human nutritional /veterinary support.
Free-living, rehabilitated woollies begin to present special management issues as
they mature - the males become dangerous and the females begin to explore
widely in search of a troop to join. For this reason we decided to relocate the eight
young individuals under our care to a site more isolated from human activities andgradually help them become independent. Accumulating evidence that the future
diversity of Amazonian forests is highly-dependent on the seed dispersal functionof robust ateline populations, that the other indigenous communities in thesouthern part of the park are overhunting woollies, and that the species is one of
the most frequently confiscated from the illegal pet trade led us to treat this as anexperiment not only in the management of confiscated individuals, but also of thewild population and a fauna-depleted ecosystem.
Implementation: In July 2010, we took an adult male and two sub-adultfemales to the chosen site and confined them for a few days to adjust to thechange (in the small cabin built for the human support team). Then we brought up
the 5 remaining individuals (a younger sub-adult female, 3 juvenile females, and ajuvenile male), who were released on the spot, and freed the older ones. Therewas relatively little stress involved, and all the individuals stayed together,
exploring and foraging as a cohesive group.
Post-release monitoring: The relocation occurred at the beginning of theseason of relative scarcity of ripe fruit in the forest and as the troop began to
explore we continued toprovide them with foodand observe them nearlycontinuously for six
months. As the availabilityof fruit became greater, webegan to leave them on
their own for longer
periods, while continuing
to observe their
movements and behavior
regularly. During the 2011season of fruit scarcity,when it became clear thatthey were losing weight
we began to provide foodJuvenile woolly monkey © Angélica Martínez A.

231

Mammalsagain. During the second
season of abundance,
they were completely
independent and nolonger “central-place
foragers”. In their third
season of scarcity wehave begun
supplementing again due
to an obvious deteriorationin the physical condition of
the male. Two individuals
have disappeared and one
died after we brought her
back in poor health forintensive care. During thefirst year of thisField staff © Angélica Martínez A.
experiment there was achange in the national regulations for the management of impounded wildlife inwhich the release in protected areas of confiscated animals whose precise origin
is unknown is prohibited, and we were no longer able to continue receiving
orphans.
Woolly monkeys typically live in large, multi-male, multi-female troops whose
home ranges overlap. The males are philopatric and females tend to dispersefrom their natal troops at around 6 years. So far there has been no reproduction in
the rehabilitated group, apparently due to a “kibbutz effect”. Our original intention
to create a second group of rehabilitated individuals with this in mind is no longer
possible. It seems likely that the females will soon begin to search for a wild troop
to join and the male will become solitary. Our conclusion from the experience isthat the re-introduction of confiscated and rehabilitated woollies in areas where
the natural population is locally extinct, fragmented, or significantly reduced is a
viable, not harmful, and probably beneficial conservation option if long-term follow-up is possible to ease them through their first seasons of fruit scarcity. Even if thereleased individuals do not reproduce, their foraging restores, at least temporarily,
a significant ecosystem function, i.e., seed dispersal for the many plant species
with large-seeded, nondehiscent fruits dependent on these large wide-ranging
primate frugivores. We recommend modification of the national norms or theirinterpretation so that nonarbitrary, species-specific protocols for evaluating
potential risks and benefits of re-introduction can be developed and applied.

Major difficulties facedx New national regulations for the management of impounded wildlife intended
to prevent uncontrolled “dumping” of confiscated animals in effect now prevent
re-introduction or supplementation as a practical option for the conservation
management of protected areas in Colombia.
x There is little basic information about regional Lagothrix foraging ecology andour evaluation of habitat quality in the area of release, especially during the232

Mammalslong season of relative scarcity of ripe fleshy fruit, has been more intuitive andexperiential than empirical. It is not clear whether the released individuals’
difficulties in the season of fruit scarcity result from their inexperience or fromthe effects of selective logging for domestic use in the area, since some of thepreferred timber species are also woolly monkey food plants.

Major lessons learnedx Consideration of the details of dispersal biology is critical in the long-termplanning of a re-introduction. For woolly monkeys, we think a minimum of two
multi-male groups is necessary, so that females reaching reproductive age candisperse from their “natal” troop.
x This project, sensu latu, has provided highly visible positive reinforcement for a
responsible local community decision with respect to threatened gamespecies.
x The analysis of the issues relevant to the advisability of re-introduction brought
about improved understanding of the status of and increased protection for thewild population. The woolly monkey is now recognized as an “integral
conservation priority” in the management plan of Amacayacu National Park as
a result, and a program for monitoring the wild population has been designed
and initiated. The isolation of the Colombian “trapezius” from the rest of thecountry has been recognized in the process; the urgent need for international
action to guarantee biological connectivity within the biogeographic unit
defined by the Amazon, Putumayo, and Napo rivers and the eastern cordilleraof the Andes is addressed in a joint action plan of the national parks
department’s Amazonian subdivision and Corpoamazonía.
x The re-introduction of rehabilitated woollies appears to be a viable, notharmful, and probably beneficial possibility for conservation management, but
only makes sense in the context of a comprehensive long-range strategy forspecies and ecosystem protection. Despite generally excellent environmental
laws, Colombia lacks adequate planning and coordination mechanisms among
government agencies with different functions and geographical scales ofaction for this to take place.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Success: Total community involvement and participation from the project
conception, with proactive support from national park and regional natural
resource management agency.
x Success: Long-term commitment of those involved (community, national park,NGO), not only to reintroduction of woollies, but in general to biologicalconservation as a major aspect of cultural conservation, economic
development, and human well-being.
x Failure: Top-down, arbitrary management from a national level with insufficient
involvement from regional actors. In preventing the risks of pathogens,233

Mammalsinvasive species, and exogamic depression associated with re-introduction or
supplementation of wild populations in protected areas with rehabilitatedindividuals, the new national regulations in effect also prevent the potential
benefits of increasing numbers and avoiding the loss of genetic variability
associated with small and fragmented populations.

References
Botero, S., L. Renjifo, M. Bueno, & P. Stevenson. (2010) How many species ofwoolly monkeys inhabit Colombian forests? A. J. Prim. 71: 1-10.
Palacios, E., Boubli, J.-P., Stevenson, P., Di Fiore, A. & de la Torre, S. (2008)
Lagothrix lagotricha. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.ȱ
Rodríguez-Mahecha, JV; M. Alberico; F. Trujillo, J. Jorgensen. (2006) Libro Rojo
de los Mamíferos de Colombia. Serie libros Rojos Especiales Amenazadas deColombia. Bogotá, Colombia: Conservación Internacional Colombia y Ministeriode Ambiente Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial. 433 p.ȱ
Peres, C. (1990) Effects of hunting on western Amazonia primate communities.
Biol. Cons. 54: 47-59.

ȱ
Stevenson, P. R. (2010) The abundance of large Ateline monkeys is positively
associated with the diversity of plants regenerating in neotropical forests.
Biotropica 11 (11): 1-8.ȱ

234

Mammals

Re-introduction of bobcats to Cumberland Island,
Georgia, USA: status and lessons learned
after 25 years
Duane R. Diefenbach1, Leslie A. Hansen2, Cassandra Miller-Butterworth3, Justin H.
Bohling4, Robert J. Warren5 & Michael J. Conroy5
1- U. S. Geological Survey, Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USAddiefenbach@psu.edu
2- Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA hansenl@lanl.gov
3- Penn State Beaver, 100 University Drive, Monaca PA 15237, USA
cmm48@psu.edu
4- Pennsylvania State University, Department of Ecosystem Science andManagement, University Park, PA 16802, USA jhb24@psu.edu
5- Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens
GA 30602, USA

Introduction
The bobcat (Lynx rufus) is a medium-sized spotted cat (4 - 18 kg), widelydistributed in North America. Bobcats are legally harvestable in most of theirrange, and are currently classified as Least Concern by IUCN and listed inAppendix II of CITES, due to similarity of appearance with other spotted cat
species. Bobcats in the coastal plain region of Georgia, USA, occur at densities of
0.4 - 0.6 per km2. The most common prey of bobcats across most of their range
are cottontail rabbit species (Sylvilagus sp). Cumberland Island is the largest ofGeorgia’s Atlantic coastal barrier islands. Since 1972, approximately 80% of theisland has been administered by the National Park Service as Cumberland Island
National Seashore (CINS). The island has a subtropical climate and contains
approximately 85 km2 of
upland habitat. It is
accessible only by boat or
small plane. Thirty-two
bobcats were released on
CINS during 1988 - 1989.

Goals
x Goal 1: Restore an
extirpated native
species to CINS.
x Goal 2: Reduceabundance ofBobcat on Cumberland Island © F. Whitehead

235

Mammals
herbivores (primarily white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana), and feral hogs
(Sus scrofa) on CINS.
x Goal 3: Increase regeneration of native vegetation (including live oaks
(Quercus virginiana) on CINS.
x Goal 4:Test the validity of the Scent Station Index method for monitoring
trends in carnivore populations.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Survival of released adult bobcats on CINS.
x Indicator 2: Successful reproduction of bobcats on CINS.
x Indicator 3: Recruitment of island-born bobcats into the adult bobcat
population.
x Indicator 4: Persistence of a bobcat population on Cumberland Island overtime.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The 1983 Resources Management Plan for CINS identified reintroduction of extirpated species as a management objective. Bobcats are widelydistributed in North America, and adapt readily to a variety of habitats andecological conditions. Cumberland Island is located within the native range ofbobcats, and they existed on the island historically until they were extirpatedaround 1907. Prior to the re-introduction, CINS had abundant populations ofpotential prey species, including white-tailed deer, feral hogs, marsh rabbits(Sylvilagus palustris), gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), cotton rats (Sigmodon
hispidus), and cotton mice (Peromyscus gossypinus).
An Environmental Assessment (required under the National Environmental PolicyAct) was prepared prior to project implementation. Some commenters were
opposed to the re-introduction of bobcats on the grounds that i) it was notdesirable to control populations of herbivores or ii) it would be better to use
human harvest to control
herbivore populations
rather than to re-establish
a native carnivore. The
Park Service issued aFinding of No Significant
Impact, and the project
was approved.

Release of a bobcat into the wild

236

Implementation: Adult
bobcats (>1 year old) were
captured using hunting
dogs, leghold traps andcage traps from thecoastal plain region of
mainland Georgia.
Captured animals wereretained in a holdingMammalsfacility on the mainland for<1 month. During thisperiod, they wereanesthetized, fitted with avery high frequency (VHF)
radio-collar, andvaccinated for feline
panleukopenia,
rhinotracheitis, andcalicivirus. Bobcats werereleased on CINS ingroups of 4 - 6 at 1 month intervals during
October - December of1988 and 1989. This
controlled increase inpopulation size allowed
Cumberland Island and Atlantic Ocean
evaluation of the accuracyof the scent-station index. A total of 32 bobcats were released. All releases ofbobcats were “hard releases” in which bobcats were transported to the releasesite and freed. One bobcat died at the holding facility when it slipped its jaw under
the radio-collar. One bobcat released along the interdune meadow habitat ran into
the Atlantic Ocean and swam away, and apparently drowned.
Post-release monitoring: Four graduate students and several techniciansfrom the University of Georgia conducted three years of monitoring during andfollowing the bobcat releases (1988 - 1991). Location and survival of all bobcats
was monitored via ground and aerial radio-telemetry. Bobcats on the island weretrapped using cage traps to replace radio-collars and to capture juvenile bobcats
born on the island. Bobcat dens were located through intensive telemetry
monitoring of females during the denning season. Food habits of bobcats wererelated to prey abundance by collecting bobcat scats and conducting line-transect
surveys for large and medium-sized mammals and trapping webs for small
mammals.
During 1997 - 1999, two graduate students from the University of Georgia
conducted additional bobcat studies on Cumberland Island. A study based on ahuman dimensions survey of public opinion of the bobcat re-introduction foundthe level of knowledge about bobcats among visitors was low. Another study
addressed bobcat food habits, surveys of white-tailed deer abundance, and live
oak regeneration counts (Nelms, 1999). Deer harvest data from 1980 through1997 was analyzed to compare deer condition and population structure before
and following the bobcat releases.
Annual survival of the bobcats released on the island was 93% during 1988 1991. In the spring of 1989 at least 10 kittens were born in four bobcat litters.
Three island-born bobcats were captured and radio-collared as adults in 1990.
Marsh rabbits, deer, and cotton rats were major prey items during 1988 - 1991.

237

Mammals
By 1997, marsh rabbits and deer occurred less frequently in scats relative to 1988
- 1991, and all other species occurred more frequently. Analysis of deer harvest
data from 1980 - 1997 found that eviscerated body mass of deer increased after
bobcats were released on CINS by an average of 5.0 - 7.6 kg for males and 2.0 4.9 kg for females. Deer abundance declined >50% after the re-introduction of
bobcats. The number of live oak seedlings increased an average of 153.5
seedlings per 16 m2 plot between 1990 and 1997. These changes suggest
bobcats caused a trophic cascade effect through deer predation releasing oak
regeneration (Diefenbach et al., 2009). Visitor and deer hunter attitudes towards
bobcats were basically neutral in 1997.
A project to collect and genetically analyze bobcat scats was initiated in
December 2011. Nine bobcats were uniquely identified, which is likely an
incomplete count of the island population. Predictions at the time of reintroduction, based on a population viability analysis, were that the population
would stabilize at approximately 10 - 12 individuals (Diefenbach, 1992). Amongthese nine individuals, the average number of alleles observed at 12
microsatellite loci was 3.8 and the overall heterozygosity for the population was
0.519. We did not observe evidence of inbreeding and the population displayed aslight heterozygote excess (F= -0.183). Compared to genotypes obtained from sixof the bobcat founders, there was a significant difference in allele frequencies (P= 0.005) between the modern and founding populations, suggesting genetic drift
has occurred.

Major difficulties facedx Environmental Assessment (EA) and Public Opinion: The initial justification of
the re-introduction for the EA, to control herbivores, was a mistake (Warren etal., 1990). Public support for a re-introduction for its own sake wasunderestimated.
x Lack of funding and agency ability to continue monitoring efforts: Intensive
monitoring occurred during the first three years post-release. However, oncethe contract for the re-introduction and initial post-release monitoring wascompleted, the National Park Service did not have the resources ormanagement priority to continue follow-up efforts. The additional researchundertaken in 1997 and again in 2011 was initiated through the efforts of theprincipal investigators. This effect was probably compounded by staff turnoverat CINS, and loss of agency knowledge about the details of the project.
x Lack of long-term storage for genetic (blood and tissue) samples: Blood
samples were obtained from all of the bobcats prior to release. However, there
was a fire at the facility containing blood samples at the University of Georgia,
and additional samples shipped to another researcher at a different university
were inadvertently destroyed.

Major lessons learnedx We believe that slow releases, whereby animals are held in captivity at therelease site and allowed to leave captivity following a holding period, might
have prevented the disorientation of the one bobcat that swam into the Atlantic
Ocean and presumably drowned.

238

Mammalsx The use of locally adapted, wild
-captured adults likely
contributed to the successful
survival and reproduction of thebobcats after their release. It is
probably best to use
experienced adults in reintroduction efforts wheneverpossible, and if not possible, toprovide as much experience aspossible to captive-bredanimals prior to any release
effort.
x Post-release monitoring that
includes consideration oftrophic-level characteristics andeffects can potentially provide
greater insight into projectsuccess (or failure). Despite thestated objective of controllingherbivore populations, theCaptured bobcat born on island
relatively dramatic reduction inwhite-tailed deer abundance was somewhat of a surprise and re-establishmentof understory vegetation, including live oak seedlings, exceeded expectations.
x Had we conducted public scoping or human dimensions surveys prior to
preparing the Environmental Assessment, we could have identified thediversity of public opinions that surrounded the proposed bobcat restoration.
Furthermore, a proactive role with the media could have minimized
misconceptions about the project and resulting controversy, and personal
contacts with influential people in the local community could have allowed us
to identify opposition to the project prior to formally releasing the EA. A project
involving a more controversial species that potentially represents a greater
threat to human safety or property (such as large carnivores) would be wise toinvest considerable effort in the human dimensions aspect of the project.
x Sometime between 1999 and 2011, coyotes either were introduced or
successfully immigrated onto Cumberland Island. By 2011, a year-roundbreeding population of coyotes existed on the island. The recent establishmentof coyotes on CINS may have undesirable effects on the bobcat population orof the native prey species, and may trigger additional trophic-level effects. The
establishment of the coyotes does highlight the fact that all ecosystems
change over time and it may not be possible to anticipate all possible futurescenarios.

239

Mammals
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The re-introduction was conducted in a protected natural area with suitable
habitat, where bobcat harvest is not allowed.
x The re-introduction was conducted within the animal’s native range, and withwild-caught adults.
x The re-introduction was part of management objectives for the natural areaand had management support.
x Bobcats, in general, rarely conflict with perceived human interests.
x Genetic analysis of bobcat scat from the present population found moderatelevels of genetic variation. This analysis suggests a shift in allele frequencies
from the founding bobcats to the current population, suggesting genetic drift
has occurred. Although several potentially related individuals were identified,there does not appear to be significant inbreeding occurring in the population.
This bodes well for the long-term persistence of bobcats on the island.

References
Diefenbach, Duane R., L. A. Hansen, R. J. Warren, M. J. Conroy, & M. G. Nelms.
(2009) Restoration of bobcats to Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA: Lessons
Learned and Evidence for the Role of Bobcats as Keystone Predators. Pages 423– 435 in A. Vargas, C. Breitenmoser and U. Breitenmoser (editors). Iberian Lynx
Ex situ Conservation: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Fundación Biodiversidad,
Madrid, Spain.
Diefenbach, D. R., L. A. Baker, W. E. James, R. J. Warren, & M. J. Conroy.
(1993) Reintroducing bobcats to Cumberland Island, Georgia. Restoration
Ecology 1:241-147.
Diefenbach, D. R. (1992) The reintroduction of bobcats to Cumberland Island,
Georgia: validation of the scent-station technique and analysis of population
viability. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Nelms, M. G. (1999) Deer herd trends, bobcat food habits, and vegetation change
on Cumberland Island, Georgia following bobcat reintroduction. M.S. Thesis,
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Warren, R. J., Conroy, M. J., James, W. E., Baker, L. A., Diefenbach, D. R.
(1990) Reintroduction of bobcats on Cumberland Island, Georgia: A biopoliticallesson. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference 55, 580-589.

240

Plants

Re-introduction of Manglietia longipedunculata,
an endemic and critically endangered species
in China
Late Zeng Qingwen1, Wen Xiangying2 & Zhong Wenchao3
1- Professor, Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable
Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Guangzhou 510650, PR China zengqw@scib.ac.cn
2- Senior Engineer, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Guangzhou 510650, PR China xiangyingwen@mail.scbg.ac.cn
3- Research Assistant, Management Office of Nankunshan Provincial Nature
Reserve of Guangdong, Huizhou 516876, PR China 645067502@qq.com

Introduction
Manglietia longipedunculata Q. W. Zeng & Law, a species of the genus Manglietia(Magnoliaceae), is only distributed in evergreen broad-leaved forest at altitudes
700 - 800 m in Mt. Nankunshan, Longmen County, Guangdong Province, China.
Only one sprouting tree was found when this new species was published in 2004
(Zeng & Law, 2004). Since 2007, M. longipedunculata(DD) was listed in The Red
List of Magnoliaceae(Cicuzza et al., 2007), butthere is no sufficient data
about the population
numbers, population size,
the ecological andbiological characteristics.
Funded by the Botanic
Gardens Conservation
International (BGCI) in
2008, the field
investigation andpollination biologicalexperiments of M.
longipedunculata during
the flowering and fruitingtime has been carried out
by South China Botanical
Garden to evaluate its
conservation status andput forward the efficientconservation strategies.
Bamboo scaffolding for artificial pollination of

M. longipedunculata © Q. W. Zeng

241

Plants
Goals
x Main Goal: Re-enforcing its natural population.
x Goal 1: Assessment of conservation status of M. longipedunculata.
x Goal 2: Assessment of threats to M. longipedunculata.
x Goal 3: Experimental testing of artificial pollination for M. longipedunculata reintroduction.
x Goal 4: Enlarging population for M. longipedunculata.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Only one population with 11 individuals was found in
approximately 100 km2 around the neighboring area.
x Indicator 2: The main threats to M. longipedunculata are established.
x Indicator 3: More than 2 kg of M. longipedunculata seeds were collected
through artificial cross-pollination.
x Indicator 4: A reinforcement population with 1,000 seedlings has been
established in the original habitat of M. longipedunculata.
x Indicator 5: An ex situ population with 200 seedlings has been established inSouth China Botanical Garden, Guangzhou, China.

Project Summary
Feasibility: M.longipedunculata is only distributed in evergreen broad-leaved
forests at 700 - 800 m on Mt. Nankunshan, Longmen County, Guangdong
Province, China. Only one sprouting tree was found when this new species was
published in 2004. This species has high ornamental value because of its
beautiful tree shape, large, elegant, fragrant and white flowers. It also has highvalue for good timber. Though the species diversity in Mt. Nankunshan isabundant, the vegetation is mainly secondary and artificial and had been
destroyed seriously before the establishment of Nankunshan Provincial Nature
Reserve. The over-exploitation, natural habitats degradation and natural
reproductive capability decline resulted in the threatening of this species in thewild and was listed in The
Red List of Magnoliaceae
as DD in 2007. Funded by
BGCI since 2008, the field
investigation andpollination biologicalexperiments of M.
longipedunculata during
the flowering and fruitingtime has been carried out
by South China Botanical
Garden to evaluate its
conservation status andput forward efficientconservation strategies.
M. longipedunculata fruits

242

Plants
Implementation:
From 2008 to 2011,
comprehensive fieldsurveys were carriedout in three adjacentcounties (Longmen,
Conghua, andZengcheng) and acomprehensive study
about its population
ecology andpollination biology was
conducted, including
population size andamount, pollinators,
flowering
Local people, authorities and scientists atcharacteristics, andre-introduction site © Q. W. Zeng
fruit-bearing condition.
So far only one extremely small population and 11 mature individuals of M.
longipedunculata with a very narrow distribution was found in the area of about
100 km2 in Mountain Nankunshan. In this extremely small population, inbreeding
is more likely to occur and genetic variation is low, so the population is easy to be
influenced by surroundings and natural disasters and finally dies out. The lack ofefficient pollinators and flowering in the heavy rainy season make this species
unable to develop fruits and seeds under natural pollination. So far, no seedling of
M. longipedunculata has been found under its mature individuals until now. Its
natural refreshment is very poor. Therefore, it is categorized as CR (CriticallyEndangered) according to the IUCN (2001) categorization (Version 3.1).
A huge bamboo scaffolding (about 20 m high) was set up for artificial crosspollination and pollination biological research. The endangering factors of M.
longipedunculata are: i) The stigma receptive period of a single flower is only one
day. This biological characteristic may be one of the most important factors
leading to its extremely low fruit-set rate in natural conditions, ii) Lack of efficientpollinators. Beetles are major pollinators for M. longipedunculata, and bees nevervisited flowers even when they passed by them. Flowers cannot get sufficientpollens during the receptive period, which mainly caused low fruit-set rate of M.
longipedunculata under the natural conditions (Xie et al., 2012). More than 2 kg of
M. longipedunculata seeds were collected through artificial cross-pollination.
About 3,000 seedlings were successfully propagated. A well managed ex situ
collection has been established. About 1,000 seedlings were re-introduced in its
native habitat in Nankunshan Nature Reserve.
Post-planting monitoring: All re-introduced plants have been managed andmonitored by staff from nature reserve and they have a good growth andcondition. The average height of seedlings has reached 140 cm by October,
2011, and the highest reached a height of 295 cm.

243

Plants
Major difficulties
facedx The population size isextremely small. The
limited individuals cannot
reproduce any individuals
naturally.
x Lack of efficient visitors
or flowering in theheaviest rainy season. No
seeds can be collected for
propagation under thenatural conditions so
artificial cross-pollinationmust be carried out forseeds.
Plant growth one year after re-introductionx Thetall height of M.
longipedunculata makes
artificial cross-pollination difficult. So a huge bamboo scaffolding (about 20 mhigh) must be set up.
x M. longipedunculata is a newly published species, without any existing biotemperature information for reference. So we hired the local people toobserve and record the flower and fruit bio-temperature for pollination
biological research.

Major lessons learnedx Evaluating the conservation status: Prior to any restoration or re-introduction
effort, the population amount, size and structure of M. longipedunculata andcauses of the endangerment should be clear. Comprehensive field
investigations and pollination biological experiments of M. longipedunculata
during the flowering time (June) and fruiting time (September) should be
conducted to evaluate its conservation status.
x Selecting the appropriate location: The site is very important for successful reintroduction. The site for re-introduction should: i) have a similar ecologicalenvironment to its natural habitat; ii) be close to the original population; iii)
have the traits to be able to survive in the long-term, and iv) be convenient for
management.
x Strengthening conservation awareness of local community: Local people are
the custodian of plants. Their awareness of plant diversity conservation is very
important for successful plant conservation. To enhance their awareness ofplant diversity and environment protection, we held some stakeholder
workshops in project location and distributed public outreach materials tothem. People living around Nankunshan Nature Reserve were invited to attend
workshops and actively communicated with government leaders andscientists. Local people are also involved in re-introduction activities andmanaging transplanted plants. Their awareness has been greatly enhanced
through the engagement of those activities and will protect plants actively inthe future.

244

Plants
Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x The active involvement of local people: The pollination biological researchneeds exact bio-temperature observation. Every year, local people help
observe and record the flower and fruit bio-temperature of M.
longipedunculata. With their help, we can successfully carry out the pollination
biological research and collect the fruits which developed from artificial crosspollination on time.
x Basic scientific research of target species: The re-introduction should bebased on the scientific planning, appropriate technology, ecology, biology,
genetics, available data or references, policy or regulations, social economics
and local attitudes.
x A strong working group: Besides local communities collaborating withgovernment, international organizations, institutes or botanical gardens is also
very important for a successful re-introduction.
x Selection of seedlings for re-introduction: This is very important, including theage structure, height, quality, source and the genetic diversity of seedlings.
x Post - planting monitoring: The re-introduced plants should be managed andmonitored regularly, including the monitoring of growth status, survival rate of
re-introduced plants, community structure, etc.
x Stakeholder workshop and training: Students, staff in nature reserve and local
people should be trained for implementing the project.

References
Cicuzza, D., Newton, A. & Oldfield, S. (2007) The Red List of Magnoliaceae.
Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK.
Xie, C., L. Fu, Q. W. Zeng, D. M. Liu, X. Y. Wen & W. C. Zhong. (2012)
Conservation of Rare and Endangered Species Manglietia longipedunculata(Magnoliaceae). In: Xia, N. H., Q. W. Zeng, F. X. Xu, Q. G. Wu (eds).
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Family
Magnoliaceae, pp.166–179. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Tech. Press, Wuhan, China.
Zeng, Q. W. & Y. W. Law. (2004) Manglietia longipedunculata (Magnoliaceae), a
new species from Guangdong, China. Annales Botanici Fennici 41: 151–154.

245

Plants

Twenty years of Indus Delta mangrovesdevelopment and rehabilitation by Sindh Forests
Department, Pakistan
Najamuddin Vistro¹* & Riaz Ahmed Wagan²¹ - Mangrove Project Manager, Barari Forest Management, P. O. Box 113260,
Abu Dhabi, UAE najamuddin_vistro @barari.ae² - Conservator of Forests, Sindh Forest and Wildlife Department, Karachi,
Pakistan riazwagan@yahoo.com(*Formerly Chief Conservator of Forests, Sindh, Pakistan)Introduction
The Indus Delta mangroves represent the sixth largest mangrove blockworldwide. The Delta stretches over 348 km from Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan to theIndia-Pakistan border. The delta is a typical fan-shaped and spread over about
617,470 ha and is characterized by 17 major creeks, innumerable minor creeks,
mud flats and fringing mangroves (Qureshi, 1999). At present, 280,470 hectares
mangrove forests are managed by Sindh Forest Department, 64,400 hectares by
Port Qasim Authority and are declared as “Protected Forests”. Some 272,600 ha
are under the control of Sindh Board of Revenue, Pakistan (Vistro, 1999).
Mangroves are playing a vital role in the economy of Pakistan, besides
environmental, in the shape of fisheries they harbor. Some 81,000 people living
along the coastal belt use Avicennia marina as a major source of fuel. It isestimated that about 18,000 tons of mangrove wood is burnt annually for cooking
and heating purposes. Some 6,000 camels are also herded into the mangrove
forests for browsing A. marina leaves (Hoekstra, 1998).
The Indus Delta mangrove ecosystems is dominated by a single species;
Avicennia marina (over95%) followed by
Rhizophora mucronata,
Ceriops tagal andAegiceras corniculatum. At
present, Indus deltamangroves are under
severe stress on accountof a combination of naturaland human induced
factors. These factors are
the drastic reduction of
fresh water flow to the
Delta, less addition anddeposition of silt load, atremendous increase inpopulation along theAvicennia marina in the Indus Delta

246

Plants
coastal belt resulting in
the illegal cutting ofmangroves forconstructing residentialbuildings, cooking andheating. A large
number of camels,
cows and buffalos arealso grazing within the
mangroves. Seawaterpollution is anothermajor threat tomangroves. Untreateddomestic sewage of
Karachi city along withsignificant volume ofuntreated discharges
Planting mangroves in the Indus Delta
from about 6,000
industrial units is drained in to the mangrove area. Besides, oil spills from ships,
dredging of shipping channels and thermal pollution from industrial mills andthermal power plants are causing great damage to existing mangroves and also
hindering the natural regeneration process.
The quality and area under mangrove forests has deteriorated and declined
during the last five decades. The satellite imageries taken and surveys done atperiodical intervals shows that mangrove forest have shrunk from 344,870 ha to86,727 ha. The first survey was done by Khan in1966 shows that some 344,870
ha were under mangrove forests. Another survey conducted by Amjad and Khan
(1983) estimated about 283,000 ha mangrove forests in the Indus delta. A survey
done during 1983 - 1984 by Tahir Qureshi estimated about 280,470 ha undermangrove cover. After an interval of 20 years in 2003, SUPARCO prepared amangrove vegetation map by using SPOT imageries. It was reported that area
under mangrove forests have drastically shrunk to about 86,727 ha (IUCN, 2005).
Realizing an alarming situation of depletion of mangrove vegetation, Sindh
Forests and Wildlife Department, Government of Sindh, Pakistan initiated ninemangrove rehabilitation/development projects from the year 1993 to 2012 with theassistance and partnership of “The World Bank, Asian Development Bank,
Government of Pakistan and Government of Sindh” to mitigate the degradation
process and loss of mangrove habitat. As per data compiled by the Office of Chief
Conservator of Forests, Sindh, Pakistan, some 70,300 hectares have beenrehabilitated/planted with local mangrove species during the last 20 years period
from the year 1993 to 2012. The most fascinating aspect of these projects
besides rehabilitating huge degraded areas is; setting of two new “Guinness
World Records” during the year 2009 and 2013.

247

Plants
Goals
x Goal 1: To rehabilitate and develop mangrove habitats impacted by naturaland human induced factors.
x Goal 2: To transform sparse mangrove forests into dense forests.
x Goal 3: To increase diversity of local mangrove species.
x Goal 4: To halt/minimize mangrove degradation process.
x Goal 5: To introduce social forestry in the coastal belt.
x Goal 6: To maintain plantation areas with minimum mortality.
x Goal 7: To encourage and insure participation of local communities inmangrove rehabilitation, plantation and protection activities.

Success indicatorsx Indicator 1: Establish mangrove plantations on blank mudflats.
x Indicator 2: Convert sparse mangrove forests into dense forests.
x Indicator 3: Increase diversity of mangrove species.
x Indicator 4: Mortality of planted mangroves below 20%.

Project summary
Feasibility: The first mega-mangrove rehabilitation project was started during
the year 1993. The project was jointly sponsored by “The World Bank andGovernment of Sindh”. Keeping in view the success stories of this project, Sindh
Forest Department launched eight more mangrove conservation anddevelopment follow on projects from the year 2000 to 2011 with the cooperationand funding of “Asian Development Bank, Government of Pakistan and
Government of Sindh”. Detailed field surveys of Indus delta falling in Karachi, Keti
Bandar and Shah Bandar Forest Ranges were conducted by the Sindh Forest
Department’s staff to identify and demarcate the most suitable areas forestablishing plantations.
The criteria for selecting the plantation sites were as follows:x Tidal flats with muddy
substratum and naturalchannels where regulartidal inundations occur.
x Bare, non-vegetatedareas where mangroves
occurred in the past.
x Sparse natural
mangrove areas.

Avicennia marina nursery

248

After critical evaluation,
potential sites wereselected for planting andrehabilitation. The
procurement of “quality
planting stock” was thesecond most important

Plants
step to execute theprojects. The required
planting stock was madeavailable by three ways as
follows:x Selection and collectionof healthy propagulesof R. mucronata and A.
marina.ȱx Establishment ofintertidal container
plants nurseries of R.
mucronata, A. marina,ȱ
C. tagal and A.
corniculatum.
x Collecting wildings of
A. marina from thedonor sites.ȱ

Rhizophora mucronata nursery

The propagules and container plants were transported from nurseries toplantation sites by motor boats.
Implementation: This massive rehabilitation/plantation initiative was
implemented through nine development projects sponsored by World Bank, AsianDevelopment Bank, Government of Pakistan and Government of Sindh from theyear 1993 to 2013. The selected areas for planting were carefully demarcated by
fixing flags on the outer boundaries. Temporary holding nurseries were
established near the planting sites for the storage of propagules and container
plants. Before shifting of propagules and container plants from the nurseries toplanting sites, each propagule and container plant was evaluated, and only
healthy propagules and container plants were selected for planting. The selected
propagules and container plants were put in the plastic boxes for safe handlingand transportation up to temporary holding nurseries by boats. The plantation
operations were carried out during low tide periods in the day time. The locationof each plant was demarcated on the site. The labor and the labor supervisors
were provided adequate training and knowledge on handling and planting
seedlings before start of plantation operations. The plantations were establishedin a square shape at 3 m x 3 m spacing. Against the plantation target of 117,632
ha, 70,300 ha have been planted at various plantation sites of Karachi, Keti
Bunder and Shah Bunder forest ranges from the year 1993 to 2012. Some 44,000
ha will be planted/rehabilitated within coming five years time up to year 2017.
Another milestone of these rehabilitation/plantation projects is that: two times“Guinness World Records” have been achieved during the year 2009 and 2013.
On 15th July 2009, a team of 300 volunteers belonging to adjoining local
communities planted 541,176 seedlings of Rhizophora mucronata within 24 hours
time (day time) in Keti Bandar Forest Range. Once again, after a lapse of four
years, a new “Guinness Record” was set on 22nd June 2013 by planting 847,275

249

Plants
R. mucronata seedlings
within 24 hours time (daytime) by a team of 300
volunteers of local
communities in Kharo
Chan/Keti Bandar coastal
area.
Post-planting
monitoring: All theplantations established atvarious sites weremonitored at regular basis
after six months ofplantation. The survival
data was recorded from
Volunteers after setting the Guinness World Record the permanent randomly
selected plots. The
survival percentage of plantations ranges from minimum 50% to as high as 90%.

Major difficulties facedx Less and late release of funds.
x Stormy and rainy weather conditions.
x Rough high tides.
x Muddy site conditions difficult to work.
x Daily change in planting time due to change in low and high tide time.
x Limited planting season.
x Transport of saplings to planting sites during low tide period.
x Lack of adequate skilled/trained labor force.

Major lessons learnedx Site selection for mangroves plantations is most important. Survival andgrowth of plants depends on proper site selection.
x Predominantly bare sandy soils should not be selected for plantations.
x Plantations should not be established on high tidal mud flats.
x The survival rate is more when planting is done during the low tide period andthere is no wave action.
x Involvement of local Jat community leaders is essential. Without their help andcooperation, it is very difficult task to protect young mangrove plantations.
x Local communities prefer A. marina plantations to R. mucronata plantations
due to its fodder and fuel value.
x Survival and growth rate is affected by selection of planting material and site
suitability of the mangrove species.
x Planting of R. mucronata propagules give better results as compared tocontainer plants.
x Inbuilt mechanism of monitoring and evaluation system is the key for achieving
high plantation success rate.

250Plantsx Plantation maintenance funds are vital for successful establishment ofmangrove plantations. Government of Sindh/Pakistan must provide adequate
maintenance funds after completion of the development projects.

Success of Project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Selection of most suitable plantation sites.
x Selection of healthy and proper sized planting stock.
x Planting operations at the correct time and planting season.
x Care in handling and transportation of plants from nursery to plantation sites.
x Effective technical guidance and supervision.
x Regular monitoring.
x Involvement and cooperation of local communities.
x Building teamwork and ownership among the labor and field staff.
Acknowledgments: The Authors sincerely acknowledge and thank Mr. Agha Tahir
Hussein, Conservator of Forests, Government of Sindh, Pakistan for supplying
photographs for this article.

References
Hoekstra, D.A. (1998) Outline Follow On project Indus Delta Mangrove
Rehabilitation / Replanting Project, Sindh Forest & Wildlife Department Karachi,
Pakistan, 5-11.
IUCN. (2005) Mangroves of Pakistan-Status and Management, 2-6.
Qureshi, M. T. (1999) Neglected Coastal Ecosystem of Indus Delta. Proceedingsof the National Seminar on Mangrove Ecosystem Dynamics of Indus Delta, Sindh
Forest & Wildlife Department Karachi, Pakistan, 9-18.
Vistro, N. (1999) Conservation and Rehabilitation of Indus Delta Mangroves bySindh Forest Department. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Mangrove
Ecosystem Dynamics of Indus Delta, Sindh Forest & Wildlife Department Karachi,
Pakistan, 19-24.

251

Plants

Rhizophora mucronata an extinct mangrove
species re-introduced to Ras Ghanada Island,
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates after 100 years
Najamuddin Vistro*
Mangrove Project Manager, Barari Forest Management, P. O. Box 113260,
Abu Dhabi, UAE najamuddin_vistro @barari.ae(*Formerly Scientist, Mangrove Ecology in Environment Agency-ABU DHABI
from 2000 - 2004)

Introduction
Mangroves are one of the most important ecosystems of UAE both ecologicallyand economically. They support a complex aquatic food web and provide a
unique habitat for a variety of bird, marine fauna and have a high aesthetic value
for developing eco-tourism. Mangroves are most important spawning areas forfish and shellfish. The presence of mangroves, act as a stabilization force toprotect coastline from the devastations of cyclones. Avicennia marina is the only
native mangrove species growing in the UAE. Historical records suggest that
another mangrove species, Rhizophra mucronata, once grew here. Due tovarious unknown reasons, this mangrove species became extinct about 100
years ago. R. mucronata is included in the “IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species” as a native mangrove of UAE.
During the year 2001, Department of the President Affairs, Abu Dhabi (formerly
Crown Prince, Private Management Abu Dhabi) and Environment Agency Abu
Dhabi (EAD) initiated a joint
comprehensive research anddevelopment program to reviveback R. mucronata; an extinct
natural heritage mangrove
species of the country at Ras
Ghanada Island. Keeping inview the similarity of climaticconditions, propagules of R.
mucronata were procured from
Pakistan. In the first phase,various nursery researchstudies on survival and growthof seedlings were conducted.
In the second phase,experimental field plantations
were established at Ras
Ghanada Island. The
plantations were established incomplete natural coastal
Rhizophra mucronata plantation

252

Plants
environment at a Sand Hillsite to evaluate thesurvival and growthpotential of the species in
the natural habitat. First
monitoring and evaluationof plantations was done
after five years of planting
in July 2008. It wasamazing to observe thatout of 350 seedlings
planted, 280 plants (80%)
were surviving andtransformed in to abeautiful plantation. The
second monitoring andevaluation was done in
Rhizophra mucronata seedlings
October 2011 after aninterval of three years of first monitoring and eight years after planting. It wasobserved that after three years, there was a 50% survival rate. However,remaining surviving plants look very healthy with dark green foliage and produceda typical prop root system. This is an indication that the surviving R. mucronata
plants have fully adapted local site and environmental conditions and became
part of ecosystems.

Goals
x Goal 1: Re-introduce R. mucronata back to Arabian Gulf waters of Abu Dhabi,
UAE.
x Goal 2: Standardize appropriate nursery techniques through research anddevelopment studies for growing seedlings in the nursery.
x Goal 3: Standardize plantation techniques for establishing successful
plantations.
x Goal 4: Increase biodiversity of mangrove species in the UAE.
x Goal 5: Prepare manual/guidelines for establishment of R. mucronata
container plants nurseries and plantations in the UAE.

Success indicatorsx Indicator 1: Grow healthy R. mucronata seedlings in the nursery.
x Indicator 2: Establish successful R. mucronata plantations.
x Indicator 3: Publish manual for raising mangrove container plants nurseries
and mangrove plantations in the UAE.

Project summary
Feasibility: In the year 2001, “ Department of the President Affairs, Abu
Dhabi” (formerly Crown Prince, Private Management Abu Dhabi) and EAD
started a joint venture “Mangrove Research and Development Project” to reintroduce R. mucronata; one of the extinct mangrove species of the Arabian Gulf

253

Plants
back to the coastal waters of Abu Dhabi,
UAE. All the logistic, manpower and otherrequired facilities were provided by the
Department of President Affairs, Abu
Dhabi. EAD provided technical expertiseand arranged propagules collection andimport from Pakistan.
A comprehensive research anddevelopment program focusing on
development of appropriate nursery &plantation techniques was started under thesupervision and guidance of the Author as
follows:x Survival and growth of seedlings in thenursery.
x Use of appropriate soil media for
optimum seedling growth.
x Effect of water salinity on seedlingsurvival, growth and physiology.
x Effect of shade on the survival andAuthor measuring Rhizophora
growth of seedlings.
mucronata plantsx Use of an appropriate pot size for optimal
growth of seedlings.
x Survival and growth studies on establishment of plantations.
After successful growing of R. mucronata seedlings in the nursery, experimental
field plantations were established at selected sites during the year 2002 - 2003.
Implementation: There were three major components of the R. mucronata re-introduction project i) procurement of propagules from Pakistan, ii) growing
sufficient number of quality seedlings in the nursery, and iii) establishment ofexperimental plantations. Mature R. mucronata propagules were procured fromDam Forest block of Baluchistan province, Pakistan with the assistance andcooperation of Sindh Forestry Department, Karachi, Pakistan and WWF, Karachi,
Pakistan. A new nursery section was reserved in a screened shade-house withnatural sunlight and without temperature control for conducting nursery research
trials and growing container plants. The Photo-synthetically Active Radiation(PAR) inside the screened shade-house was about one-fifth of direct PAR. The
fresh propagules flown from Pakistan were immediately planted in the plastic pots
measuring 12.5 cm x 11.5 cm in the nursery. The propagules were watered twice
a day with a mixture of seawater and freshwater in 50:50 ratio for the first two
weeks. Afterwards, seedlings were watered once a day in morning time with
100% seawater.
Experimental plantations were established during the year 2003 at the Sand Hillsite near the intertidal water channel with clay loam substratum. Scatteredpatches of young natural A. marina were present along the western portion of the254

Plants
plantation site. Eastern portion was blank without any plant growth. This was an
ideal site for comparing the survival and growth behavior of R. mucronata on
blank area and in association with A. marina. The selected area for planting was
carefully demarcated by fixing demarcation rods on the outer boundaries. Before
shifting the plants from the nursery to planting site, each plant was evaluated.
Only, healthy seedlings having 50 cm height and above were selected forplanting. The plantation operations were carried out during the low tide period in
the day time. The location of each plant was demarcated on the site. The labor
was provided adequate training on handling and planting seedlings before start ofplantation operations. 350 R. mucronata seedlings were planted in a squareshape at 3 m x 3 m spacing.
Post-planting monitoring:
Nursery: In the nursery, seedling emergence from the propagules started
from the 7th day of planting and continued up to 22nd week. The seedlingemergence was faster (84%) during the first 12 weeks. The seedlings attended anaverage height of 60 cm with mean leaf size of 42.69 cm² in 22 weeks.
Plantations: After 2004, no monitoring and further rehabilitation/plantation
work was carried out. The first monitoring and evaluation was done in June, 2008.
It was observed that out of 350 seedlings planted, 280 plants (80%) were
surviving and transformed in to a beautiful plantation. Press releases of thissuccess story were issued by the Director of the Department of the President’s
Affairs and were published in various Arabic and English newspapers highlighting
re-introduction of Rhizophora mucronata after 100 years.
The second monitoring and evaluation was done in September, 2011 after three
years interval. Survival and height growth data are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Survival and Height Growth Data
Year

Surviving Plants

Average Height

Maximum Height

2008

280

1.30 m1.70 m2011

140

1.50 m

2.02 mAlthough, during the 2008 to 2011 period, 140 (50 %) plants had died but theremaining surviving plants were very healthy. It is interesting to observe that “R.
mucronata plants have adapted the local site conditions and are growing in thenatural environment side by side with natural A. marina. It is interesting toobserve that A. marina, is acting as a barrier, by protecting R. mucronata plantsfrom gazelles, hot dusty winds and barnacles. The plants have attained 1.50 m 2.02 m height. The plantations are presenting an eye catching scene of a mixed
mangrove forest and a classical example of mangrove biodiversity. “These are
the unique plantations of R. mucronata in the UAE growing only at Ras Ghanada
Island”.

255Plants
Major difficulties facedx Procurement of propagules from Pakistan.
x Harsh summer temperatures with dusty winds.
x Grazing pressure by gazelles.
x Presence of barnacles.

Major lessons learnedx Site selection for R. mucronata plantations is most critical. Survival and growthof plants depends on proper site selection.
x Predominantly bare sandy soils should not be selected for plantations.
x Plantations should not be established on low tidal mud flats.
x Healthy and appropriate sized planting stock is one of the major factors for
success of mangrove rehabilitation/plantation program.
x Best planting season is November - December.
x Protection of young plants against gazelles is most important. Gazelles like toeat fleshy green leaves and also de-bark the stem by scratching with theirhorns and head.
x Survival rate is more when planted within the natural young stands of A.
marina.
x A. marina is performing as a “motherly role” and protecting R. mucronata
plants from gazelles, hot dusty winds and barnacles.
Success of Project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Conducting comprehensive research to standardize nursery and plantation
techniques.
x Selection of most suitable plantation sites.
x Selection of healthy and proper sized planting stock.
x Planting operations at proper time and proper planting season.
x Care in handling and transportation of plants from nursery to plantation sites.
x Planting within the natural A. marina young stands.
x Effective technical guidance and supervision.
Acknowledgements: The author gratefully acknowledge the Department of President
Affairs, Abu Dhabi, UAE for providing facilities and assistance in establishing andmaintaining R. mucronata nursery and plantations at Ras Ghanada Island.

256

Plants

First steps for the conservation translocation of
the betic alder buckthorn in Eastern Spain
Pablo Ferrer1, Emilio Laguna1, Inmaculada Ferrando1, Ana Hurtado1, Francisco
Albert1, Albert Navarro1, Mari C. Escribá, Merche Piera2, Federico Martínez3
Juana M. Arregui4, José Juárez4 & Luis Navarro4
1- CIEF (Centro para la Investigación y Experimentación Forestal) - Servicio de Vida
Silvestre, Generalitat Valenciana, Avinguda Comarques del País Valencià 114, E46930, Quart de Poblet (Valencia), Spain laguna_emi@gva.es; flora.cief@gva.es
2- Tercera Demarcación Forestal de Valencia – Servicios Territoriales de laConselleria de Infraestructuras, Territorio y Medio Ambiente, Generalitat Valenciana,
c/Carretera de Albacete, 13. 46623 Jarafuel, Valencia, Spain piera_mer@gva.es
3- Parque Natural de Las Hoces del Cabriel, Generalitat Valenciana. c/Sindicato
Agrícola s/n, 46310 Venta del Moro, Valencia, Spain hoces_cabriel@gva.es
4- IVIA (Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias), Generalitat Valenciana.
Ctra. Moncada-Naquera, km 4,5. 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spainarregui_jua@gva.es

Introduction
Frangula alnus subsp. baetica (E. Rev. & Willk.) Rivas Goday ex Devesa is arelict tree (Hampe & Arroyo, 2002) found in a few areas of Southern Spain, but
having an isolated population morethan 500 km far on the Eastern side of
the Iberian peninsula, just sharing theborderline between the regions ofCastilla-La Mancha (CLM) andValencian Community (VC). There aresome unchecked citations listing its
presence in the Rif Mountains, NW
Africa. It is listed as Vulnerable in the
Spanish Red List of Vascular Plants(Moreno, 2008). The Eastern Spanish
population is found along 20 km
corridor in the deep gorges of the river
Jucar. It is thought that most of theformer continuous population, wasseverely destroyed by a big flood in
1982, which uprooted all the riverbanks
destroying the ancient riverine forests.
Nowadays the population are divided
into two subpopulations which are 15km from each other. These two
populations are the western group(Casas de Ves, Albacete, CLM) whichis estimated at over 40 specimens, andFrangula alnus baetica fruit
the Eastern group (Jalance, Valencia,© E. Laguna
VC), estimated at only 22257

Plants
subrupicolous individuals, mostly placed on water-oozing crevices on tall cliffs.
The plants are too far away from each other and are unable to produce fertile fruitin the wild.

Goals
x Goal 1: Fine characterization of the Valencian (VC) subpopulation, where no
reproductive success is seen in the wild; searching for appropriate sites toincrease the population in the futurex Goal 2: Ex situ production of new individuals, after setting up a plant collection.
New trees are obtained after cuttings from those accessible individuals on the
Valencian gorges, which are able to produce fertile (‘biodiverse’) seed, fromcross pollination amongst different individuals.
x Goal 3: Checking the site availability for restocking the Valencian subpopulation in two phases: i) by using clonal plants (to reduce the effect ofgenetics on the site choice); and ii) by reinforcing the chosen good sites withnew plants produced from seeds (obtained in situ), both for the river Jucar andseveral close tributaries (Cabriel River).
x Goal 4: Extending the above explained strategy to the Castilla-La Mancha’s(CLM) subpopulation, checking also the intermediate sites between the two
sub-populations. ȱx Goal 5: Long-term progressive enlargement of each sub-population, andestablishment of a stepped-stones connection to re-create the ancient uniquepopulation.ȱ

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Number of ex-situ produced clones and individual plants (newparent plants, produced after cuttings from the available trees in wild).
x Indicator 2: Number of new ‘biodiverse’ (non-clonal) seeds and plantlets
obtained, including the testing of germplasm quality (germination rates, seedlongevity, viability, etc.).
x Indicator 3: Number ofplanted individuals in situ,
and survival rates, to bechecked 2 - 4 years after
plantation.
x Indicator 4: Number of
established neopopulations with effective
recruitment (4 - 8 years
after each plantation infield).
x Indicator 5: Number ofseeds produced in wild in
the restored populations -Planting alders at a wild site258

Plants
testing the germplasm qualityand effective recruitment (4 - 8
years after each plantation infield).

Project Summary
Feasibility: F. alnus subsp.
baetica is a riverine, termophiletree (Aguilella et al., 2009); close
relatives and other riverine trees
use to show good results forvegetative propagation (both for invitro and hormoned cuttings).
There is good knowledge on theecological requirements andreproductive biology for theSouthern Spanish population, in
Andalusia (Hampe & Arroyo,2002). The Valencian native plants
only produce a very small amountof seeds, often sterile,consequently forcing a interim stepof ex situ seed production,
Planted Frangula alnus baetica
obtaining the new parent plants© Pablo Ferrer
after cuttings or buds taken fromdifferent individuals in filed. A test
experience made by the IVIA (Valencian Institute of Agrarian Research) shown
good results for in vitro clonal propagation after buds. All the Spanish rivers are of
public property, co-managed by the national and regional administration.
The sites for the new plantations in VC are unexploited wild areas placed 5 - 10km far from the closest villages, and having difficult access for tourism related
activities. The native plant sites, as well as proposed translocations sites belong
to areas protected by the Natura 2000 network. Return period for the next big
floods, like those causing the strong decline of the former population, is estimatedat about every 500 years. The conservation of the Valencian subpopulation ismade by the regional administration of the VC, having experience in germplasm
conservation, seed germination and plant production with endangered plants in
the CIEF (Centre for Forestry Research and Experimentation). For the Western
subpopulation, the in situ work is done by the regional administration of CLM,
having less experience and ex situ facilities for endangered species. A technicalagreement is being established to develop the whole ex situ phase for bothsubpopulations in the CIEF nursery.
Implementation: Twenty two specimens, most of them inaccessible andscattered in 5 sub-populational groups, have been detected in the VC
subpopulation, on rock crevices of the riverine tall cliffs protected from the biggest
flood levels. The whole estimated extension of presence reaches about 3.6 km2.

259

Plants
Only a few Valencian
plants produce seeds,
which use to be sterile,apparently coming fromself-pollination. CLM
subpopulation, is still
under study; the CLM
trees grow on remaindersof the optimal habitat, as
low trees on riverbanks,
forming a part of the lowtree layer of riverine
forests dominated by tall
willows (Salix spp.) andpoplars (Populus spp.).
First cuttings harvest
made by climbers, and in
Picking cuttings © E. Laguna
vitro production using
Valencian plants, both devoted to establish the ex situ clonal bank and to initiate
the first phase of in situ plantations to check the sites feasibility started in 2007 2008. The in vitro production protocol was refined in 2008; and an additional
successful protocol using hormoned cuttings in the nursery was also set up in
2010.
The current ex situ collection holds 40 individuals from five clonal lines, comingfrom two sub-populational groups; the genetic progressive enrichment with morelines from the remainder groups is expected after 2013. The first ‘biodiverse’ seedproduction obtained ex situ started in 2011, yielding more than 600 fruits and over
1,400 seeds and the production in 2012 bore over 2,500 fruits. Those first seeds
show acceptable quality and they have been germinated in the laboratory in 2012.
A fine germination protocol, complemented with several seed treatments and pretreatments, is expected by 2013 - 2014. Since 2009, 320 individuals obtained
from five clonal lines have been planted in the riverbanks of Jucar gorges and its
close tributary Cabriel River, belonging to the Nature Park ‘Hoces del Cabriel’. All
the plantations can be considered as proximity reinforcements and neopopulations (see concepts in Laguna & Ferrer, 2012), close to the native sites;
true reinforcements on the remainder sites on rock crevices cannot be
implemented, due to their technical difficulties and the high risk of failure. Ninteen
riverbank sites have been tested, the extension of presence for the whole sites
reaches 766 km2. The first enrichment of those neopopulations, from clonal
plants, using plantlets produced ex situ from seeds has been done in the winter of2012 - 2013. In 2012 a first cuttings harvest of some western specimens, CLM
subpopulation, to initiate the parallel clonal production of new parent trees in the
CIEF has also been done, and more complete campaigns are expected in thefollowing years.
Post-planting monitoring: The plantation sites are visited every 3 - 4 months,
and any incidence (phenology, predation, pests, etc.) is recorded. Eight of the 19260

Plants
planted sites show good survival rates (over 80.6%); the main reasons for theunsuccessful plantations have been detected due to salinity, high fluctuation ofwater levels and ungulate foraging. A first blossom period of translocated plants
has been observed in 2012, three years after the first translocations; however the
first event of in situ seed production is expected in 2013.

Major difficulties facedx Small amount of seeds, mostly unfertile and produced by self pollination, in thewild.
x Lack of knowledge of the optimal habitat requirements as former riverbanks
were completely destroyed by a river flood.
x High rates of predation by Spanish ibex (Capra hispanica) living in the samearea.
x Severe fluctuation of water level in some of the best pre-chosen sites whichcannot be corrected.

Major lessons learnedx The lack of seed production is due to the long distance between wild
individuals, even into each native sub-populational group. New specimens
planted opposite each other show high fertility in ex situ conditions, and asimilar behavior can be expected for the in situ translocated plants.
x A quick development of cultivated plants has been noticed, both after cuttings,
in vitro explants and seeds. The new plants which are three years old can
produce flowers, but the effective seed production is best made after the fourthyear.
x The ex situ ‘biodiverse’ seeds (those obtained after cross pollination amongst
individuals from different parents) show high rates of viability and germination.
x The translocated specimens species only grow on the first line of the local
riverine vegetation (Salix alba-Populus alba forest, best than Ulmus minorFraxinus angustifolia community), on non-saline soils and avoiding sites
showing strong fluctuations of water levels.
x The ex situ and in situ operations should follow a calendar protocol. The
rooting of fresh cuttings (to initiate new lines of parent trees for ex situ
production of new seeds) goes on best in spring, instead of autumn, using mid-diameter sizes (1.5 - 2 cm) instead of thin or thick ones. Translocations to wild
habitats must be made in late autumn or early winter, instead of late winter or
early spring.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Definitive success will be considered a time the new plantlets obtained fromseeds will be translocated. Provisory results are successful and allow to
expect high success in a few years time.

261

Plantsx Failures are based on unexpected events like the recent progression of
Spanish ibex population on the same sites, or unpredictable changes in waterlevel due to dam content regulation. The translocated plants must be protectedagainst the effect of ungulates (i.e. using metallic nets to protect them during
the first years).
x The quick growth and early maturing age of the new specimens ensures thetranslocation success, for those sites having good conditions.
x To get native material (cuttings from rock crevices or other inaccessible sites),
the ex situ phase is already protocoled for obtaining new seeds and plantlets
in 3 - 4 years. The germination procedures are easy and quick, and thetranslocation sites can be well accessed.
x The species and the translocation sites are protected by Law, and the public
property of the sites ensure the long-term conservation. However more fineprotection measures through the designation of protected Plant MicroReserves (Laguna, 2001) could be required in the future.

References
Aguilella, A., S. Fos & E. Laguna, eds. (2009). Catálogo Valenciano de Especiesde Flora Amenazadas. Conselleria de Medi Ambient, Aigua, Urbanisme i
Habitatge, Generalitat Valenciana. Valencia.
Hampe, A. & J. Arroyo (2002). Recruitment and regeneration in populations of anendangered South Iberian Tertiary relict tree. Biological Conservation 107(3): 263-271.
Laguna, E. (2001) The micro-reserves as a tool for conservation of threatened
plants in Europe. Nature & Environment series nº 121. Council of Europe.
Strasbourg
Laguna, E. & P.P. Ferrer (2012). Proximity reinforcements and safety
neopopulations, new complementary concepts for certain types of in situ plant
introductions. [Translation into English from the original article in Spanish,
published at Conservacion Vegetal 16: 14]. Available a the website:
http://www.uv.es/elalum/arts/2012_Neopopulations.pdf
Moreno, J. C. (coord.). (2008). Lista Roja 2008 de flora vascular española – 2008
Red List of Spanish Vascular Flora. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio Rural y
Marino, y Sociedad Española de Biología de la Conservación de Plantas. Madrid.ȱ

262

Plants

Conservation introduction of the Corunna daisy
at Iron Knob, South Australia
Manfred Jusaitis
Senior Biologist, South Australian Seed Conservation Centre, Botanic Gardens of
Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, Australia; Affiliate SeniorLecturer, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide,
Australia manfred.jusaitis@sa.gov.au

Introduction
Corunna daisy (Brachyscome muelleri) Sonder (Asteraceae) is a narrow-range
endemic annual herb occupying a small (0.03 km2) and extremely specialised
fertile niche on steep cliff-foot slopes of the Baxter Hills (upper Eyre Peninsula)near Iron Knob in South Australia. This is a semi-arid region with a Mediterranean
climate, hot summers and predominantly winter rainfall (annual average of 222mm). The plant germinates from seed after season-breaking rains in autumn,
developing a rosette of glabrous, pinnatipartite leaves. Flowers have white to pale-mauve ‘petals’ and develop progressively during late winter and spring on robust
peduncles. Small black achenes are dispersed a short distance away from theparent plant in mid-spring, and plants senesce during late spring as temperaturesrise and soil moisture declines (Jusaitis et al., 2003). The plant has an extremely
small and localised distribution and is vulnerable to catastrophic events that could
initiate rapid extinction. Its habitat is frequented by feral goats and rabbits and it is
not represented in any protected reserves. The species is listed as Endangered
under the Australian Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), and assessed as Critically Endangered under
IUCN (2001) criteria (CR B1&2ab(i)(ii)(iii)).

Goals
x Goal 1: Increase thearea of occupancy of B.
muelleri by introducing
a new satellite
subpopulation.
x Goal 2: Examine thenatural spread of the
new population fromthe site of introduction.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Successful
establishment of a new
population as indicatedby annual recruitment,

Brachyscome muelleri plant showing leaves,buds and flowers © M. Jusaitis

263

Plants
flowering, reproduction and seed set over a period of 17 years following
introduction.
x Indicator 2: Record the maximum distance recruits spread from the original
point of introduction.

Project Summary
B. muelleri seedlings were raised in the nursery during winter of 1997 andtranslocated to two sites in the Baxter Hills in September of that year. The firstsite was within the natural population, while the second (western site) was about
1.5 km NW of the natural population in an area where the plant had not beenfound historically, but was edaphically and floristically similar to its natural habitat.
A 1 m x 1 m quadrat subdivided into 100 grids (10 cm x 10 cm) was used as aplanting template and 20 B. muelleri seedlings (6 weeks old) were planted into a
specified grid pattern within the quadrat. Three replicate plots of 20 plants wereplanted at each site. Recruitment was assessed annually (over 17 years), during
flowering, by counting plants at all developmental stages within each quadrat. At
the western site, recruits found outside the quadrats were also counted, andlateral spread of the new population was quantified by recording the maximum
distance recruits had spread from the original point of translocation. Results after
the first four years of monitoring were reported earlier (Jusaitis et al., 2004), andhere I update progress up until the present, 17 years after the translocation.
Early monitoring showed abundant seedling regeneration during the first winterafter translocation, followed by a decline in seedling numbers over the following
two years, with numbers swelling again in the fourth year. Since then, a regularcyclical pattern of recruitment has emerged over 17 years (Figure 1). The
observed cycle has a period of 3 - 4 years, and in each year immediately
following a peak, seedling numbers fell dramatically. The maximum number ofregenerants was observed in the eighth year after translocation, when about 450
seedlings were counted in the new subpopulation. Over the last three years plant
numbers have declined, largely due to a corresponding increase in weeds,
predominantly
Figure 1. Annual recruitment of Brachyscome muelleri at its
Fumaria capreolata
satellite introduction site over 16 years.
and Sisymbrium
erysimoides. This
cycle did not appear
to be correlated withannual rainfall, andif it is real, may berelated to dormancycycling phenomenain the seed.
Although not as
marked, a similar
cyclical recruitment
pattern wasobservedconcurrently in the

264Plants
natural population.
Ongoing monitoring will be
required to confirm its
repeatability and tounderstand its underlying
mechanisms.
Seeds of B. muelleri areshed in the immediate
vicinity of parent plants(Jusaitis et al., 2003).
However, spread of new
recruits away from theinitial point of introduction
was observed within thefirst four years ofobservation. Expansion of
Cliff-foot slopes of the Baxter Hills, habitat ofthe population was
B. muelleri © M. Jusaitis
predominantly in a
downhill direction and seedlings were found at distances of up to 15 m downslope from the original plots. This observation suggested that short-range gravityassisted seed movement occurred, possibly aided by rain splash and waterrivulets during periods of intense rainfall (Jusaitis et al., 2003). No long-distanceseed dispersal mechanisms were apparent, and may explain why the species has
such a restricted distribution.

Major difficulties facedx Locating a new translocation site with similar edaphic, microclimatic and biotic
features to the natural habitat of B. muelleri proved difficult.
x Steep cliff-foot slopes together with loose surface scree made monitoring
difficult and great care was needed to minimize disturbance to the unstablesoil surface layers while working at the site.
x The unique habitat requirements of B. muelleri, lack of long-distance dispersal
mechanisms, and significant distances between suitable habitats indicate that
this species is unlikely to spread substantially from its present location without
human intervention.
x Population spread was limited by seed dispersal mechanisms and availabilityof suitable habitat.
x Herbaceous weeds and feral goats have the potential to threaten new andnatural populations of B. muelleri (Jusaitis et al., 2004).

Major lessons learnedx Alternative sites within the Baxter Hills were capable of supporting an
introduced B. muelleri population.
x Flowering, seed set, seed dispersal and natural recruitment of B. muelleri were
all observed at the new translocation site over a period of 17 years.

265Plantsx Annual recruitment was found to fluctuate in a cyclical fashion over the time ofobservation, with a period of roughly 3 - 4 years between peaks in seedlingnumbers.
x Years when no seedlings were seen did not necessarily signify that the
population had become extinct.ȱx Seeds shed in the immediate vicinity of parent plants were able to move shortdistances through the action of gravity, wind and water, but long-distancedispersal was not observed.ȱ

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reasons for success/failure:x Successful growth and regeneration of B. muelleri was observed in a newsatellite subpopulation over a period of 17 years.
x Years where no seedlings were seen were interspersed with years of goodregeneration, suggesting that recruitment may follow a regular cyclical pattern
independent of rainfall.
x Prolific quantities of seed were produced when plants were plentiful, and shortdistance seed movement encouraged population spread (Jusaitis et al., 2003).
x The establishment of a new sub-population of B. muelleri has spread the riskof localized catastrophic failures and reduced the chance of genetic erosion.
x The cooperation of the owners of Corunna Station in allowing this research to
be carried out on their property is gratefully acknowledged.

References
IUCN. (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species
Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Jusaitis, M., Sorensen, B. & Polomka, L. (2003) Reproductive biology of theendangered Brachycome muelleri (Asteraceae), an endemic herb of Eyre
Peninsula, South Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 51: 179-188.
Jusaitis, M., Polomka, L. & Sorensen, B. (2004) Habitat specificity, seedgermination and experimental translocation of the endangered herb Brachycome
muelleri (Asteraceae). Biological Conservation 116: 251-266.

266

Plants

Experimental translocation of the Peep Hill hopbush into conservation reserves in the semi-arid
Mallee of South Australia
Manfred Jusaitis
Senior Biologist, South Australian Seed Conservation Centre, Botanic Gardens of
Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, Australia; Affiliate SeniorLecturer, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide,
Australia manfred.jusaitis@sa.gov.au

Introduction
The Peep Hill hop-bush (Dodonaea subglandulifera JG West) (Sapindaceae) is adioecious, erect shrub to 2 m high. It flowers from February to June, seedcapsules mature between August and December, and seeds dehisce over thewarmer months of December and January (Jusaitis & Sorensen, 1994). The plantis endemic to South Australia and restricted to several disjunct populations in thesemi-arid mallee areas of the South Australian Murray Darling Basin, with an
outlying population near Wallaroo on the upper Yorke Peninsula (Moritz &Bickerton, 2010). It is usually found on loamy soils over limestone or slate, on
private land or roadsides. None of the known wild populations occur inconservation reserves. The main threats to the species include herbivore grazing
and environmental weeds. Roadside populations are usually small and isolated
and can be subject to road maintenance and agricultural activities. Dodonaeas
produce copious amounts of small, light pollen and are typically wind pollinated(West, 1993), so adequate cross-pollination is generally assured within subpopulations. The species is listed as Endangered under the AustralianCommonwealth
Environmental Protection
and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act), and assessed
as Vulnerable under IUCN
(2001) criteria (VU
B1&2ab(iii,v)).

Goals
x Goal 1: Safeguard thenatural populations ofD. subglandulifera by
establishing new
populations in two
protected and secureconservation reserves.

Dodonaea subglandulifera shoot showing
leaves and fruit © B. Sorensen

267

Plantsx Goal 2: Examine the influence of founder propagule on translocation success.
x Goal 3: Examine the influence of herbivore grazing on plant establishment
following direct seeding.

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Survival, flowering, reproduction and recruitment of D.
subglandulifera over a period of 20 years following translocation to suitablesecure sites.
x Indicator 2: The completion of an experimental translocation to evaluate theeffect of founder propagule type on establishment success.
x Indicator 3: The completion of an experimental translocation to evaluate theeffect of herbivores on plant establishment from direct seeding.

Project Summary
Dodonaea subglandulifera was translocated into two protected conservationparks; Yookamurra Sanctuary, secured against rabbits and feral animals by a 2 mhigh electric fence around its boundary, and Brookfield Conservation Park,ostensibly free-range to rabbits, goats and other vermin. These parks arerespectively 8 and 15 km from the nearest wild population of D. subglandulifera
and are the closest conserved areas with similar habitat and soil types to those in
the natural range of the species. Yookamurra has a slightly higher averageannual rainfall (270 mm) than Brookfield (248 mm).
Seed collected form the nearby Peep Hill population in February 1991 was used
to raise seedlings for translocation and also as a source of seed for direct seeding
trials. Five-month-old nursery-raised seedlings were transplanted to three sites ineach park in June 1992 (30 plants per site, laid out as 3 replicates of 10 plants).
At the same time, direct seeding trials were set up at a single site in each park.
Seed was pre-treated by soaking in just-boiled water for 30 seconds, then kept
moist until sown thenext day (Sorensen &Jusaitis, 1995). Control
seed was untreatedand sown dry. Small
plots (1 m2) werecleared of vegetationand the soil surface
was loosened using afire rake. Seed was
mixed with coarse sandand sprinkled evenly
over plots (50 seed/plot, 3 replicates). Soil
was tamped downusing the flat end of afire rake. Herbivore
Two rows of seedlings 3 years after transplanting
grazing was studied byat Yookamurra Sanctuary © M. Jusaitis

268

Plants
covering a proportion of
emerged seedlings withwire baskets to exclude
herbivores.
Direct seeding andherbivory: Seed
pretreatment with boilingwater was essential for
germination, and up to a
maximum of 14% ofpretreated seedgerminated during the firstspring and summer aftersowing. Survival of
6 yr. old plant from the direct seeding trial atseedlings declined over
Brookfield Conservation Park © M. Jusaitis
the next summer as aresult of moisture stress,
leaving only 15% of emerged seedlings surviving at Yookamurra and 30% at
Brookfield. Seedlings covered with wire baskets grew significantly taller at bothsites than those exposed to grazers. At Brookfield, unprotected seedlings werelargely destroyed as a result of grazing within 2 - 3 years, while at Yookamurra
survival was not affected by grazing because of ongoing vermin control andeffective exclusion fencing surrounding the sanctuary. Survival remained constantat these levels for the next 11 years, until a series of severe drought years (2006 2009) resulted in the loss of all remaining seedlings at both sites by September
2008. Although seedlings had reached heights of 600 mm by this time, they had
not developed sufficiently robust root systems to withstand several consecutive
years of below average rainfall. Fruit was observed on Brookfield plants 10 years
after sowing.
Transplants: Seedling transplants of D. subglandulifera showed an averagesurvival of 70% in Yookamurra Sanctuary, and between 50% - 60% at Brookfield
after 10 yrs. Growth differences between sites at Yookamurra were attributed toedaphic factors, and the reduced survival at Brookfield was largely a result of
herbivore grazing and burrowing activities evident in the park. At one
translocation site at Brookfield no plants survived beyond their second year due toherbivore activity. Transplants at both parks first developed fruit in their fourthyear. By 14 years (2006) after transplanting, plants at Yookamurra and Brookfield
had reached average heights of 600 mm and 400 mm respectively. When the
drought came in 2006, the Yookamurra site lost nearly 70% of its surviving plants,
while Brookfield lost only 15% as a result of severe moisture stress. This
interesting result may be due to the larger Yookamurra plants requiring moremoisture to support their larger leaf canopies than the smaller Brookfield plants,
thus enabling the latter to survive a longer period of soil water deficit. Dieback
generally occurred from the shoot tips, down, and in a few instances apparently
dead plants were found to resprout from basal stems and to recover once goodrains returned.

269

Plants
In summary, transplants formed the more effective founder propagule for thisspecies. While grazing was not a significant threat to larger plants, it did affectsmall seedlings developing through their early growth stages, particularly at
Brookfield where herbivores were more prevalent. All seedlings developing as aresult of the direct seeding trial were lost during the drought of 2006 - 2009. Of
the original transplanted seedlings, 13% still survive at Yookamurra and 45%
survive at Brookfield 20 years after translocation. While Yookamurra encouraged
more rapid early growth of transplants possibly due to its higher rainfall, theseplants also suffered more as a result of the prolonged drought than did the
Brookfield planting. Although plants were observed to flower and set fruit, no newrecruits were seen at either site over the course of 20 years.

Major difficulties facedx Lack of suitable conserved habitat within the population range of D.
subglandulifera in South Australia resulted in translocation occurring outside it.
x Both Yookamurra and Brookfield parks are in lower rainfall areas than thenaturally occurring populations of D. subglandulifera, and this has contributed
to lower growth and survival rates and higher plant losses than expected innatural populations.
x Several consecutive years of below average rainfall (2006 - 2009) contributed
to severe plant losses at both translocation sites.
x Plant losses were experienced at Brookfield due to herbivore grazing andburrowing activities.

Major lessons learnedx Transplanted D. subglandulifera seedlings were able to establish and survive
more successfully than directly sown seed, as evidenced by the complete
extermination of direct sown seedlings as a result of the 2006 - 2009 drought.
x Protection of small seedlings from the effects of herbivores improved
establishment success, particularly at Brookfield where rabbits, goats andkangaroos were more prevalent.
x Larger, established plants were not susceptible to grazing, although dieback ofshoot tips was observed in response to severe water stress.
x Lower growth rates, delayed flowering, reduced seed set, and plant losses due
to drought and water stress suggest that the translocation sites chosen inthese two parks may be less than optimal habitats for D. subglandulifera.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reasons for success/failure:x Good survival, growth, flowering and fruiting of transplants was observed atthree sites in Yookamurra Sanctuary and at two sites in Brookfield
Conservation park after 20 years, although no new recruitment was observed
over that time.

270

Plantsx The highly effective 2 m high electric fence around the Yookamurra Sanctuary
was crucial to exclude feral animals from grazing or disrupting transplants.
x Demonstrated that the source of founder propagule (seed vs. transplants) hada significant influence on translocation success.
x Severe, prolonged drought between 2006 and 2009 caused total loss of
emerged plants in direct-seeded trials, and significant losses in transplant
trials. Losses may have been exacerbated by the already low average annual
rainfall at these two sites.
x Preliminary research on propagation methods for D. subglandulifera(Sorensen & Jusaitis, 1995) enabled large numbers of plants to be propagatedwhen required for translocation.
x Commitment to long-term management and monitoring of translocatedpopulations ensured goals were successfully achieved.
x The commitment of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy and Conservation
Volunteers Australia to maintaining Yookamurra Sanctuary and Brookfield
Conservation Park respectively as conservation sanctuaries for wildlife, and forsupporting research and education on threatened species is acknowledged.

References
IUCN. (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species
Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Jusaitis, M. & Sorensen, B. (1994) Conservation studies on endangered plant
species from South Australia’s agricultural regions. Black Hill Flora Centre,
Botanic Gardens of Adelaide, South Australia.
Moritz, K.N. & Bickerton, D.C. (2010) Recovery plan for the Peep Hill hop-bushDodonaea subglandulifera 2010. Report to the Recovery Planning and
Implementation Section, Australian Government Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
Sorensen, B. & Jusaitis, M. (1995) Seed germination of endangered South
Australian plants. Proceedings of the International Plant Propagators' Society 45:
86-92.
West, J. (1993) Hopbushes on the wind. Australian Plants 17: 225-226.

271

Plants

Conservation translocation of the large-headed
daisy to Mount Bold, South Australia
Rina Aleman1, Manfred Jusaitis2, Joan Gibbs3 & Sophie Petit4
1- PhD Student, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide,
South Australia, 5000, Australia rina.aleman@yahoo.com
2- Senior Biologist, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide,
South Australia, 5000, Australia; Affiliate Senior Lecturer, School of Earth andEnvironmental Sciences, University of Adelaide manfred.jusaitis@sa.gov.au
3- Ecologist, School of Natural and Built Environments, University ofSouth Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia
joan.gibbs@unisa.edu.au
4- Ecologist, School of Natural and Built Environments, University ofSouth Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095,
Australia sophie.petit@unisa.edu.au

Introduction
Brachyscome diversifolia (Graham ex Hook.) Fischer and Meyer (Compositae) isa perennial daisy with tufted leaves and long peduncles up to 30 cm, terminatingin white flowers. Flowering occurs between spring and early summer and flowers
readily set seed (Salkin et al., 1995). Brachyscome diversifolia occurs in open
woodland forest on steep rocky slopes and gullies, and on coastal cliffs (Salkin etal., 1995). There are two small extant populations of B. diversifolia in South
Australia, one at Scott Creek Conservation Park and the other at Ironbank, both in
the Adelaide Hills within 20 km of each other. Populations are restricted in South
Australia because of the species’ specialised habitat preferences. Potential
threats to the species include grazing by slugs and snails (Salkin et al., 1995),
weed invasion (Wilson &Bignall, 2009), tramplingof populations along hiking
trails, and limited suitable
habitat. The species isendangered in South
Australia (National Parks
and Wildlife Act 1972). It
also occurs in New South
Wales, Victoria, andTasmania, but is not listed
as threatened in thesestates. The South
Australian population has
biogeographic and genetic
significance as it
represents the westernTranslocants flowering and setting seed 6 months
after transplanting © M. Jusaitis

272

Plants
most outlier for the
species, significantly
disjunct from its nearest
neighbour in Victoria.

Goals
x Goal 1: Extend thenatural population of B.
diversifolia by reintroducing it to aputative historic site.
x Goal 2: Determine any
threats to the survivaland establishment of
the species.
x Goal 3: Examine theinfluence of Ambiol
seed-pretreatment ontranslocation success.

Grazing damage to Brachyscome diversifolia leaves
three months after planting © M. Jusaitis

Success Indicatorsx Indicator 1: Survival, reproduction and recruitment of B. diversifolia over ten
years following translocation.
x Indicator 2: The completion of monitoring to ascertain any threats to survivaland growth of translocants.
x Indicator 3: Increased knowledge of how Ambiol might be used to improve thesurvival and health of translocants.

Project Summary
Feasibility: The translocation site was located in the water catchment ofMount Bold Reservoir, a secure natural bush site protected from direct humandisturbance. The site was chosen because of similarities in slope, aspect andvegetation to remnant habitat sites, and because the species had been previously
recorded at the Mount Bold water catchment (State Herbarium of South Australia
records, 1993 & 1994). The translocation site has a steep, rocky south-facing
slope supporting an open woodland forest above a thick understorey of grasses
and herbs. The extreme steepness of the cliff made the process of planting andmonitoring quite difficult.
Implementation: Translocants were raised in a glasshouse from seedcollected from a naturally occurring population at Scott Creek Conservation Park,approximately 10 km from the translocation site. The existing population at Scott
Creek is very small (<200 plants), and one of only two naturally occurring
populations in South Australia.
As part of the translocation, Ambiol (2-methyl-4-[diethylaminomethyl]-5hydroxybenzimidazol dihydrochloride) was tested to determine if it could improvesurvival and growth of translocants. Ambiol has been effective in improving

273

Plants
seedling growth andrelieving drought stress ofagricultural plants such as
tomato (MacDonald et al.,2010) and carrot (Lada etal., 2005), and North
American pine trees(Borsos-Matovina andBlake, 2001), but has notbeen tested on Australiannative plants. To test theeffect of Ambiol, seeds
were pretreated bysoaking in 10 mg/L Ambiol
for 24 hours before
sowing. An equivalent
numberof seeds wereTranslocation site in the Mt. Bold Reservoir waterpresoaked for the samecatchment area © R. Aleman
length of time in water.
Control seeds received
neither pretreatment. The seeds were then germinated in petri dishes for eightweeks before being transplanted to 50 mm (diameter) tubes containing
commercial potting mix and grown on in a glasshouse until seedlings werevigorous enough (10 weeks old) to survive at the translocation site.
Planting at the translocation site occurred in June 2011, during the wet season
when soil was moist. Seedlings (10 weeks old) were planted in a prescribed
planting pattern using a 1 m2 quadrat subdivided into 100 grids (10 cm x 10 cm).
Five plants of each pretreatment (Ambiol, water, no pretreatment control) wererandomized within each quadrat, and quadrats were replicated six times over an
area of approximately 25 m x 10 m. At planting, and thereafter at approximately
three-monthly intervals, rosette diameter, plant height (to highest emerged
peduncle if plants were in bud), number of healthy leaves, number of peduncles,
grazing damage, and plant health rating (scale of 1-5, 1 = dead, 5 = alive andcompletely healthy) were recorded.
Post-translocation monitoring: A year after translocation, 81% of alltranslocants survived. Most of the plants experienced their usual die-back insummer as the soil dried out, and re-sprouted again from root stocks following
opening rains in autumn. The plants derived from seed pretreated with Ambiol
failed to show any significant difference in survival, growth or health compared towater-pretreated or control plants, all three groups performing equally well. Fivemonths after planting (November), most plants had produced flowers and weresetting seeds. However, no new recruitment was observed during the following
winter.
Although about 60% of plants were observed with some minor grazing damage,this did not seem to affect plant survival. The damage was possibly caused by274

Plantssnails, slugs or caterpillars, but plants seemed to be able to withstand a small
degree of leaf damage by regrowing new leaves from the central meristem.
Despite the observed grazing, 81% of plants survived after 56 weeks, suggestingthat grazing does not constitute an immediate threat to survival. So far the site
appears to be an ideal weed-free habitat for the species. We intend to continue
monitoring the trial and time will tell whether the long-term sustainability of thetranslocation will be assured through recruitment of new individuals.

Major difficulties facedx The extreme steepness of the slope at the translocation site made planting
and monitoring difficult.
x Invertebrate predation was observed on some plants over a year ofmonitoring, and will need to be monitored to ensure it does not become a longterm problem.
x Recruitment was difficult to assess in the early stages because of a dense
herbaceous layer. New recruits may only become evident after they reach acertain size and emerge from this layer.

Major lessons learnedx Selecting a translocation site as similar as possible (aspect, slope, vegetation
associations) to the original habitat was very important for the success of thistranslocation.
x Invertebrate grazing did not significantly affect survival of plants over one year,
but may cause long-term issues and will continue to be monitored.
x Recruitment of new plants may be a slow process, as no new individuals wereseen one year after planting, even though flowering and seed production were
prolific during the previous season.
x Ambiol applied as a seed pretreatment had no effect on survival, growth orhealth of plants. This may be because the translocation site received ample
rainfall and plants were not subjected to water stress. Preconditioning seedwith Ambiol is thought to promote drought tolerance in many plants.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reasons for success/failure:x The survival rate after the first year was good (81%), and 97% of all surviving
plants were healthy, even though some invertebrate grazing was observed. It
may be too early to observe recruitment yet, as young plants may remain
hidden beneath the herbaceous layer until they emerge. Long-term success ispredicated on successful recruitment and this will continue to be monitored.
x Selection of a suitable habitat for the translocation site was critical to success.
x Use of locally-sourced seed may have contributed to successful plantestablishment because of similar climate and habitat features to the seedlings’
original habitat.

275

Plantsx The commitment of the South Australian Water Corporation to maintaining theMount Bold catchment as a conservation zone and for supporting research on
threatened species is acknowledged.ȱ

References
Borsos-Matovina V. & Blake T. J. (2001) Seed treatment with the antioxidant
Ambiol enhances membrane protection in seedlings exposed to drought and low
temperatures. Trees 15: 163-167.ȱ
Lada R. R., Stiles A. & Blake T. J. (2005) The effects of natural and synthetic
seed preconditioning agents (SPAs) in hastening seedling emergence andenhancing yield and quality of processing carrots. Scientia Horticulturae 106: 2537.ȱ
MacDonald M. T., Lada R. R., Robinson A. R. & Hoyle J. (2010) The benefits ofAmbiol in promoting germination, growth, and drought tolerance can be passedon the next-generation tomato seedlings. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation 29:357-365.ȱ
Salkin E., Thomlinson G., Armstrong B., Courtney B. & Schaumann M. (1995)
Australian Brachyscomes. The Australian Daisy Study Group, Victoria, Australia.ȱ
Wilson, A. & Bignall, J. (2009) Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species
and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges, South
Australia. Department for Environment & Heritage, South Australia.ȱ

276

Plants

Conservation introduction of Bakersfield
cactus in the southern San Joaquin Valley,
California, USA
Brian Cypher1, Ellen Cypher2 & Brianna Borders1
1- Endangered Species Recovery Program, California State University-Stanislaus,
One University Circle, Turlock, CA 95382, USAbcypher@esrp.csustan.edu & okra311@hotmail.com
2- California Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 9622, Bakersfield,
CA 93389, USA Ellen.Cypher@wildlife.ca.gov

Introduction
Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei) is a perennial stem succulent
in the cactus family (Cactaceae) and is endemic to Kern County in central
California, USA. Bakersfield cactus occurs on floodplains, low rolling hills, ridges,
and bluffs (USFWS, 1998). Soils commonly are well-drained and are sandy or
gravelly with little silt, clay, or organic matter, and may contain cobbles orboulders. Plant communities include chenopod scrub, grasslands, and dry oak
woodlands (USFWS, 1998 & 2011). Many sites with Bakersfield cactus havebeen converted to agricultural and urban uses and petroleum production.
Approximately one-third of known populations have been extirpated; theremaining populations are fragmented and generally occur on small parcels(Cypher et al., 2011b). Populations continue to be lost, and habitat conditions arebeing degraded for some remaining populations. Consequently, the taxon is listed
as Federal and California Endangered. This taxon currently has no IUCN status.
The establishment ofadditional populations
could contributesignificantly to theconservation and ultimate
recovery of Bakersfield
cactus. Translocation andintroduction is a potential
strategy for establishing
new populations for thisspecies. We attempted
two experimental
translocations using shedpads and small plants inan effort to establish new
populations in suitable but
unoccupied habitat.
Cactus in native habitat showing threats from
non-native grass and agricultural conversion

277

Plants
Goals
x Goal 1: Establish new
populations of Bakersfield
cactus in suitable but
unoccupied habitat.
x Goal 2: Evaluate
methods for effectivelytranslocating andestablishing Bakersfield
cactus.

Success Indicators

Co-authors translocating a Bakersfield cactus plantx Indicator 1: Rooting andsurvival of translocatedcactus pads for at least 2
years.
x Indicator 2: Survival oftranslocated plants for atleast 2 years.
x Indicator 3: Growth and survival of new pads on translocated pads and plants.
x Indicator 4: Development of guidelines and procedures for future translocation
efforts.

Project Summary
Feasibility: Feasibility issues for this project included biological,
environmental and socio-political considerations. Biological feasibility wasdeemed to be high. Translocation, particularly of pads (i.e., stem segments,
cladodes), was considered to have a high probability of success because
Bakersfield cactus, typical of many cacti, easily reproduces vegetatively throughthe shedding and rooting of pads. Furthermore, pads and plants were going to beplanted in optimal microsites in that the site would be cleared of competitors(Cypher & Fiehler, 2006), the soil bed would be loosened to facilitate moisturepenetration and root development, and solid ground contact would be ensured tofurther facilitate rooting. Finally, Bakersfield cactus had been translocatedsuccessfully previously, although in small numbers.
Environmental feasibility was also deemed to be high because the two
introduction sites chosen were located within the historic range of Bakersfield
cactus, and indeed, were only approximately 500 m and 100 m, respectively, fromexisting cactus populations. Topography and soils at both sites were consistent
with conditions occurring within existing populations. Bakersfield cactus is absent
from numerous locations with apparently suitable conditions, probably due to past
disturbances (now mitigated) or dispersal limitations (e.g. movement uphill isprobably rare). Thus, the potential for the remaining habitat to support more
populations is high.
Socio-political considerations may present the greatest challenge to feasibility. In
general, there is considerable resistance in the region to expanding the278Plants
distribution of Bakersfield cactus, or any other rare species, due to regulatory
restrictions concomitant with the presence of such species. Thus, the potential forestablishing new populations is limited to lands and landowners dedicated to theprotection of natural resources. Also, the agencies overseeing endangered
species conservation further restrict any translocations to lands that will be legallyconserved in perpetuity. Despite these restrictions, a number of sites in the region
meet all the criteria above (e.g., suitable habitat, permanent protection, willing
landowners) and potentially are available for the establishment of cactus
populations.
Implementation: Bakersfield cactus pads and plants were collected from a
population approximately 4.5 km and 2.5 km, respectively, from the two
introduction sites. For the first effort conducted in October 2009 (Cypher et al.,2011a), 10 small plants and 25 shed pads were collected from a protected portionof the source population. For the second effort conducted in January 2011, pads
and partial plants were collected from an unprotected portion of the source
population that was undergoing active conversion to citrus orchards. At the
introduction sites, all vegetation was cleared from a 0.25 m2 area for each pad orplant. The soil at the site was loosened to a depth of ca. 20 cm - 30 cm. In both
efforts, plants were installed by hand-digging a small excavation and theninstalling the plant and filling the hole with local soil. In the first effort, pads werelaid horizontally (flat side down) at each planting site and secured with a woodenskewer. In the second effort, the pads were partially buried in the soil in one ofthree orientations: horizontal, vertical (upright), or on edge. All pads and plants
were then thoroughly watered
Issues considered included precipitation, competition, and cattle. The region isarid and precipitation is unpredictable. On average, the region receives ca. 16 cm
of precipitation annually. Therefore, we occasionally provided supplemental water
to plants at each site as we deemed necessary. The first site was watered twotimes before soil moisturefrom natural precipitation
was deemed sufficient.
The second site waswatered two times,
including one during thesummer following planting.
In addition to clearing
vegetation prior toplanting, we also handpulled vegetation fromaround cactus plants
during the first year to
reduce competition for soil
moisture. To prevent injury
Cactus under cattle guard - note flower bud,new pads and non-native grass competitors

279

Plants
to plants from cattle, we inserted two bent steel bars over plants to discourage
trampling by cows.
Post-planting monitoring: At both introduction sites, success wasmonitored by visiting each site periodically and determining whether plants werestill alive, and whether any flowering or vegetative reproduction had occurred. At
the first site, nine of the 10 translocated plants were still alive (90% survival) after
34 months. However, only four of the 25 translocated pads were still alive (16%survival). The four pads that survived were among the heavier pads translocated.
Some plants had flowered, and at least two plants had shed pads that
subsequently rooted. Some cattle damage was noted, but only on plants that had
not been protected with the steel bars. At the second introduction site, 100% oftranslocated plants were still alive after 25 months and several had flowered.
Among partially buried pads, those with a vertical orientation had higher survival
rates (mean 89%), than those laid horizontally (63%) or on edge (60%).

Major difficulties facedx Agency restrictions on size and quantity of cactus removed from the source
population.
x Plants with many pads disarticulated during transport or planting.
x Survival of transplants, especially pads, during the dry summer season.
x Invasive plants colonizing the cleared bedding areas.

Major lessons learnedx Small plants are preferable to pads for translocation. Plants that are too large
disarticulate during the process, and pads have lower survival rates.
x Pads should be placed upright in pots and allowed to develop roots prior to
outplanting. This has been successfully implemented by a local preserve thatlearned from our effort, and five new populations of Bakersfield cactus havebeen established at the preserve.
x Larger, heavier pads tend to grow faster and have higher survival rates.
x Control of competitors is essential, both before and after transplanting.
x Watering during the first one or two summers increases survival rates.

Success of project
Highly Successful

Successful

Partially Successful

Failure¥Reason(s) for success/failure:x Anticipating and addressing many of the potential difficulties prior to
implementation.
x Relative ease of propagating succulents compared to herbaceous or woody
plants.

280

Plants
References
Cypher, B. L., B. D. Borders, C. L. Van Horn Job, & E. A. Cypher. (2011a)
Restoration strategies for Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei): trial
population establishment at the Bena Landfill Conservation Area. California State
University-Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program, Turlock,
California, USA. Available at: http://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/pdf/
esrp_2011_bakersfieldcactus_translocation.pdf
Cypher, B. L., E. N. Tennant, C. L. Van Horn Job, and S. E. Phillips. (2011b)
Status survey for Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei). California
State University-Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program, Turlock,
California, USA. Available at: http://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/pdf/
esrp_2011_bakersfieldcactus_statussurvey.pdf
Cypher, E. & C. Fiehler. (2006) Preliminary study to determine the effect of
nonnative grasses on the survival and reproduction of Bakersfield cactus.
California State University-Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program,
Fresno, California, USA. Available at: http://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/pdf/
esrp_2006_bacasurvival.pdf
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). (1998) Recovery plan for
upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. United States Fish andWildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. Available at: http://esrp.csustan.edu/
publications/recoveryplan.php
USFWS. (2011) Bakersfield cactus, 5-year review: summary and evaluation.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California, USA. Available
at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3888.pdf

281

NOTES………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
282