ISIS database: An evaluation of records essential for captive management

Abstract

AbstractSpecies databases are essential for the scientific management of species and specimens in captive wildlife populations. Population managers in North America base their decisions on information in two databases:the International Species Information System (ISIS) and American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) approved regional studbooks. Genetic and demographic management of species relies on studbooks, whereas regional collection planning and management by Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGs) may use a combination of studbooks, direct surveys, and data from ISIS. Use of ISIS data as the primary basis for population management and collection planning is increasing, yet there has been no assessment of how ISIS data differ from studbooks. Thus these databases were compared to determine if they are interchangeable for the purposes of regional collection planning or species management. Population sizes of living individuals in 68 SSP© taxa were compared to assess the magnitude of differences between the databases. Differences in population size were considerable and highly variable; ISIS on average underestimated the number of living animals in SSP© taxa populations. Ten studbooks were also analyzed in detail to identify specific types of discrepancies between the two databases. On average, 19.2 ± 2.2% of the information in the ISIS database differed from that in the studbook. Most discrepancies derived from data that were either missing from, or incorrect in, the ISIS database. The most common discrepancies involve parents who were either unidentified or misidentified in the ISIS database (x̄ = 37.5 ± 5.7% of all records). No single type of discrepancy, however, was prevalent across all 10 species; the overall rate of discrepancies per species was attributable to a combination of discrepancies peculiar to each species. Protocols concerning data entry standards, data collection, and the scope of data collected are likely causes of most discrepancies. In its present form, the ISIS database is not appropriate for single species management; if used cautiously, it can be of assistance in the development of regional collection plans. Development of an ISIS database that is suitable for population management will require an increased commitment to data quality by records keepers, zoological institutions, and ISIS. © 1995 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.