Science Of Reintroduction Research Articles

Free Flight Training as a Tool for Psittacine Reintroductions

As habitat loss and other threats accelerate, ecological restoration and reintroduction science are becoming progressively more important. The psittacines are among the most endangered bird groups and are prime candidates for restoration through reintroduction. Unfortunately, post-release survival of captive-raised animals is often quite low because, in part, of high predation rates, low site fidelity, poor flight ability, and low flock cohesion. Current best practices in parrot release hold the birds in captivity for a year or more and include distinct methods to address each of these challenges. Here, we conduct a small-scale, proof-of-concept study using free flight methods and human-socialized trained adult birds to hand raise and release a group of six fledgling Blue-and-yellow Macaws in their historical range in southeastern Brazil. All six released birds showed strong flock cohesion and fidelity to the release site, avoided predation, and survived without supplemental feeding for over one year. One bird was captured by local people but was recovered and rereleased and it has reintegrated into the group and is still alive and doing well. The human-socialized trained adult birds modeled both desirable behaviors (flocking, foraging, reacting to predators) and undesirable behaviors and they were returned to captivity before the conclusion of this study. Our study suggests that free flight training has great potential to help captive-raised young attain a broad array of vital skills needed for survival post-release.

Using genetic data to advance stream fish reintroduction science: a case study in brook trout

Widespread extirpation of native fish populations has led to a rise in species reintroduction efforts worldwide. Most efforts have relied on demographic data alone to guide project design and evaluate success. However, the genetic characteristics of many imperiled fish populations including low diversity, local adaptation, and hatchery introgression emphasize the importance of genetic data in the design and monitoring of reintroduction efforts. Focusing on a case study of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in North Carolina, we show how the combined use of genetic and demographic data can support reintroduction efforts by improving source population selection and providing opportunities to evaluate genetic viability and adaptive potential in restored populations. Using this combined approach, we reintroduced brook trout into a restored stream from two source populations and monitored changes in genetic diversity and population size in source and recipient populations. Three years after the initial translocation, the reintroduced population had comparable density, but higher genetic diversity, than either source population. This study demonstrates the utility of genetic and demographic data for reintroduction efforts, particularly when extant populations are genetically depauperate and maintaining adaptive potential is a primary restoration goal. However, we emphasize the value of continued monitoring at longer temporal and spatial scales to determine the effects of stochastic process on the long‐term adaptive capacity and persistence of reintroduced populations. Overall, inclusion of genetic data in reintroduction efforts offers increased ability to meet project goals while simultaneously conserving critical sources of adaptive variation that exist across the landscape.

Reintroduction of fishes in Canada: a review of research progress for SARA-listed species

Fishes are among the most threatened taxa in Canada with over 70 species, subspecies, and (or) designatable units presently listed for protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Protecting these species requires a diverse set of strategies based on the best-available data and information. One approach identified under SARA and in Canadian federal recovery strategies for improving the status of SARA-listed fishes is species reintroduction, which involves the release of individuals into areas from which they have been extirpated with the goal of re-establishing self-sustaining populations. The success of reintroduction relies on a comprehensive understanding of species ecology and life history, with considerations around population genetics and genomics. However, SARA-listed species are some of the most poorly known species in Canada due to their rarity and relative lack of research investment prior to the enactment of SARA. As a result, SARA-listed species have the most to lose if reintroduction activities are not carefully researched, planned, and executed. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to present an accessible summary on the state of reintroduction science for SARA-listed fishes in Canada with the hope of motivating future research to support reintroduction activities. We focus our review on 14 SARA-listed freshwater or anadromous fishes identified as candidates for reintroduction in federal recovery strategies. We follow the species-specific summaries with guidance on how basic research questions in population ecology, habitat science, and threat science provide a critical foundation for addressing knowledge gaps in reintroduction science. Subsequently, we identify the importance of genetic and genomic techniques for informing future research on the reintroduction of SARA-listed species. We conclude with recommendations for active, experimental approaches for moving reintroduction efforts forward to recover Canadian fishes.

Reintroduction and De-extinction

We are entering an age in which species extinction may be reversible. De-extinction, as it has been labeled, can apply to any species for which DNA can be recovered, from woolly mammoths of the Pleistocene to thylacines and passenger pigeons from the twentieth century. These developments, which were showcased in March 2013 at a daylong conference called TEDxDeExtinction, held in Washington, DC, (http:// tedxdeextinction.org), are exciting to some scientists and terrifying to others. If we are to embark on this de-extinction journey, an act some might label playing God, we need to establish the rules of the game. I want to suggest that the well-established standards for species reintroduction projects provide a solid foundation on which de-extinction can be built. Critics of de-extinction in the popular science media have quickly pointed out drawbacks. From an ethical perspective, they have pointed to potential violations of animal welfare standards, the potential drain on resources that could be used in the conservation of still-existing species, and the implication that species destruction might be seen as permissible if it is reversible. The ecological objections have included the lack of ecosystems in which the re-created creatures could live, the potential invasiveness of the species in the ecosystem, and the potential for new disease vectors. Exploration of de-extinction’s ethical dilemmas will require serious scientific and public debate, including a significant contribution from humanities researchers, including philosophers and historians, who have the appropriate theoretical background for conceptualizing what is at stake. I will not tackle those ethical issues here. The solution to the ecological dilemmas, however, may already be at hand through the application of reintroduction standards. Reintroduction as a guide Reintroduction, the release of a species into an area in which it had been indigenous but has since become extinct, is a long-standing practice. The earliest use of the word reintroduction in a conservation context is in an article from 1832 about the return of capercaillie (or capercailzie) to Scotland (Wilson 1832). The western capercaillie was hunted out in Scotland in the late eighteenth century, and Wilson reported on the first attempt to bring the birds back to Scotland using specimens from Sweden. From these humble beginnings, an entire science of reintroduction has been built up, particularly over the last 30 years. Reintroduction science has a strong institutional basis in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and in its Species Survival Commission reintroduction specialist group, founded in 1988. The IUCN developed guidelines for reintroduction (IUCN 1998), which are currently under revision (Dalrymple and Moehrenschlager 2013). The guidelines suggest background studies to allow identification of the species’ habitat requirements, identification of lessons learned from prior reintroduction projects of similar species, evaluation of potential sites within the former range of the species, selection of appropriately diverse genetic stock, and an assessment of the socioeconomic context of the project. Armstrong and Seddon (2008) extended the guidelines, proposing key questions at the population, metapopulation, and ecosystem levels that should be addressed

We all live downstream: engaging partners and visitors in freshwater fish reintroduction programmes

Freshwater ecosystems in the south‐eastern United States, a global hotspot for temperate aquatic biodiversity, are increasingly threatened by human activity. For 14 years, the Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute has partnered with many other organizations to lead reintroduction programmes for Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens and Barrens topminnow Fundulus julisia. Consistent with our educational mission, new interactive exhibits and outreach programmes have been designed to connect more visitors with these programmes on‐site. While aquariums and zoos are natural partners to fulfil the public outreach needs of recovery teams, they have equally important roles within the project team to lead in propagation and reintroduction science. New research initiatives into best practices in captive propagation and conservation planning for imperilled fishes provide scientific leadership to our conservation community that also gives credibility to our work. By preparing for a long‐term investment and continuing to foster the good relationships already in place with the public and partners, we hope to continue building upon the success of our reintroduction programmes.

Reintroduction of rare and endangered plants: common factors, questions and approaches

The science of reintroduction for conservation purposes is young, and there is still much to learn about the practice. As a means to achieving biological goals of successfully establishing new populations to enhance a species survival prospects, and project goals, such as learning how to go about establishing new populations, reintroduction projects are best done as well designed scientific experiments that test explicit hypotheses. Focusing on a range of factors common to any reintroduction, we review several empirical reintroduction projects with respect to hypotheses tested, experimental materials and methods employed, and evaluate their success in both biological and project terms.

Captive Breeding and Reintroduction Evaluation Criteria: a Case Study of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep

Abstract: Captive breeding and reintroduction programs are rarely evaluated, and assessment criteria vary widely. We used the following criteria to evaluate a bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) augmentation program: (1) survival and recruitment rates in the captive population, (2) survival of released animals, (3) recruitment of released animals, (4) growth rate of the reintroduced or augmented population, and (5) establishment of a viable wild population. Captive bighorn survival and recruitment was high, averaging 0.98 (SD = 0.05) and 71.0% (SD = 19.4), respectively. Annual survival of free‐ranging captive‐reared bighorn (n = 73, x = 0.80, SD = 0.11) did not differ ( Z = −0.85, p = 0.40; n = 14) from survival of wild‐reared bighorn (n = 43, x = 0.81, SD = 0.12). Recruitment was unusually low for both captive‐reared ( x = 13.7%, SD = 0.24) and wild‐reared ewes ( x = 13.7%, SD = 0.20). Although reintroduction did not result in population growth or establishment of a viable population, it helped prevent extirpation of the reinforced deme, preserved metapopulation linkage, and aided habitat preservation. Chronic low recruitment and low adult survivorship precluded achievement of criteria 3–5. Environmental conditions in the release area also appeared to hinder program success. Standard evaluation criteria for ongoing reintroductions allow for informative assessments and facilitate comparisons needed to refine reintroduction science as a recovery tool for threatened or endangered populations.