Biosecurity for Translocations: Cirl Bunting (Emberiza cirlus), Fisher’s Estuarine Moth (Gortyna borelii lunata), Short-Haired Bumblebee (Bombus subterraneus) and Pool Frog (Pelophylax lessonae) Translocations as Case Studies

Abstract

Biosecurity for conservation translocations: Fisher's estuarine moth (Gortyna borelii lunata), short-haired bumblebee (Bombus subterraneus), pool frog (Pelophylax lessonae) and cirl bunting (Emberiza cirlus) translocations as case studies Abstract:Exposure to parasites in conservation translocations increases the risks to recipient and translocated populations from disease, and therefore there has been interest in implementing biosecurity methods. Using four case examples we described how biosecurity was applied in practical translocation scenarios prior to and during a translocation and also post-release.We implemented biosecurity, including quarantine barriers, at specific points in the translocation pathway where hazards, identified by the disease risk analysis, had the potential to induce disease. Evidence that biosecurity protected translocated and recipient populations, included an absence of mortality associated with high risk non-native parasites, a reduction in mortality associated with endemic parasites, the absence of high risk pathogenic parasites, or associated diseases, at the destination; and the apparent absence of diseases in closely related species at the destination site. The biosecurity protocols did not alter the level or duration of translocated species confinement and therefore probably did not act as a stressor. There is a monetary cost involved in biosecurity but the epidemiological evidence suggests that conservation translocation managers should carefully consider its use. Breakdowns in quarantine have occurred in human hospitals despite considerable investment and training for health professionals, and we therefore judge that there is a need for training in the objectives and maintenance of quarantine barriers in conservation translocations. Biosecurity protocols for conservation translocations should be continually updated in response to findings from disease risk analysis and post-release disease surveillance and we recommend further studies to evaluate their effectiveness.

Methods of Disease Risk Analysis in Wildlife Translocations for Conservation Purposes

“…Sources may include peer-reviewed literature, grey literature reports from other translocation projects, expert opinion or active parasite surveillance from the project itself, for example, in conducting the DRA for the short-haired bumblebee (Vaughan-Higgins et al 2012). …”

“…When undertaking hazard identification during preparations to translocate elk (Cervus elaphus) , Corn and Nettles ( 2001 ) identified 190 potential pathogens but prioritised 16 hazards considered to be of a higher risk than negligible or very low. DRAHS conducted qualitative analysis for 26 source, destination, carrier and transport hazards for the short-haired bumblebee Bombus subterraneus translocation (Vaughan-Higgins et al 2012 ); 18 carrier, transport, source zoonotic and destination hazards for smooth snake Coronella austriaca translocation (and discounted a further 22 suspected hazards) (Masters and Sainsbury 2011 ); 16 carrier, source, destination, zoonotic and population hazards for proposed translocation of the European adder Vipera berus (Beckmann et al 2014a ) and 21 source and destination hazards for the proposed translocation of white-tailed sea eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus from Poland to England (Sainsbury et al 2010 ).…”

“…Information for risk analysis for the DRAHS project comes from different sources depending on the nature of the project and the purpose for which the DRA is being undertaken. Sources may include peer-reviewed literature, grey literature reports from other translocation projects, expert opinion or active parasite surveillance from the project itself, for example, in conducting the DRA for the short-haired bumblebee (Vaughan-Higgins et al 2012 ).…”

Introductions of two insect species threatened by sea‐level rise in Essex, United Kingdom: Fisher's estuarine moth Gortyna borelii lunata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Mottled grasshopper Myrmeleotettix maculatus (Orthoptera: Acrididae)

“…To minimize any risk of disease infection, the breeding cages are located away from the main Zoo site and a number of biosecurity measures and quarantine work protocols have been put in place, such as donning overalls, wellingtons and gloves before entering the site, and the use of Virkon disinfectant foot dip. The Zoo receives guidance and regular checks from a specialist (A. W. Sainsbury) in disease‐risk management from the Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, UK (Vaughan‐Higgins et al ., ).…”

Disease surveillance and risk factors affecting mortality of captive cirl buntings (Emberiza cirlus) in a translocation for conservation purposes

“…As a result the captive rearing element of the project was moved to an alternative location distant from the zoo, and dedicated staff, housing and equipment were used for the translocated birds. Critical control points (CCP) were identified at each of five stages of the project, and disease mitigation measures were suggested for each CCP 14 . These included recommendations for parasite screening, quarantine, hygiene, handling and stocking density restrictions.…”