Integrating evolution in the management of captive zoo populations

Abstract

Both natural animal populations and those in captivity are subject to evolutionary forces. Evolutionary changes to captive populations may be an important, but poorly understood, factor that can affect the sustainability of these populations. The importance of maintaining the evolutionary integrity of zoo populations, especially those that are used for conservation efforts including reintroductions, is critical for the conservation of biodiversity. Here, we propose that a greater appreciation for an evolutionary perspective may offer important insights that can enhance the reproductive success and health for the sustainability of captive populations. We provide four examples and associated strategies that highlight this approach, including minimizing domestication (i.e., genetic adaptation to captivity), integrating natural mating systems into captive breeding protocols, minimizing the effects of translocation on variation in photoperiodism, and understanding the interplay of parasites/pathogens and inflammation. There are a myriad of other issues that may be important for captive populations, and we conclude that these may often be species specific. Nonetheless, an evolutionary perspective may mitigate some of the challenges currently facing captive populations that are important from a conservation perspective, including their sustainability.

Better with your parasites? Lessons for behavioural ecology from evolved dependence and conditionally helpful parasites

“…If hosts exhibit evolved dependence or benefit from conditionally helpful parasites, then the loss of parasites important for the expression of the host phenotype would increase the host's susceptibility to extinction. We thus join others in advocating for parasite coreintroductions, and incorporation of principles from the hygiene hypothesis into host captive breeding and reintroduction programmes (Jørgensen, 2015;Schulte-Hostedde & Mastromonaco, 2015;Spencer & Zuk, 2016). Coupling parasite and host reintroduction could increase the likelihood of successful host establishment in reintroduction programmes.…”

Nature versus nurture? Consequences of short captivity in early stages

“…Despite these disturbances due to captivity, the reality is that for very endangered animals reintroduction using captive‐born individuals seems to be the only possibility of having them in the wild again. Zoo populations are recommended to maintain their evolutionary integrity through more natural mating systems that include mate choice, especially when they are employed for reintroductions in the wild (Schulte‐Hostedde & Mastromonaco, ). Considering the importance of early stages in domestication processes, it could be advisable as well for zoo population management to maintain individuals in wild‐like conditions since very early stages, preferably since the birth, which could increase the success of captive‐born individuals in the wild.…”

Wildlife Conservation: Is Domestication a Solution?

“…recent analysis showed that 7 % of ex situ populations in the "ssociation of Zoos and "quariums ("Z") institutions have a population size of less than 100 individuals and the mean N e of Species Survival Plan (SSP) populations is 41 [1 ]. " perusal of studbooks from various captive mammals shows that a single founder often produces a disproportionality higher number of ofspring than the remaining founders leading to a higher genetic contribution to the subsequent generations [71]. Most of the cooperatively managed breeding programs in the world possess too few captive individuals, among which too few are in proper conditions for breeding, with most often undocumented ancestries and/or too litle collaboration with scientiically designated breeding recommendations [72].…”