Reintroducing endangered Vancouver Island marmots: Survival and cause-specific mortality rates of captive-born versus wild-born individuals

Aaltonen, Kristen; Bryant, Andrew A.; Hostetler, Jeffrey A.; Oli, Madan K.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.019

Cited by 66 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…McPhee (2003) demonstrated two effects of captive breeding on the deer mouse (Peromyscus polionotus subgriseus): a decrease in reaction to predators and higher behavioural variance, which could translate into increased variability in survivorship during reintroduction. Aaltonen et al (2009) observed higher mortality, predominantly caused by aerial predators, in captive bred Vancouver Island marmots (Marmota vancouverensis). Such detailed data are not available for the S. citellus though Budayová (1995) warned about such problems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In future reintroduction attempts, we should target efforts on breeding of the species in captivity. For example, reproduction of the Vancouver Island marmot (M. vancouverensis) endemic to Vancouver Island in British Columbia has been accomplished at several captive breeding centres across Canada, and reintroductions back to the wild have been successful (Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Team 2008; Aaltonen et al 2009). …”

Section: Recommendations For the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Method of releasing and number of animals are determinants for the success of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) reintroductions

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reintroductions are considered an important part of the action plans and recovery strategies of endangered ground squirrel species, but so far little is known about their proper methodology. We collected primary data on 12 European ground squirrel reintroduction projects carried out at 14 localities in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland since 1989. We focused on seven methodological aspects of each reintroduction: selection of release site, method of releasing, date of releasing, origin of released animals, total number of released animals, mean number of released animals per season and reintroduction site management. The method of releasing was found to be the key factor in determining the settlement of animals at the target locality. Only soft releasing methods, i.e. the use of enclosures and/or artificial burrows, ensure that animals remain at the target locality. The other factors significantly determining reintroduction success are the number of released animals per season (at least 23 animals required) and the total number of released animals (a minimum of 60 Communicated by A. Aguirre individuals). Long-term management of the site and regular monitoring of the newly established population are necessary. Our recommendations, based on experience with the successes and failures of previous reintroductions, could largely improve the efficiency of future reintroductions of highly endangered species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Recommendations For the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

Method of releasing and number of animals are determinants for the success of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) reintroductions

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recent translocation programs have reported higher post-release founder success for captiveraised mammalian carnivores than in the studies reviewed by Jule et al (2008), namely, 61% for the Vancouver Island marmot (Marmota vancouverensis; Aaltonen et al 2009), 50% for the European mink (Mustela lutreola; Maran et al 2009) and 53-67% for the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus; Simón et al 2013). Largely because of this low survival of released captivebred animals, a great deal of debate has surrounded the value of captive-raised founders for conservation programs (Armstrong and Seddon 2008;Jule et al 2008).…”

Section: Survivalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sympathy for the devil: captive-management style did not influence survival, body-mass change or diet of Tasmanian devils 1 year after wild release

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. The value of captive breeding for recovery programs of endangered carnivorous mammals is often questioned because of low post-release survival reported for founder animals following translocation.Aims. The aim of the present study was to test the effect of rearing method on survival and body mass of captive-raised Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) following release on an offshore island. We also compared the post-release diet of these devils with the diet of wild devils on mainland Tasmania, where a similar array of diet items is available.Methods. Twenty-eight captive-raised devils were released onto the island; 19 had been raised in intensive captivemanagement facilities (IC) and nine in free-range (22 ha) enclosures (FRE). Survival and body-mass change were compared between IC and FRE for up to 440 days post-release. Devil diet was assessed via scat analysis.Key results. A high proportion (96%) of the founders survived 1 year post-release. Pre-release captive-rearing method had no effect. Released devils gained an average of 14% of their original body mass, irrespective of captive-rearing method. There was very little difference in the diet of captive-reared devils released onto Maria Island relative to wild mainland devils: Tasmanian pademelon, Thylogale billardierii, was the primary food item for both.Conclusions. The intensity of captive rearing did not affect the survival of devils released onto Maria Island. This suggests that even devils held in IC facilities retain the innate behaviour required to scavenge and hunt prey, and therefore maintain bodyweight post-release. The lack of any threatening processes on the island is also likely to have contributed to the high survival rate 2 years post-release.Implications. Our study provided preliminary evidence that the release of captive-raised Tasmanian devils onto off-shore islands is a viable conservation action. Captive-breeding programs and captive-raised founders can play a viable and valuable role in the conservation action plans for recovery programs of endangered carnivorous mammals.

show abstract

“…Most such animals obviously later die from these activities, but survival may be low even without harvest. The latter is crucial to the success of introduction, re-introduction and population reinforcement programs, frequently carried out for conservation purposes instead (Aaltonen et al 2009;Jule et al 2008;Musil and Connelly 2009;Roche et al 2008; but see, Santos et al 2009). Captivity is known to often result in morphological maladaptation (O'Regan and Kitchener 2005), sometimes as dramatic as reduced brain volume in waterfowl (Guay and Iwaniuk 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Low survival after release into the wild: assessing “the burden of captivity” on Mallard physiology and behaviour

Guillemain

Elmberg

et al. 2011

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Captive-reared animals used in reinforcement programs are generally less likely to survive than wild conspecifics. Digestion efficiency and naive behaviour are two likely reasons for this pattern. The Mallard is a species with high adaptability to its environment and in which massive reinforcement programs are carried out. We studied physiological and behavioural factors potentially affecting body condition and survival of captive-reared Mallards after being released. Digestive system morphology and an index of body condition were compared among three groups: captive-reared birds remaining in a farm (control), captive-reared birds released into the wild as juveniles (released) and wild-born birds (wild). We also compared behaviour and diet of released vs. wild Mallards. Finally, we conducted a 1-year survival analysis of captive-reared birds after release in a hunting-free area. Gizzard weight was lower in control Mallards, but the size of other organs did not differ between controls and wild birds. The difference in gizzard weight between released and wild birds disappeared after some time in the wild. Diet analyses suggest that released Mallards show a greater preference than wild for anthropogenic food (waste grain, bait). Despite similar time-budgets, released Mallards never attained the body condition of wild birds. As a consequence, survival probability in released Mallards was low, especially when food provisioning was stopped and during harsh winter periods. We argue that the low survival of released Mallards likely has a physiological rather than a behavioural (foraging) origin. In any case, extremely few released birds live long enough to potentially enter the breeding population, even without hunting. In the context of massive releases presently carried out for hunting purposes, our study indicates a low likelihood for genetic introgression by captive-reared birds into the wild population.

show abstract

Reintroducing endangered Vancouver Island marmots: Survival and cause-specific mortality rates of captive-born versus wild-born individuals

Cited by 66 publications

References 42 publications

Method of releasing and number of animals are determinants for the success of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) reintroductions

Method of releasing and number of animals are determinants for the success of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) reintroductions

Sympathy for the devil: captive-management style did not influence survival, body-mass change or diet of Tasmanian devils 1 year after wild release

Low survival after release into the wild: assessing “the burden of captivity” on Mallard physiology and behaviour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About