Standards for documenting and monitoring bird reintroduction projects

Abstract

It would be much easier to assess the effectiveness of different reintroduction methods, and so improve the success of reintroductions, if there was greater standardization in documentation of the methods and outcomes. We suggest a series of standards for documenting and monitoring the methods and outcomes associated with reintroduction projects for birds. Key suggestions are: documenting the planned release before it occurs, specifying the information required on each release, postrelease monitoring occurring at standard intervals of 1 and 5 years (and 10 for long-lived species), carrying out a population estimate unless impractical, distinguishing restocked and existing individuals when supplementing populations, and documenting the results. We suggest these principles would apply, largely unchanged, to other vertebrate classes. Similar methods could be adopted for invertebrates and plants with appropriate modification. We suggest that organizations publically state whether they will adopt these approaches when undertaking reintroductions. Similar standardization would be beneficial for a wide range of topics in environmental monitoring, ecological studies, and practical conservation.

Improving Standards for At-Risk Butterfly Translocations

“…They are based in part on outcomes from a four-year series of U.S.-based workshops funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services that focused on ex situ at-risk butterfly conservation and recovery programs [19], as well as extensive exchanges with conservation practitioners, wildlife agency personnel, and stakeholders. By doing so, we further reinforce the assertion by Sutherland et al [20] that such standards help "ensure that, as a community, we collect a more complete and useful set of data on reintroductions to enable assessment of the timing and causes of both successes and failures, and that this information is easily accessible for future reference in other comparable reintroduction programs". To avoid confusion, we use the typology outlined by IUCN [11], in which the term conservation translocation is overarching and encompasses reintroduction, reinforcement (i.e., augmentation), and introduction.…”

“…Similar to Sutherland et al [20], we suggest a basic list of standardized criteria that should be collected for all release events and across all translocation projects involving Lepidoptera (Table 1). Establish a plan to publish/report results.…”

“…The continued development of best practices in reintroduction biology should be a priority. Beyond more broadly reporting program outcomes in descriptive accounts, disentangling why some efforts fail and others succeed is essential to advancing the field [20]. This can be done by more frequently designing and implementing translocation efforts in an experimental manner to test questions that are identified a priori [25].…”

Integrating In-Situ and Ex-Situ Data Management Processes for Biodiversity Conservation

“…Better records-keeping and data integration at all levels will facilitate sharing of information to provide better evidence of conservation success as well as evidence to support adaptive management processes. Sutherland et al (2010) proposed standards for documenting all levels of reintroduction programs from initial planning, to methods for release, and post-release monitoring. The standards were recommended so that the collection of a comprehensive set of data could facilitate assessment for both successes and failure.…”

Reintroduction of the Scarlet Macaw (Ara Macao Cyanoptera) in the Tropical Rainforests of Palenque, Mexico: Project Design and First Year Progress

“…Risks of inbreeding and loss of genetic variation are important variables; these risks are minimized by creating large effective population sizes in a reintroduction program [17]. Both the IUCN [14] and specific studies show that causes of success or failure can be detected only through adequate post-release monitoring [18], which in many cases will involve a long time scale [17].…”