Status update and challenges facing group-based population management
CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting San Diego, California – Zoom, October 8, 2020 Conveners: Kathryn M. Rodriguez-Clark & Kathy Traylor-Holzer
CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY ...... 2 2. BACKGROUND ...... 3 3. WORKING GROUP AIMS ...... 4 4. ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES ...... 4 5. WORKING GROUP PROCESS ...... 4 6. RESULTS ...... 6 6.1 RESULTS: PRE-MEETING GMI WORK ...... 6 6.1.1. Data/Standards ...... 6 6.1.2. Software tools ...... 9 6.1.3. Molecular tools ...... 14 6.1.4. Theory/simulations...... 16 6.1.5. Process ...... 20 6.1.6. Focal Species ...... 22 6.2. RESULTS: BREAKOUT ROOMS ...... 38 6.2.01. Plants ...... 38 6.2.02. Aquatic Invertebrates ...... 40 6.2.03. Terrestrial Invertebrates ...... 41 6.2.04. Fish...... 42 6.2.05. Amphibians & Reptiles ...... 44 6.2.06. Birds ...... 45 6.2.07. Small Mammals ...... 46 6.2.08. Ungulates ...... 48 6.2.09. Carnivores ...... 49 6.2.10. Primates ...... 50 7. CONCLUSIONS ...... 52 APPENDIX 1: REGISTRANT/PARTICIPANT LIST ...... 54
Page 1 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
1. SUMMARY
Strategies and tools are well established for individual-based population management, but they are inadequate for managing species, either in situ or ex situ, when the identification or manipulation of individuals is not possible – that is, when group-based population management (or “group management”) must be used instead. To introduce and explore group management with CPSG meeting participants, we welcomed more than 120 contributors from 27 countries to a two-session working group. The first was an informational plenary session. Representatives of the Group Management Initiative (GMI), an international collaboration of 50+ practitioners and scientists working together since 2019, updated participants on the current state of group management for conservation, across a range of themes. These themes included data and standards, software tools, molecular tools, theory, process, and presentation of eight focal species examples. In the second session, participants separated into 10 diverse taxonomically-themed breakout rooms, from plants to primates, to brainstorm the most important barriers to population management for their taxa.
Participants highlighted a wide range of challenges, some of which underscored those identified in earlier GMI work, and some of which had not been considered previously. In the former category, challenges included a lack of common database and management software and standards; challenges with implementation; a lack of understanding about which data should be tracked; and uncertainty about how these data should be used for population management decisions. In the latter category, participants highlighted the lack of a consistent definition for groups and accessions; the need for mixing individual and group strategies in some cases; and the lack of a clear process for making decisions in the face of tradeoffs, for measuring success, and for using data to make management adjustments.
Future steps include continuing with the process that GMI is using to reach its vision “to effectively conserve all species requiring group-based population management, using the best available scientific information and tools.” These steps are adapted from CPSG’s species conservation planning process and include: • Identifying an initial set of GMI goals to address the key challenges to group-based population management; • Engaging any ongoing efforts that are aimed at reaching these or similar goals; • Developing and evaluating potential strategies for reaching these goals; and • Synthesizing all recommended goals, strategies and next steps into an implementation plan for this first phase of the project.
The full working group report, including a list of participants, can be found at: http://cpsg.org/latest- news/cpsg-annual-meeting-proceedings
Suggested citation: Rodriguez-Clark, K.M., K. Traylor-Holzer, eds. (2020) “Status update and challenges facing group-based population management.” Proceedings of the 2020 Conservation Planning Specialist Group Annual Meeting, 8 October, IUCN SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group: Apple Valley MN USA. 58pp.
Page 2 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
2. BACKGROUND
Population management is the manipulation of interactions among organisms to influence their vital rates, in order to achieve population goals. At present, particularly in ex-situ environments, population management is typically conducted at the individual level: it relies on individual identifications, known pedigrees, mate-specific breeding recommendations, and individual manipulation to reach population goals.
However, many species that live in schools, flocks, troops, colonies or similar groups cannot be managed effectively at the individual level, for behavioral, welfare, economic, or other reasons. For these species, the conservation community has yet to develop and implement a comprehensive system for group-based population management (or “group management” for short), which is population management (both in-situ and ex-situ) for taxa in which data may be collected and/or management actions conducted only on groups of organisms, rather than on specific individuals.
Two prior workshops were held around two decades ago, at the Zoological Society of London in 1998, and at Woodland Park Zoo in 2002. Although these meetings produced important scientific advances, few have been implemented broadly, and they have remained unintegrated and separate. A classification system for types of animal groups needing management was proposed, but a review of the gray literature has suggested that it does not relate in practice to how group management has to date been applied.
A concentrated effort to effectively tackle these and other group management issues therefore began in late 2019 and has continued throughout 2020. This Group Management Initiative (GMI) has been using a collaborative process involving ~ 50 international population experts across diverse taxa to understand and organize existing tools and processes for group management, with the intent to eventually develop and implement new ones. Our vision is that we will effectively conserve all species requiring group-based population management, using the best available scientific information and tools.
Work on GMI began in earnest in early 2020, with small teams of experts collaborating virtually during 30+ meetings between February and July, to develop a written synthesis for each of five thematic areas essential to group management: Data/Standards; Theory/Simulations; Process; Software Tools; and Molecular Tools. Each synthesis contained a summary of the current state of the art in that area, as well as the present challenges in that area preventing the conservation community from realizing our vision. An additional team of species experts developed taxon summary data sheets and presentations outlining the life history, management strategies, and challenges for eight diverse group-managed species. Focal species were selected to cover the taxonomic range likely to benefit from improved group management, including a representative plant, coral, mollusk, insect, amphibian, bird and mammal species. These species will be used as test cases for future tools and processes developed by GMI.
On 26 and 27 August, 2020, 54 participants in the synthesis teams met virtually for the first plenary sessions as a group, in order to finalize a shared vision, to present findings in these five thematic areas, and to begin the process of understanding how challenges and gaps in these areas may interrelate. Focal species experts attended in order to consider how the practical problems presented by their species might be aided by recent advances in these areas.
Page 3 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
One result of this meeting was the decision to open this effort out more broadly to global stakeholders, particularly in order to better understand the challenges facing practitioners as they attempt to conserve species requiring group-based population management. The annual meetings of the Conservation Planning Specialist group offered the perfect opportunity to convene these practitioners, which is how this working group came to be.
3. WORKING GROUP AIMS
In this working group, we aimed:
• To present an overview of the current state of group-based population management for conservation in a range of themes, and work to date by the Group Management Initiative. • To engage broadly with global stakeholders in group-based population management, and ‘ground truth’ GMI findings to date. • To elicit new ideas from global stakeholders about the challenges and barriers to effective group management across a broad range of taxa, from plants to primates. • To develop relationships with additional stakeholders to support work into the future.
4. ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
• A broad sample of global stakeholders updated on the current status of group management for conservation, and energized to achieve the GMI vision. • A wide sample of the challenges preventing the implementation of group management, collected and organized. • New collaborators identified and engaged to contribute to GMI work in the future. • A report suitable for a broad audience summarizing the current status, current challenges, and some short-term actions prepared.
5. WORKING GROUP PROCESS
1. In Session 1 (9:00 to ~10:30am, Central US time; UTC -5), we used a webinar format, with all participants muted except for the presenters listed below. Participants were able to send questions using the Zoom chat feature, and were able to speak at the end of all presentations. Our agenda was as follows: a. Welcome, overview of Sessions 1 & 2, ground rules (Kathy Traylor-Holzer) b. Overview of group-based population management and the Group Management Initiative (Kate Rodriguez-Clark) c. Results of the Data/Standards team (Kristine Schad Eebes) d. Results of the Software team (Katelyn Mucha) e. Results of the Molecular team (Rob Ogden) f. Results of the Theory/Simulations team (Phillippe Helsen) g. Results of the Process team (Gina Ferrie) h. Introduction to the Focal species and their experts (moderated by KRC) i. Questions, comments, and instructions for Session 2 (moderated by KTH) j. 50-minute break
Page 4 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
2. Session 2 (11:30am to 13:30pm Central US time; UTC -5) consisted first of work in breakout rooms, and then in plenary. This session aimed to identify the primary challenges and barriers to group management in 10 taxonomic groups, listed below. Each breakout room consisted of ~10-15 participants with an interest and expertise in the focal taxonomic group, and had one facilitator and one recorder. Breakout rooms used the Mural web app (mural.com) as a ‘whiteboard’, on which participants posted ideas using virtual ‘sticky notes,’ and selected which were most salient using a built-in voting feature (see Figure 1 for an example).
a. In the breakout rooms, groups used the following process: • Facilitators introduced the task, confirmed roles, and shared a link to the Mural in the chat. • Focal species experts for that group briefly described the challenges to group management for their particular taxa, listed these on virtual sticky notes, and classified them into five categories (Data issues, Life history issues, Management issues, and non-group management issues). • Facilitators lead identification of additional species to discuss (max five additional). • Participants brainstormed and posted challenges for these species, limiting themselves to ~5 per species. • The facilitator reviewed and clarified challenges in each column, grouping similar challenges that appeared more than once. • In a final voting session, all participants voted for the five most important challenges to group-based population management. b. In the final Plenary session, • Each breakout room reported back, in the order presented below. Facilitators presented the species chosen for focus during discussions, and the ~five most important challenges identified by the room. • We closed with a general discussion session (moderated by KTH) c. A summary of the working group was presented in plenary to the entire conference the following day (KRC)
Figure 1: An example excerpt from a Mural.com challenge list, produced by the Plant Breakout room.
Page 5 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6. RESULTS
We estimate that we welcomed over ~120 participants from ~27 countries to this group. The total number of registrants was 154 from 34 countries (Appendix 1), but exact participation was difficult to gauge, for three reasons. First, participants were free to enter and leave as they pleased, with cameras and microphones on or off again as they pleased, and individuals may have entered and left several times. Second, some participants logged in from computers or telephone numbers that we were not able to associate with identifiers in the registration list. Finally, some participants joined others to log in together on a single computer. Based a cross-checking of the registrant list to the zoom call participant log, the number of actual participants was at minimum 120 from at least 27 countries.
Regardless of the exact number, we can say that participation far exceeded our initial hopes, which were to have ~70 participants (those who have been working on Group Management Initiative activities since early 2020, plus another few dozen newcomers).
Furthermore, eight people have reached out following the meeting to participate directly in GMI in the future, and they in turn have reached out to bring in additional contributors. This is a substantial number relative to the ~50 people currently involved in GMI.
6.1 RESULTS: PRE-MEETING GMI WORK 6.1.1. Data/Standards
Prepared by:
• Kristine Schad Eebes, AZA Population Management Center (Presenter, team leader) • Andrea Worley, San Diego Zoo Global/San Diego Zoo Safari Park • Brian Chouinard, SeaWorld San Diego • Hannah Jenkins, Zoological Society of London • James Biggs, Zoo and Aquarium Association Australasia (ZAA) • Jean Miller, AZA's Institutional Data Management Scientific Advisory Group (IDMAG) • Linda Penfold, South-East Zoo Alliance for Reproduction & Conservation (SEAZARC) • Mark Bushell, Bristol Zoological Society • Nicole Errante, Species360
The role of data standards in group management
Although there are various roles for data, record keeping, and data standards in group-based population management, here we focus on only two: facilities’ tracking of organisms and population management. Establishing data standards can enable sharing, exchange, and analyses of these data, as well as improved decision-making for the corresponding populations. Because not all data are good data, it is extremely important to establish data standards, both for the format in which the data are entered, as well as their meaning. However, there needs to be balance in establishing standards, because (according to the Pareto Principle, or 80:20 rule), ~80% of outputs are likely to result from just 20% of inputs, so standards are most important for those 20%, and spending energy producing standards for rare cases may not be an efficient investment of time/resources.
We searched for existing standards and recent advances in group data management, and found 14
Page 6 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
existing documents on the subject (Table 1). Most of these reference data entry and maintenance standards, and either focus solely on group data or mention groups very little. From these, we created a draft list of all the current types of data, which by current standards are most useful to gather and record group data for population management. Many of these types are applicable to both individuals and groups, with some additional record keeping needed specifically for groups, and this list will form a useful foundation for future standardization work.
Existing data formats may rely on the software used for tracking, and may need to evolve as software does. Furthermore, while standards are important, such standards will always need to be reviewed in light of each individual organism’s life history and management strategies.
Table 1. Existing resources containing data entry and maintenance standards.
Resource Year Link to Resource Guidelines for Data Entry and Maintenance of 1996 https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2332/g AZA Regional Studbooks uidelines_for_data_entry_and_maintenance _1996.pdf Standards for Data Entry and Maintenance of 1998 https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2332/st North American Zoo and Aquarium Animal andardsdataentry2.pdf Records Databases Managing Zoo Populations: Compiling and revised 2012 http://training.isis.org/CommunityLibrary/M analyzing studbook data anaging%20Zoo%20Populations%20- %202012%20edition.pdf AZA Animal Records-Keeping Manual revised 2004 https://www.aza.org/idmag-documents- and-guidelines Recordkeeping Guidelines for Group 2014 https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2332/re Accessions, by the AZA Institutional Data cordkeeping_guidelines_for_group_accessio Management Scientific Advisory Group, IDMAG ns_final_52314.pdf Darwin Core (DwC) standards 2008 https://www.tdwg.org/ Amphibian Ark Population Management 2008 http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/Aark%20 Workshop and Guidelines material/AArk%20Amphibian%20Population %20Management%20Guidelines.pdf Amphibian Data Entry Guidelines 2010 http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/Amphibi an-Data-Entry-Guidelines-2010.pdf Group Management Package for use with Excel 2015 https://scti.tools/related-software/ Studbooks and PMx The Center for Plant Conservation (CPC) Best 2018 https://www.publicgardens.org/resources/c Plant Conservation Practices to Support Species pc-best-plant-conservation-practices- Survival in the Wild support-species-survival-wild Applying the zoo model to conservation of 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13503 threatened exceptional plant species Zoological Information Management Regularly http://training.species360.org/Documen Software (ZIMS) Training and Help updated ts/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2F documents: ‘1003 – Group Management’, Documents%2FModules&FolderCTID=& ‘1003 – Hatching a Group of Eggs’, ‘1003 – View=%7B124B4810%2DF967%2D4B47 Advanced Group Management’, and ‘1003 %2D84CF%2DB18EE376800D%7D – Simple Group Management’ Tracks software community help page, Regularly https://trackscommunity.com/help; for excerpt on Group Reference updated a copy or access to this resource, please email [email protected]
Page 7 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
Resource Year Link to Resource Sea World California Fish Department – 2019 Available from the authors Tracks Best Practices Manual ([email protected] and [email protected])
Challenges, questions and gaps in data standards for group management
We identified numerous existing questions, challenges, and gaps, which overlap with those identified in other thematic areas, and therefore offer opportunities for future collaboration:
Tradeoffs between the need for data and the resources available
• Managers should ideally record all data about groups necessary to manage the population, but the time, resources, logistics, etc. are not always conducive to this. We lack an understanding of the minimum amount of data needed, and what the tradeoffs are between the minimum vs. ideal data sets, how we can optimize data collection, and how we may determine when the extra effort in data collection and recording is really “worth it” for management. • We focused on inventory and population management data standards, but data standards are needed for all areas (e.g., husbandry, social, enrichment, medical, research, and welfare data). Insofar as group management may influence these other areas, they may also require new standards with the implementation of group management.
Creating data standards requires balance
• Software needs to be both flexible and standardized, in a balance. We suggest that aiming for standards that fit 95% of cases (leaving 5% as special cases) may be a useful approach. • When developing data standards, we need to capture what is actually happening in groups rather than fitting what is happening awkwardly into existing software frameworks. • We need to maintain the groups as stable multi-generational entities, and also track and analyze genetic changes during the lifetime of a group. These two aspects need to be considered jointly in both data tracking and analyses.
Particular data conventions and definitions that are needed
• We need to create a standard option to indicate that “these data exist but no standard has yet been developed for how to enter them into this field.” Always having an ‘other’ or free text box is one option but may be less useful, because it may encourage users to not use existing options, even when they apply, and instead always use this ‘other’/free text box as the ‘easy’ option. • We may need distinct data fields or even separate databases to address disparate data requirements for botanical collections, biomaterials data, gamete and embryo collections, etc. That is, we likely will not be able to create a single ‘studbook’ database for all organisms. • The development of a clear standard for when a group is formed or split into two or more groups or individuals is particularly important (i.e., defining merges and splits). Some of the documents in Table 1 reference this, but contain inconsistent definitions.
Page 8 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.1.2. Software tools
Prepared by:
• Katelyn Mucha, Species360 (Presenter, team leader) • Bob Lacy, Species Conservation Toolkit Initiative • Elmar Fienieg, Population Management Centre of EAZA • Erin Sullivan, Woodland Park Zoo • Jamie Ivy, San Diego Zoo Global • Kathy Traylor-Holzer, Conservation Planning Specialist Group • Mark Bushell, Bristol Zoo • Nicole Errante, Species360 • Taylor Callicrate, Species Conservation Toolkit Initiative • Tony Niemann, Zeir Niemann Consulting
The role of software in group management
Ex situ (and sometimes in situ) populations are managed to achieve the specific goals set for those populations – whether it is to promote or curtail population growth, to maximize genetic diversity, or to support other program goals. To be successful, managers need to understand the status of their population, determine an appropriate management strategy, implement that strategy, and monitor the population status periodically to make appropriate adjustments in management. Software tools can support all of these steps: from data collection, to data analysis, to understanding population status over time, and from evaluating potential management strategies to implementation of recommended strategies. Software arms managers with both the knowledge and the tools needed to effectively manage their populations to achieve their program goals, whether it is using individual- or group-based population management.
While data collection, analysis, and planning software tools have been developed for decades, almost all current software tools are designed for management at the individual level. Populations in which individuals are not tracked and/or management of individuals is difficult or impractical have, for the most part, been left to struggle with trying to ‘fit a square peg into a round hole.’ Given the recent growth in software tools and recognition of their value in ex situ population management, along with developments in molecular tools and genetic theory, now is the time to examine the needs of those managing species requiring group management, and to design tools to support population monitoring and management strategy evaluation and implementation. Appropriately designed software has the potential to greatly improve the ability to meet program goals for group-managed species.
Software currently used for population management
We attempted to identify all software tools currently used for population management in an attempt to understand the full range of tools and their group management capabilities (Table 2).
Page 9 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group Table 2: Existing software for species population management Capabilities Overview Functionality Data Data Analysis Imports Group Data Group Data Data M Projections Population Population Population Exports ToExports Access Export M
Distributed/Ma Data Collected gm
Software Tool Primary Purpose Group Notes gmt from t
intained By On
dataentry standard manual manual census based Excel web data
Lake Victoria Cichlid Toledo Zoo and Basic data collection; - - - census counts Provides group census data. -
Program Aquarium for this species only.
Data collection for different PSMS Overview manual data data manual developmental stages and Basic data collection; standard standard entry individual transfers between
Partulid Snail record keeping and individuals and - - groups (incl. life stage and
Program demographic analysis for groups
generation at transfer); also this species only nutrition and environmental data. database; database; m/ ware.co ackssof https://tr ment Manage Grp Software Tracks inventory inventory adva inventory CSV, CSV, XML standard multiple multiple pushed pushed oweb to Import Basic data collection; data report Excel, Excel, types local local data Can track group data, - -
Zier Niemann storage, record-keeping, individuals and nced
Tracks including numbers of
Consulting and analysis of data of groups t
individuals and splits/merges. institutional data g species360.or https://www. Functionality Group ZIMS and
Basic data collection; real- data manual web Excel, CSV, Excel, CSV, advanced advanced inventory inventory database standard
time database. Data rep entry XML Can track group data, - based based ZIMS for storage, record-keeping, individuals and - - ort Species360 including numbers of
Husbandry/Aquatics and analysis of groups
individuals and splits/merges.
institutional and global
data xls/CSV formats for variety of custom imports m oftware.co animalcares advanced Excel, CSV, web XML, PDF advanced
inventory Can track group data, incl. #
basic data collection; report
Customizable record- - of individuals & splits/ Animal Care Animal Care individuals based - - merges. Can also track Software Software LLC keeping, welfare tracking, and groups real-time staff communic. medical reminders and
data/trend analysis vaccinations for groups da ta entry .com ww.oerca https://w standard manual manual - - -
Animal Welfare App Oerca Basic data collection
link/ project/pop /science w.lpzoo.org https://ww Manual PopLink export e Individuals data entry data PMCTrack advanced advanced
Studbook software; database Can track social groups standard Zoo nclosure SPARKS, SPARKS, manual manual
Lincoln Park be can excel PMx, PMx, Tracks pedigree and basic local through the Enclosure in in Risk, Risk, Zoo, Zier - -
PopLink information for individual individuals ed module but each individual
Niemann -
to s
animals within a must still have a specimen
Consulting population. record
Page 10 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
Capabilities Overview Functionality Data Data Analysis Imports Group Data Group Data Data M Projections Population Population Population Exports ToExports Access Export M
Distributed/Ma Data Collected gm
Software Tool Primary Purpose Group Notes gmt from t
intained By On
ZIMS for ZIMSHusbandry s360.org https://www.specie
Studbook software; entry data manual
PMx, Excel, XML PMx, Excel, Not currently designed for Tracks pedigree and basic web advanced advanced
database group data entry and information for individual standard none
tracking, but ZIMS for - based based animals within a - - ZIMS for Studbooks Species360 individuals Husbandry/Aquatics does
population.
track group data that could
ZIMS for Husbandry data be pushed to ZIMS for automatically sent to
,
Studbooks in the future studbooks. Manual SPARKS data entry data export for export no longer Studbook software; advanced standard pedigree manual manual limited Vortex none maintained; Tracks pedigree and basic PMx, Can track social groups but
local - - SPARKS legacy information for individual individuals each individual must still have
database
Species360 animals within a a specimen record
software population. tools/ https://scti. ual MMM
advanced advanced advanced advanced Could support modeling of Species Links modeling programs local group management NA NA NA -
MetaModel Conservation man commonly used for NA installati scenarios, if linkages between Manager Toolkit Initiative species risk assessments on existing software or custom
(SCTI) packages are needed. ti.too https://sc Import PMx Excel manual PMx advanced advanced advanced standard standard text text files Ex-situ population Multiple Includes kinship-based local
analysis and development individuals and genetic analysis tools for
PMx SCTI installati ls/
of management groups groups, some summary stats
on
recommendations for grouped individuals. tools/ https://scti. developme developme developme
advanced advanced advanced In development, planned Ex-situ population standard standard local completion by 2021. Results nt nt nt in in in in
analysis and development groups and
PMxceptional SCTI installati of this meeting may of management plants
on determine how to build
recommendations functionality for groups. https://scti.too manual Vortex SPARKS and PMx, SPARKS and
Pedigrees from from Pedigrees Summary stats for groups;
Simulates individuals from advanced advanced advanced individuals can be assigned to text text files population demographic local groups using state variables; -
Vortex SCTI rates; kinship matrices individuals installati can simulate transfers
and allele frequencies can on between groups with or
be imported as text files without individual-based ls/
criteria or knowledge
Page 11 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
Capabilities Overview Functionality Data Data Analysis Imports Group Data Group Data Data M Projections Population Population Population Exports ToExports Access Export M
Distributed/Ma Data Collected gm
Software Tool Primary Purpose Group Notes gmt from t
intained By On
oorisk/ project/z nce .org/scie ww.lpzoo https://w manual ZooRisk advanced advanced advanced advanced SPARKS, SPARKS, Individual-based PopLink local n - one - Lincoln Park stochastic simulation of Does not have any current
ZooRisk individuals installati
Zoo population viability (ex- groups functionality.
on
situ) Manual.pdf 18/08/PopFrog content/uploads/20 anark.org/ http://www.amphibi ml ba.org/GD/main1.ht http://www
advanced advanced advanced
none none none Simulates individuals from
Toledo Zoo and Setting population goals Group and Web- - - wp
PopFrog population demographic .wildaru
Aquarium for ex-situ populations Individuals based rates - -
/ pmctrack.org https://www. development Web- standard PopLink, PopLink, Lincoln Park Produces breeding and ZIMS in based - Excel none
Zoo, Zier transfer summary - - - Does not have any current PMCTrack individuals LPZ staff,
Niemann statistics for AZA's Animal groups functionality
AZA PLs Consulting Programs only
advanced advanced advanced standard
develop develop develop
local ment ment ment In development, this in in in in
PMx Genome Planning and maintaining - SCTI individuals installati functionality will be available
Resource Bank genome resource banks
on in PMx.
advanced advanced
develop develop manual manual entry ment ment data In development, this in in in
ZIMS biobanking Planning and maintaining web- - - - Species360 individuals functionality will be available
functionality genome resource banks based in ZIMS.
Page 12 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
We broke the currently available tools into the following categories according to their primary function: institutional record-keeping software (ZIMS, Tracks, etc.); studbook software (ZIMS for Studbooks, PopLink, etc.); and data analysis and population planning projections (PMx, Vortex, outbreak, etc.). While many of these tools primarily focus on individual-based population management, we believe that there are opportunities to improve or add features to these existing tools to assist with group-based population management. Ideally, we propose expanding or repurposing some of these existing tools to facilitate group management, instead of building an entire new set of population management tools for this purpose.
We found several areas in which existing population management software lacks group management features. These include:
• Data storage: Record-keeping software needs to be able to more meticulously track the changes within groups and the transactions between them over time. • Data analysis: The primary gap here is with genetic analyses. Current software does not account for genetic drift, variation within a group, and the gap between observed and expected gene diversity. • Planning and projection: There are presently no user-friendly planning tools for group-based population management, to consider how different types of populations may require different strategies.
Software development and maintenance:
Understanding the software development cycle is key to collaborating on building new or enhancing existing tools, although the cycle may vary across development teams. The “agile” software development process is widely used, for example by Species 360 as it develops ZIMS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=502ILHjX9EE
Communication is central in software development, which is why teams typically create a software requirements specification (SRS), to provide a detailed description of the software solution. The many different groups of people involved in the management of ex-situ populations all have different cultures, terminologies, and typical means of communication. This means that effective communication across groups may require some translation or some practices that feel new or different. Following an SRS template when planning for software development can help diverse stakeholders effectively communicate their needs to architects and developers. Examples of questions asked in an SRS to confirm the software will meet all user needs can include: What is the problem we are trying to solve? What does the solution look like? What are the possible design constraints?
Challenges to effective implementation of software for group management
Prior to building or improving software tools, the people developing these tools need to understand the goals of group management, and what information managers need to achieve these goals. For example, what data or analysis results are needed to help guide decisions for each management goal? What are the ideal reports or statistics from data analysis and planning tools? Below we have outlined several challenges and questions for the other thematic teams that we believe will assist the software team in identifying how and why we build specific tools and allow us to be as cost effective as possible with development.
Page 13 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
Classification of group management: It is important to identify the types of group management to implement with software tools. For example, what are all the goals of management across the range of group living species? What are the outcomes users are hoping to get from these tools? Knowing the expected outcomes of group management will help to build and adjust tools accordingly. Software design: Ideally, we would build “best-fit” software tools, or tools that meet the needs of as many types of programs as possible, but in a way that does not spend undue effort on the rare cases. We usually aim for software that meets the needs of 95% of cases smoothly and well, even if it won’t work well for that last 5%. Costs are also very important when planning new software or making changes to existing software. We need to consider where we get funds to build potentially multiple different types of group- management tools. We also need to consider how we sustain and support those tools over time. Data entry frictions and conventions: In order to create effective software recommendations, we need to have full understanding of the types of data available (or that should be available) and data conventions. For example: What data are currently being tracked by record keepers for group data and in what format? What is not tracked now but ideally would be if it were possible and easy? What additional data fields need to be recorded to carry out the types of analyses desired for each specific management type or goal? If record keepers are not tracking the data needed or not tracking it in the way it is needed for analysis, how do we change this? Training, software, etc.? Group management goals and theory: Software developers need to understand more about the goals of group management. For example: Are group management goals different for a variety of species or do we want all group managed programs to function the same in the future? Are we planning to do demographic and genetic management for all group-managed species? Are there some cases where we do not care about either demography or genetics? Do we maybe need different categories than ‘genetic’ and ‘demographic’ for group management? Do we need traditional studbooks for groups or something else?
6.1.3. Molecular tools
Prepared by:
• Rob Ogden, University of Edinburgh (Presenter, team co-leader) • Asako Navarro, San Diego Zoo Global (team co-leader) • Jeremie Fant, Chicago Botanical Gardens • Mary Hagedorn, Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute • Philippe Helsen, University of Antwerp • Carolyn Hogg, University of Sydney • Klaus-Peter Koepfli, Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation • Andrea Putnam, San Diego Zoo Global
Developing a framework for using molecular tools in group management
Maintaining genetic diversity in small populations is an important component of conservation breeding programs, which promote overall population health by avoiding the risks of inbreeding depression and minimizing loss of adaptive potential. Our goal was to develop a practical framework for the application of molecular tools in group-based population management. Given the potential diversity of management scenarios, we aimed to provide guidance on how molecular tools can be applied to a diverse range of taxa with various management needs. Here we present a summary of our framework along with a diagram that illustrates how molecular geneticists may approach the development of
Page 14 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
appropriate sets of molecular tools for group-based population management (Figure 2). To date, we have piloted the framework with three taxonomically diverse species with different group-management needs (Tasmanian devil, Sable antelope, and Hawaiian Vulcan palm). Ultimately, we will apply this framework to additional focal species selected as part of the Group Management Initiative, and we identified the need for strong synergies with the Theory/Simulations theme throughout the process.
Framework components
1. Scenario variables and molecular applications. Management scenarios depend on variables that reflect species-specific management challenges and demands, such as life history traits, management needs, and management techniques. There are infinite combinations of variables in any given scenario, and different scenarios may require different approaches based on the overall objectives for the metapopulation. Considering the potential needs of practitioners applying group-based management, we identified five main applications for molecular data in group management:
• Founder selection – what do we have, how many are needed, where from? • Metapopulation composition – how many populations, what goes in which? • Translocation management – who to move where, and how often? • Modeling support – what life history information can we provide? Is management being implemented empirically the way we are aiming for it to? • Future monitoring – have management goals been achieved? how to adjust management?
Molecular geneticists will need key inputs from species experts, management experts, and theoretical experts to support their understanding of the management question, and then design molecular tool-based solutions. Management techniques involving cryopreserved samples may also be considered within our framework and these would function as any living animal in an ex-situ population.
2. Approach. Once the key inputs are identified, molecular geneticists can assess which genetic approach will be most effective and design a project. Approaches may range from empirical validation of theoretical models, to comprehensive molecular genetic analysis, to the use of molecular data for post-hoc monitoring and evaluation.
3. Project design variables and resources required. Molecular geneticists will then need to take into account additional key variables once the approach is identified. Sampling remains one of the biggest challenges when using molecular tools. Sample selection, sample type, sampling design, and sample size are all important factors that are critical to assess the possibilities and limitations of a project plan. The molecular method selected will then depend on the management question, genetic approach, and samples available. For example, higher level population structure and diversity measures may be derived from small panels of DNA markers, and may be feasible even with lower quality and quantities of DNA. On the other hand, higher resolution population genetic analysis may require thousands of DNA markers and will most likely require high-quality DNA. Lastly, the data pipeline required will depend on the management question and data generated by the molecular method. Once designed, a detailed project plan will in turn allow for the estimation of human and financial resources required to implement the project. This process will most likely be iterative, relying heavily upon dialogue with management practitioners and theoretical modelers.
4. Broader context. It is critical to assess the project plan in a broader context prior to implementation. Early and ongoing engagement between management practitioners and geneticists is
Page 15 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
the key to success. Considerations include organizational requirements or limitations (logistics and politics) and likely return on investment. Resources required, ongoing work that may be necessary, and the relative importance or risk of not conducting the work should be weighed prior to initiating a project. Limitations to the use of molecular tools in group management should also be considered, beyond challenges with sample availability. These include technical and data pipeline challenges, such as the integration of molecular and non-molecular data (pedigrees) as well as the comparability of genetic datasets produced over time using different methods.
Figure 2. Factors requiring consideration, broadly in order from top to bottom, to produce guidance on the use of molecular tools in any given group-based population management scenario. Given a set of Scenario information (red and green) and a set of Management Applications and Questions (brown-orange), molecular geneticists choose an appropriate Molecular Approach (light blue), consisting of the Samples, Methods and Data pipeline required. This enables estimates of Resource Requirements in terms of staff and lab costs, as well as any external requirements.
6.1.4. Theory/simulations
Prepared by:
• Philippe Helsen, University of Antwerp (Presenter, team co-leader) • Elmar Fienieg, Population Management Centre of EAZA (team co-leader) • Catherine Grueber, University of Sydney • Bob Lacy, Species Conservation Toolkit Initiative • Phil Miller, Conservation Planning Specialist Group • Jack Windig, Wageningen University • Jin Liang Wang, Zoological Society of London • Brandie Smith, Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute • Kathryn Rodriguez-Clark, Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute
Page 16 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
Theory for group management exists, but is not yet integrated or thoroughly tested
Several theoretical strategies for group-based population management have been developed, but their implementation to date has been limited: they either have not been tested on a larger scale, or they do not take into account the full complexity and logistics of group-managed populations. From a theoretical perspective, managing species at the group level will also require practitioners to make a major shift in mental framework, from the individual to the group as the fundamental management unit. Following decades of emphasis on the individual level, this represents a substantial change and will take concerted effort.
The development of the most optimal group-based population management strategy for any given species and set of population goals comprises essentially two activities: identifying the most optimal group structure (within-group composition and interactions), and the optimal between- group movements (translocation strategy). In general, this may be accomplished following a strategic decision-making process, with theory relevant at several different points (Figure 3).
Figure 3: A strategic decision-making process for group-based population management
Within-group structure
Both theory and practicalities (particular to individual cases) should be taken into account when identifying the optimal within-group structure. In general, structures should aim to maximize effective population sizes (Ne), to most efficiently counter loss of genetic diversity (GD) and to minimize inbreeding (Ballou et al 2010). Under the simplest assumptions, GD is lost at a rate of 1/2Ne per generation, so a smaller Ne results in faster loss of GD and more rapid inbreeding. Equalizing contributions within (e.g. by equalizing reproduction) and between (e.g. by maintaining
Page 17 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
equal relative sizes) groups is one approach that has previously been implemented successfully to maximize Ne. Population viability analysis (PVA; implemented in programs such as Vortex; Lacy & Pollak, 2020) is a useful tool to study alternative within-group management strategies taking into account stochasticity.
Between-group movements
Second, a robust strategy for between-group movements (translocations) will often need to be defined, focusing on: 1) when and 2) how to move 3) what number of 4) what kind of individuals between populations. The possible strategies range from basic to more complex, and their use will depend on the species of interest. Below we present existing theoretical strategies, in order from the least to the most amount of data (record-based or molecular) required for implementation.
Rotational breeding, currently implemented in group-based livestock breeding, is among the least data-hungry strategies for managing populations. In this strategy, groups are maintained separately, while the strict and systematic exchange of animals between groups prevents high inbreeding within groups (Kimura & Crow, 1963; Alderson 1992). Many alternative patterns for between-group exchanges (“breeding circles”) exist, but all rely on two major rules: a) each animal breeds in only one group, to maintain genetic diversity between groups, and b) only newborn or young animals that have not reproduced yet are exchanged between groups. Although conceptually simple, this strategy is only effective if rotation is achieved exactly as specified, and no groups are lost due to chance events. Individual pedigree-free methods (Group history methods) Population genetic models that form the foundation of current individual-based population management, and that are used to calculate individual mean kinship, may also be used to evaluate, monitor and manage captive populations at the group level (Wang 2004; Lacy 2012). To make this shift, instead of maintaining individual pedigrees, managers maintain histories of group sizes, moves, merges and splits. Such “group histories” may be used to calculate group-level kinship values, which may be used to guide optimum changes in group sizes and/or directed exchanges between groups. Although theoretically robust and cost efficient if data can be collected, this approach may be technically more complicated, involves more assumptions, and may be less powerful in maintaining genetic diversity and minimising inbreeding than precisely-executed rotational methods. Group kinship methods based on molecular data: With the advent of genomics, accurate estimates of kinship values derived from molecular data rather than individual records may also be used to guide management. However, while pedigree-based methods using individual records seek to equalize founder contributions, molecular methods are based on equalizing allele frequencies and maximizing introgression. Integrating genomic data into group-based management may also be costly and challenging in terms of sample collection, although it has the potential to expose differences between theoretical and realized contributions (e.g., Cilingir et al 2019). These differences can arise from increased stochasticity in small populations, and therefore managing based on realized contributions has the potential to achieve increased efficiency in preserving genetic diversity and/or minimizing inbreeding.
Selecting among and implementing strategies
Simulation tools (either existing programs or custom-built tools) are likely to be useful for determining which of these strategies, and what particular implementation of that strategy, will be most efficient in any given context for reaching population goals, given species-specific limitations. It
Page 18 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
may also be that hybrid strategies (e.g. periodic molecular screening combined with individual pedigree-free methods) will be most useful for reaching the full potential of existing methods. Finally, given that objectives beyond genetic diversity and demographic stability are relevant to population management, there remains a need for developing objective, quantitative approaches for managing toward multi-factor optima. Group size, composition, and movements all may be manipulated to optimize genetic and demographic factors, but programs may have objectives for individual welfare, economic efficiency, and educational efficacy as well, and these are also impacted by group size, composition, and movements. In order to evaluate how different management strategies may be used to optimize these additional factors, specific performance metrics for each factor will need to be identified, and optima for theses metrics must be defined. For example, may wish to maximize welfare, but minimize costs. Scaling of all objectives in terms of their importance can enable their combination via algorithms (i.e., a “population wonderfulness index”), which identify a management strategy to reach a joint optimum for all desired goals of a program simultaneously. The strength of such a structured and integrated framework would be its transparency and flexibility; however, to our knowledge this approach has never been formally been tested in this context. Upon testing, patterns may emerge that could allow more streamlined approaches to be used (e.g., decision trees) for identifying management strategies likely to be effective in particular cases.
At present, group-managed species are highly diverse and have many different needs, and multiple approaches are available to meet these needs. However, it remains unclear which method will fit which situation best. From a theoretical point of view, we are hopeful that simulating tests of different approaches in different cases, representing the full range of complexity, will be a fruitful the first step toward understanding which method will accomplish program goals most efficiently in each situation.
Literature cited
Alderson L (1992) A system to maximize the maintenance of genetic variability in small populations. In: Genetic Conservation of Domestic Livestock. L Alderson, I Bodo, eds., Vol 2, CAB International, Wallingford, 18-29. Ballou, J. D., C. Lees, L. J. Faust, S. Long, C. Lynch, L. Bingaman Lackey and T. J. Foose (2010). Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management, Second Edition D. G. Kleiman, K. V. Thompson and C. Kirk Baer, eds. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 219-252. Çilingir, F. G., A. Seah, B. D. Horne, S. Som, D. P. Bickford and F. E. Rheindt (2019). "Last exit before the brink: Conservation genomics of the Cambodian population of the critically endangered southern river terrapin." Ecology and Evolution 9(17): 9500-9510. Kimura M, Crow JF (1963) On the maximum avoidance of inbreeding. Genetical Research 4: 399-415 Lacy, R.C., and J.P. Pollak. 2020. Vortex: A stochastic simulation of the extinction process. Version 10.3.8. Chicago Zoological Society, Brookfield, IL USA. Lacy, R. C. (2012). "Extending pedigree analysis for uncertain parentage and diverse breeding systems." Journal of Heredity 103(2): 197-205. Wang, J. L. (2004). "Monitoring and managing genetic variation in group breeding populations without individual pedigrees." Conservation Genetics 5(6): 813-825.
Page 19 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.1.5. Process
Prepared by:
• Gina Ferrie, Disney’s Animal Kingdom (Presenter, team co-leader) • Kristin Leus, CPSG Europe at Copenhagen Zoo (team co-leader) • Karen Bauman, St. Louis Zoo • Caroline Lees, CPSG Australasia • Zjef Pereboom, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp • Kathryn Rodriguez-Clark, Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute • Nathan Wilke, US Fish and Wildlife Service
“Process” and its importance to group management
The process of group management is concerned with the decision-making structures and work systems for applying group management, both at the level of the individual practitioner and the institution. There are many stakeholders in group management, and input from all should be considered in developing a set of processes (Byers et al. 2013; IUCN/SSC 2014). As with any ex-situ conservation program, prior to management decisions being developed and implemented, it is paramount to set goals and targets for species management and understand the role of the program in the scope of its conservation needs, as well as how success will be defined (IUCN/SSC 2014).
Processes for individual-based population management were developed for wild species in ex- situ management for conservation purposes starting in the 1980s, when for example, the first Species Survival Plans were established in AZA; however, formal processes for group-based management are still largely absent. Processes for group-based management of populations in the wild for conservation (to prevent extinction) have more of a history, aided by tools such as Population Viability Analysis (e.g. Beissinger & McCullough 2002) but deliberate in-situ group-based management for genetic diversity and not just population persistence is more recent (Frankham et al. 2017). The IUCN/SSC OnePlan Approach (OPA) proposes a process to unite in- and ex-situ planning (Traylor-Holzer et al. 2018), but neither it nor current IUCN Guidelines on Ex-situ Management (IUCN/SSC 2014) offer particular details about processes for individual versus group- based management, although they do offer a framework for the future.
Elements of a successful process for group management
Group management is just one way to manage an ex-situ population for conservation. Hence, general process principles that are promoted for, and apply to, ex-situ management for conservation in general also apply to ex-situ programs that require group management. Existing international guidelines The IUCN SSC Guidelines for the Use of Ex-situ Management for Species Conservation provide a structured, informed, and transparent five-step decision-making process on whether or not ex-situ activities are a beneficial and appropriate component of an overall species conservation strategy – and illustrate how this can be incorporated in the overall planning methodology. The guidelines process also helps ensure that any ex-situ activities that are incorporated in a species conservation plan are tailored in form and function to the conservation needs of that particular species (McGowan et al. 2017).
Page 20 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
Applying the OPA and the Ex Situ Guidelines in different contexts The OPA can be applied equally well to group managed as to individually managed species. It can be applied as a component of an overall species planning process, or as a separate but related ex-situ conservation needs assessment. It works for either a single species, for a small group of species, or in a rapid multispecies format such as, but not limited to, in the context of regional collection planning for zoos and aquaria. Implementation, monitoring, evaluation, adaptive management The IUCN ex-situ guidelines provide direction for the implementation phase of ex-situ programs. However, monitoring, evaluation and adaptation are crucial components of ex-situ management for conservation, but are also some of the biggest challenges, whether for individual- or group-managed species. Existing institutional structures and processes may need to be adapted to govern and manage ex-situ work, and within that group-management based ex-situ work.
Next steps
The challenges of building a process for evaluating and meeting group management needs in the future are considerable but existing work provides a firm foundation. Since any proposed process for evaluating and meeting the group management needs of a species will be newer and less familiar to most practitioners, a final written report or publication will be a vital component of the process. The final outcome of a group management process appears likely to include a series of steps and thought processes to go through, as well as a list of key participants, and important factors to take into account, when considering whether ex-situ management (and within that, group-based management), is needed and appropriate in a given system. It will require a system for integrating and weighing these factors, (such as a decision tree, an optimization algorithm, or other tool), ultimately determining the form and intensity of group management – or the set of approaches to group-based management that the tool may suggest each case could benefit from. Finally, it will require manuals for both making the decision about which approach to use, as well for how to implement, or what to take into account for planning, implementation, governance, monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management for each given approach once adopted.
Literature cited Beissinger, S. R. and D. R. McCullough, Eds. (2002). Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL USA. Byers, O., C. Lees, J. Wilcken and C. Schwitzer (2013). "The One Plan approach: The philosophy and implementation of CBSG's approach to integrated species conservation planning." WAZA Magazine: World Association of Zoos and Aquaria 14: 2-5. Frankham, R., J. Ballou, K. Ralls, M. Eldridge, M. Dudash, C. Fenster, R. Lacy and P. Sunnucks (2017). Genetic Management of Fragmented Animal and Plant Populations. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford UK. IUCN/SSC (2014). Guidelines on the Use of Ex Situ Management for Species Conservation. Version 2.0. www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/publications/iucn_guidelines_and Policy statements/. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland. McGowan, P. J. K., K. Traylor-Holzer and K. Leus (2017). "IUCN Guidelines for Determining When and How Ex Situ Management Should Be Used in Species Conservation." Conservation Letters 10(3): 361-366. Traylor-Holzer, K., K. Leus and O. Byers (2018). Integrating ex situ management options as part of a One Plan Approach to species conservation. The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. B. A. Minteer, J. Maienschein and J. P. Collins, eds. University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL USA, 129-141.
Page 21 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group Historic Distribution: Islands of Kaua’i and Ni’ihau, Hawaii
Conservation Status: Extinct in the Wild
Ex situ collections: National Tropical Botanic Garden (NTBG) in Kaua`i has the core collection (>100 specimens). Remainder distributed worldwide (>200 – although most have only 2-3 plants).
Reproduction: Flowers are hermaphroditic; produces multiple flowers per plant; some evidence of self-incompatibility. Seed pods have 100+ seed per cross; germination simple. Short- lived in seed banks (~20 years).
Genetics: CBG has genotyped (using microsat’s) every plant in a living collection and have next-gen sequencing results for ~50% of plants. We have used this and collection records to produce a pedigree. 22 Current Strategy and Challenges
Goals Challenges • Data issues • Improve NTBG Collection • Plants recorded as accessions (groups) not • Genetic study shows missing some by individual diversity • Accession can mean many things, e.g. • Some evidence of inbreeding (low maternal plant (pod came from) or location pollen viability) (population) • Replicate all genetic lines worldwide • With crosses, pollen donor (male parent) • Identify lines only found in single rarely recorded. location • Do not record demographic data regularly • Find lines missing from NTBG • Plants in captivity live can live 30 years but collection many die young • Create a quasi-wild population at • Disease/pests an issue (esp. spider mites) Limahuli Botanic Garden which is in the • Pollinator likely extinct so requires hand historical range. pollination • Currently no centralized database or population management tools for botanic gardens (working on this) 23 Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata): NEARLY EXTINCT IN THE CARIBBEAN Population management goal and current guiding principle: Recover Florida Reef Tract with Relevant life history traits Jennifer Moore diverse and adapted population. Simultaneous hermaphrodites, but obligate outcrosser
Release gametes into water column for fertilization (broadcast spawner)
Planula larva are competent for approx 4-7 days before settlement
Larva settle on bare substrate and metamorphosize into primary polyp
Growth rate is 4-11 cm linear extension/year
Colonies are reproductive at approximately 1,600 cm2 total surface area or 4-6 years
Also reproduce asexually via fragmentation to create clones
Single reproductive event per year 4-7 days after the full moon in July, Aug, or Sept, depending on the timing of the full moon in the month
Genet is the unique genetic “individual” - has a unique genotype
Asexual fragmentation can produce multiple Ramets or clones of the same genet
Cannot tell unique genets apart without existing genetic tools 24 Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata) Current Strategy and Population Management Challenges
Current breeding programs have relied on wild collection of gametes, which are transported to land to conduct fertilization and settlement
Very problematic due to complicated logistics
Due to clonality, often unique individuals are miles apart
High levels of asynchrony in gamete release, so fertilization is impossible
Crosses can be done with pooled gametes or known specific crosses (require significantly ↑ human investment)
Can have high levels of incompatibility
Fertilization is most successful with sperm concentration ~106 sperm mL−1
Swimming larva typically begin to settle within 4 days onto tiles
High rates of mortality in first few days
Ex situ reproduction successful for the first time August 2020
Reduced logistics
More control over crosses
LED lights mimic the spectrum, irradiance, and timing of the natural reef 25 Lord Howe Island Stick Insect Kate Pearce • Considered extinct on Lord Howe Island since 1920/1930’s • Rediscovered on Balls Pyramid, 2001 • 4 founders (2 pairs) into captivity 2003 and an additional female in 2017
• Adults nocturnal, mate - possibly multiple times/female choice or females can reproduce parthenogenically), • Females lay eggs into substrate or drop them • Eggs hatch after 6 months • Nymphs are visible during the day but active at night, start clumping behaviour as sub adults • Sub adults are darker and start utilising hollows • Total lifespan – 2 years Population management Goals & Conservation • Produce a genetically robust and disease free population with new founders • Rodent eradication has been completed on LHI, could be as little as 2 years before re- introduction.
© Zoos Victoria 2020 26 Population management Challenges
• Populations are more successful when managed in large • Do not know what genetic groups and allow females choice over who they mate with diversity we currently have in • Can not allow all eggs to hatch due to resourcing so a sub- the captive population – up to section of eggs are allowed to hatch and are reared 16th generation with 2003 group through • Genetic diversity in the wild? • Short generation time & limited founders • How much diversity we lose each generation • Do not know who is contributing genetics, who is mating with who! • More resources needed and less success when kept in pairs • Difficult to track individuals, need big numbers • Signs of inbreeding • Serratia marescens • Short time to potential re- introduction
© Zoos Victoria 2020 27 Partula snail life history traits and population management goals with respect to conservation. Paul Pearce-Kelly • Most species are cross-fertilising hermaphrodites, with self-fertilisation relatively rare. • Sperm thought to remain viable in reproductive tract up to a year following sexual reproduction. • Single ‘live birth’ after 3 month gestation period. Several young may be present at different stages in the oviduct, giving an average reproduction rate of 1 birth per month. • 1-2 mm newborns grow to adulthood in as little as 3-6 months although larger species (inc P. tohiveana) can produce young up to 5mm in shell length these larger snails generally take longer (up to a year) to mature • Longevity varies between species but in general, Partula can live up to 10 years, although life spans are often shorter. • Predominately maintained in glass tank housed groups of up to 100 snails (where individual id is not practical & mating control impossible), requiring life-stage based monitoring (Level 5 on the 9 levels of species management categories).
28 Current population management strategy and challenges • Stage-based demographic monitoring of newborn, juveniles, sub-adults and adults.
• Partula Species Management System developed.
• Initial development of genetic analysis tool.
• Subsequent reliance on basic excel based monthly census.
• Some collections also recording directly onto ZIMS.
• Relatively short transition periods between newborn-juvenile & subadult-adult life stages requires weekly census counts for optimal demographic trend and rate data capture.
• Conservation breeding programme initially followed classic genetic protocol, maintaining separate generations of direct and cross line populations. Now predominately generally mixed generation/genetic line populations.
• Less frequent (monthly) census now common with resultant reduced demographic data capture but sufficient for mixed generation populations.
• Big question is has reduced genetic management compromised conservation success chances?
• Need to incorporate field populations as may be needed to reinvigorate (or completely replace) ex situ populations and vice versa.
• Will be increasingly important to include biobanked material in species conservation programmes & record systems. 29 Mexican Pupfish (EW) Brian Zimmerman Former range: two small springs within the Bolson de Sandia in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. From a group of territorial, short-lived group of fish, from small specialist habitats, of which over 70% are threatened and in need of sustainable ex-situ management as part of their survival plan.
Population Management Goals to Achieve Cyprinodon longidorsalis Conservation
Stage 1 – Establish the most effective and efficient maintenance plan for long-term holding stabilisation and healthy animals. Stage 1 – Maintain a full inventory of holders and obtain a yearly record of numbers per population. Stage 1 - Grow the number of populations and individuals at accredited institutions to sustainable levels. Stage 2 – Investigate the feasibility of spring rehabilitation in Mexico. Stage 3 – Re-establish the species in the wild in rehabilitated springs (long-range). Cyprinodon veronicae 30 Current strategy & challenges
• Trial different ways of keeping and increasing/maintaining populations in order to develop the best population management plan for these short-lived species. • Understanding the optimal ex-situ population size to reduce the risk of loss of individuals or genetic health through stochastic events such as system failure, diseases or overcrowding. • Find holders in public institutions that will stay genuinely committed for the long haul, until (if) a reintroduction can be attempted.
31 Montseny brock newt (Calotriton arnoldi) Francesc Carbonell Buira & Gerardo Garcia Status • Critically Endangered by the IUCN (Carranza & Martínez-Solano, 2009) • Distribution: Limited to an area of only 8 km2 in the Montseny Natural Park • Population size: less than 1,500 mature individuals • Wild population is separated in two subpopulations, genetic and morphological differentiation
Biology • Gaps on the biology knowledge in situ – Complex habitat features : High mountain brooks, need of underground water flow due to the dryness of the brooks during summer and torrential floods in spring and autumn – Low surface activity, mostly groundwater. Nocturnal activity. Apparently only aquatic phase, no terrestrial dispersion • Mating system: Promiscuous • Females present sperm storage, more than a year • Sexual dimorphism, subadults usually differentiated • Territoriality: Occasional aggressions between males • Seasonability: Amplexus: all year. Eggs laying: peak at spring ( may-june) , stops in winter • Number of eggs: Highly variable. (Average 30-40. Maximum of 150, minimum less of 10) • Maximum longevity observed in captivity: 20 years old, a founder female who is still breeding • Sexual maturity :4-6 years old; later for males • Hatching time: 40-50 days at 120C • Metamorphosis between 1-2 years
Ex-situ conservation program • Program Purpose: Reintroduction and genetic safeguard • Started in 2007 (10 founders western pop. & 12 from Eastern).. New founders are planned to be incorporated • Actually 4 breeding centers. CF. Torreferrussa, CF. Pont de Suert, Barcelona Zoo & Chester Zoo • New EAZA EEP (2020). Studbook using Zims Results * • 3500 newts bred in captivity (13 years) • 6 new released populations in wild – Disparate results ( cause habitat quality?)
32 *(Until 2019, 2020 not included) Breeding management. • Intensive management • individual identification of adults specimens • Breeding individuals kept in pairs or small breeding groups ( maximum 5F +4M) • Some males are alternately shared with different females in different aquariums • Eggs removed every 2 weeks from aquarium • Eggs and juveniles are kept by family groups
Program challenges • Hatching success 30 %. Balanced Lethal System : chromosomal heteromorphism? • 70 % females lay eggs • 50 % females breed some larva. Too much variability (1 to >100 larvae / female) • Very low breeding success for Eastern population, contrary to obtained for the western population. In all breeding centers, for no apparent reason • Slow growth rate of the larvae has been detected (related to the high density of specimens per aquariums? • Research focus : group breeding, water quality, live food, light, environmental enrichment…. No conclusive results • The optimal habitat in the Montseny is limited, work is being carried out on habitat restoration
Group manegament Challenges • Limited individual marking techniques for different small age classes • Multiple associated variables (number of eggs, fertility, hatching rate) • Using group management the low production of some specimens may go unnoticed? • The fact of having access to other males by breeding in groups, can favor the reproduction of certain females that by breeding in pairs lay many unfertile eggs? • Sperm retention >1 year. How to manage it in group/partner changes? • Using PMx, how to decide which specimens, especially in larvae that are in groups and not sexed, can be released and which ones have to be kept in the breeding program? How many from each group can be released? • Rotation of breeding individuals (”new blood line”)
33 The Red Siskin (Spinus cucullatus) Reproductive Biology & Population Management Erica Royer, Valentina Cedeno, Brian Coyle
• Common name: Red Siskin (English), Cardenalito (Spanish) • Mating System: Monogamous* Extra-pair copulations likely (have been observed ex situ) • Ability to store sperm: Unknown but unlikely • Sexual maturity: Unknown but believed to be 9-12 months (ex situ) • Incubation: 12-14 days • Fledge: 14-18 days • Molt into adult plumage at 4-6 months • Gregarious species known to flock with conspecifics and other species. Sexually Dimorphic • Males will guard females and nest locations as well as bring food to female at the nest and to the subsequent chicks/fledglings.
Population Management & Conservation • Maintain a US breeding population among zoological institutions for breeding, nutrition and conservation strategy research.
• Maintain ex situ conservation Center in Venezuela with rehabilitated/rescued and Male Red siskin feeding female. Photo: Leonel Ovalle-Moleiro confiscated birds as breeding stock to produce individuals for release.
The Red Siskin Initiative goal: To recover self-sustaining populations of Red siskins across the species’ natural historical distribution Wild Red siskin nest. Photo: Jhonathan Miranda
www.redsiskin.org 34 The Red Siskin (Spinus cucullatus) Population Management Strategy and Challenges
• All current populations managed as individuals (4 US facilities, 1 VE facility) ❖ 3 US facilities house birds in flocks, 1 US and the VE facility house birds individually • Currently, as much data as possible is collected on all breeding events (dam, estimated sire, # of eggs laid, # of eggs viable, early dead embryos, hatch rate, nestling survival, fledgling survival etc). • Studbooks are being maintained (US and VE separate) with dams and MULTs for sires where birds are housed as flocks (estimated sires noted).
Challenges: • Lack of data: We don’t know how much extra-pair copulation occurs so we can only make estimates on sires. We don’t think egg dumping occurs but could be possible. • Poaching and habitat loss in the country distribution range make implementation of conservation strategy/goals (reintroduction) and monitoring of species difficult. • Potential for lack of resources: Not all facilities will be able to track individuals closely. Large flocks in large multi-species aviaries will be difficult to manage ❖ Nests could be unreachable to band chicks before fledge, multiple nests could fledge at one time = unknown sires AND dams. ❖ Not enough staff time to monitor nests and adults closely for breeding behavior.
Juvenile sexes not distinguishable
35 www.redsiskin.org • Addax are a critically endangered and one of the most imperiled antelope species on the planet with fewer than 100 animals left in wild habitat. There are opportunities, some in progress, to repatriate this species back to portions of its previous range in North Africa. • Addax herds in wild habitat typically contain both males and females, and have from five to 20 members. • On ranches, in private collections, in Safari Parks, and larger zoos around the world, addax are typically kept in large harem type herds comprising an adult male, multiple females, and young males. In smaller zoological facilities, breeding groups may be kept in pairs with young or in smaller groups of a male and a few females. Bachelor groups have been successful but depending on available space allowing for displacement, there can be a good deal of aggression between males once they are at or near the age of reproductive maturity. • There are healthy ex situ populations of this species in North America, Europe, and the Middle East. These populations are extremely demographically robust. With proper genetic analysis and management, these populations may represent a genetically diverse and healthy meta population to draw from for future repatriation projects.
36 • Typically, captive breeding programs for threatened and endangered species, including addax have relied upon pedigrees to inform genetic management. These pedigree-based breeding strategies are quite effective for species that can be housed in monogamous pairs. However, the genetic management of species maintained in herds, like addax antelope, continues to be significantly hampered by incomplete or inaccurate pedigrees. For example the known/certain pedigree for AZA’s addax SSP is only 14.4%. • The application of molecular resources to these types of captive populations, where maintaining accurate pedigrees is challenging, could markedly improve their long-term genetic management. For all of these reasons, we believe that the ex situ addax population would benefit greatly from the use of molecular resources in genetic management. • This would require the collection of genetic samples which will be dependent on the willingness and ability for each individual holding institution to do so when they have hands on their animals. There would need to be a dedicated facility established for the storage and analysis of samples and resources allocated to do so.
37 6.2. RESULTS: BREAKOUT ROOMS
6.2.01. Plants
Facilitator: Kristin Leus Recorder: Jean Miller
Attendees: Abby Meyer Emily Coffey Jean Linsky Judy Che-Castaldo Kary Havens Murphy Westwood Taylor Callicrate
Taxa/species chosen for consideration:
1. Alula (Hawaiian Vulcan palm [which is not a palm]) 2. Palms 3. Long-lived, woody exceptional trees (oaks, rhododendrons, magnolia, maples, etc.) 4. Cycads
Top 5 issues/problems/challenges with group management, in descending order of importance:
1. Botanic Gardens do not track individuals – they track accessions (which are not always analogous across institutions and can also vary within institutions). 2. Gardens lack a common database to share records – incompatibility between institutions on records. Data sharing almost non-existent. 3. Reproductive effort can be highly variable between years, especially for long-lived species (masting). Hybridization is a big problem in many genera (e.g. oaks). 4. Plants have a wide diversity of breeding and mating systems. Much more than vertebrate animals. 5. Capacity needs building in high biodiversity areas. It is best to grow/maintain living collections within a species’ native range, in order to maintain mutualisms and avoid selection/adaptation to different climates, soils, etc.
Additional discussion, voting results, issues etc.
1. Tracking pedigrees can be hard. Paternal contribution is rarely known and unless done with controlled hand pollination, there can be a wide number of possible donors. 2. Not all germplasms are the same. Living plants, seeds, and pollen are all options for storing genetic material, but have very different needs and requirements. 3. Clonality is a bonus for maintaining plants but does not add new genetic diversity and so it needs to be tracked differently. 4. Additional recorder notes: a. Genera that are not possible to seed-bank – oak, magnolia, etc. are typically maintained as living specimens.
Page 38 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
b. Lack of common database presents both a data challenge and a resource challenge. c. Large specimens: trees take a lot of room so often only a few per species can be grown out. Once they get fairly large, they are nearly impossible to move. d. Masting: want to know what factors lead to large/small crop years? e. Accession definitions are confusing – in general an accession is a collection of seed or cuttings made from a single species on a single day and in a single place. However, in practice, this can vary widely. Sometimes maternal lines (all seeds from one maternal plant) or even individuals are accessioned separately. Sometimes collections made over several days at one site are bulked. Often clones (cuttings) taken from an accessioned plant are given a new accession number even though they are genetically identical. f. Seemed to be some confusion about some terms used by the various participants, e.g., accession, provenance/wild origin. An accession is a collection (see above); provenance or wild origin is the site where the collection was originally made in the wild. However, provenance more generally can refer to where a plant comes from even if not the wild (e.g. if I obtain a seedling from another botanic garden, that may go into the database as its “provenance” which would be different from its “wild origin”) g. We copied some challenges to multiple columns; the same notes were voted on in multiple columns; we attempted to show those common votes
Page 39 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.2.02. Aquatic Invertebrates
Facilitator: Kristine Schad Eebes Recorder: Andrea Putnam
Attendees: Jay Hemdal Jennifer Moore Brandie Smith Skalalis Diana Steven Yong Iliana Baums
Taxa/Species chosen for consideration: 1. Elkhorn coral (focal species) 2. Jelly fish 3. Cephalopods 4. Freshwater mussels
Top 5 issues/problems/challenges with group management, in descending order of importance: 1. No database: For many species, there is a lack of a studbook or database that records parentage and life history information across institutions. 2. Lack of knowledge of complex life history: Many aquatic invertebrates have complicated life stages (larval, polyp, adult, etc.) and often there is a lack of knowledge about and husbandry expertise at some or all life stages. 3. Lacking life support: Too few institutions have dedicated life support systems that are needed for each life stage. 4. Lacking staff: Too few institutions have expertise in both the husbandry and the necessary life support systems because they are expensive, require high levels of manual manipulations, and require significant time commitments. Issues #2, # 3, and #4 are all inter-connected. 5. Microalgae symbionts: Specific to corals, there is a lack of knowledge about their microalgae symbionts. Symbionts are necessary for healthy corals and are picked up when corals are harvested from the wild. However, the composition of the symbionts is not known, and it is unclear if the symbionts also need to be propagated and managed.
Page 40 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.2.03. Terrestrial Invertebrates
Facilitator: Jessica Steiner Recorder: Elmar Fienieg
Attendees: David Tonkyn Kate Pearce Edward Spevak Paige Howorth Erin Sullivan Paul Pearce-Kelly Raymond Van der Meer
Taxa/Species chosen for consideration: 1. Partula snail 2. Lord Howe Island Stick insect
Top 5 challenges with group management, in descending order of votes received: 1. Unknown current genetic status: The genetic status is unknown, so it is difficult to understand 1) if we are at all reaching our goals with the current management, 2) is the population inbred and are the issues we are seeing (lower fecundity, higher mortality) a result of inbreeding depression or husbandry/environment? 3). If our populations will be successful in the future as source for reintroduction. Will it be sustainable? 2. Difficult or impossible to track consistent data currently, due to lack of guidelines and trained registrars. Difficult to track complete data and get institutions to track data. Limitations of the software. When there are data, it is unclear how to analyse it and actually use them. 3. In situ populations left out: For these two species, ideally the in situ populations would be taken into account more as well. 4. Biobanking needed: Biobanking materials and recording; needs to happen but maybe not sufficiently happening yet. 5. Lack of founders: Lack of prospect for the species in general. Without the ability to recruit new founders or more specifically, new genetic diversity, would any management strategy be sufficient to reach the programme’s goals, given the short generation times, probably already low generation times, limited opportunities to grow in the wild, etc.?
Page 41 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.2.04. Fish
Facilitator: Nathan Wilke Recorder: Amanda Lawless
Attendees: Brian Zimmerman Jamie Ivy Mandi Schook Megan Brown Philippe Helsen Stephanie Allard Zjef Pereboom Grant Abel
Taxa/Species chosen for consideration: 1. Pupfish 2. Zebra Sharks 3. Seahorses 4. Lake Victoria Cichlids 5. Atlantic Salmon (these species were chosen to represent different life histories and management needs)
Top 5 issues/problems/challenges with group management, in descending order of importance: 1. Space limitations: Space limitation is true for all species. This should be tackled on a species by species level versus at a higher level, but then how do you divide space among species? Struggle seems to be greater for space for things that need to be held in groups. Priorities and allocation of resources is always difficult and prioritizing limited resources. Space limitations exist in the wild or captive space in facilities. Issues occur when populations (same and different species) have to be mixed when you don’t want to, but must because limited on space. Facilities want to be more flexible with space because they want to use it for many different species, but this costs money. There are usually few facilities breeding for each species, and few facilities are willing to maintain species long term. Facilities may commit but when there is staff turnover then priorities change. 2. Difficulty maintaining good records/Lack of formal software for fish management: Within and between facilities it is hard to maintain accurate and consistent records in a standard method. Facilities are using different software and it can be challenging to share data (hand written notes, Access, Excel, etc.). Keeping ‘studbook’ style information is difficult for fish. How do you organize and manage a ‘breeding program’ of group housed fish in different facilities? How do you define a group that constantly changes composition (sex, numbers)? There is a lack of information on how to adapt current management software tools for fish. Data accuracy in working with private partners/hobbyists. 3. Lack of structured process for project decisions and goals: Need a clear and structured process for measuring success. No clearly defined “exit strategy” and we don’t know if we will ever be able to reintroduce these species. Limited information on source populations and how captive populations can/should be used as a back-up (should this even be a goal for our populations?). What are the true goals for maintaining these species? 4. Challenging reproduction in captivity: Behavior, genetics, life histories, much of this information is lacking for many of the fish species. Rapid rates of reproduction/controlling reproduction pose challenges for many species (i.e., large number of offspring form one pair = overrepresentation). Morphologically plastic/change in captivity in a few generations. Hard to breed specific species within mixed species exhibits. There are usually few facilities breeding for each species. Cannot id individuals. Not being able to maintain constant variables across facilities (temp, etc).
Page 42 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
5. Lack of genetic data to make/understand management decisions: Genetics for many of these populations are unknown or limited. Many populations may not be able to obtain more genetics from the wild. Lack of funding for molecular work. Unknown levels of adaptive variation necessary to maintain fitness, or impact of mate choice and spawn date on fitness. Conserving genetic diversity and improving fitness is challenging.
Additional discussion, issues etc. Pupfish (Brian Zimmerman) – many species of pupfish, 70% of species are Near Threatened or higher, many species not assessed yet, male hold territories and very aggressive to each other, can be stressed easy especially in an aquarium setting makes them susceptible to disease Lack of institutional Commitment – when facilities reach out about a fish to hold, tell them they need to make a long-term commitment, but usually this is tied to one person, so if that person leaves then there is no longer interest in the species, facilities assume another facility has that species, so then the species disappears from multiple facilities and no one has them. Exit Strategy - rehabilitation in wild is hard because springs in wild are drying up but no process right now for reintroduction, so need facilities to hold healthy pops for the long term. Overwhelming requirements – want to figure this out for pupfish so can apply to other species in the future.
Page 43 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.2.05. Amphibians & Reptiles
Facilitator: Paul Senner Recorder: Rachel Bladow
Attendees: Borja Reh Bob Lacy Gerardo Garcia Francesc Carbonell Buira Benjamin Tapley Luis Carrillo Belen Jimenez-Mena Chris Michaels Hannah Jenkins Gowri Mallapur Andrea Echeverry-Alcendra
Taxa/Species chosen for consideration: 1. Montseny brook newt 2. Chinese giant salamander 3. Fire salamander 4. Frogs 5. Anoles 6. Freshwater turtles
Top issues/problems/challenges with group management, in descending order of importance: 1. Molecular tools -- lack of genomic resources available compared to other taxonomic groups. 2. Unknown provenance and taxonomic uncertainty--cryptic species. 3. Lack of knowledge about reproduction, and sperm storage in reptiles. 4. Highly fecund, contrasting life history phases: Herps, especially amphibians, are highly fecund and have very different life history phases 5. Limited resources for data entry - lack of standardization among institutions and not enough time/staff to enter all of the data for highly fecund species 6. Difficult to identify individuals.
Additional discussion, issues etc. Tools for marking animals do not always work on herps, or if they work for one species, the technique may not work for another. Sometimes in projects (release projects was the example) a decision gets made to breed all individuals together before we even know if there are unique genetic variations among the group by region of origin. Data entry is not standardized. Much discussion about a call for this especially for some species so that all holders are entering animals at the same life stage and the same data are recorded.
Page 44 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.2.06. Birds
Facilitator: Lucy Kemp Recorder: Asako Navarro
Attendees: Erica Royer Catherine Grueber Fabio Vannucchi Michelle Hatwood Nicole Errante Gwen Maggs Michael Meyerhoff Michelle Smurl Michael Mace
Taxa/Species chosen for consideration: 1. Red Siskin 2. Mauritius olive white-eye 3. Bengal Florican 4. Milky Stork 5. Florida scrub jay
Top 5 issues/problems/challenges with group management, in descending order of importance: 1. Genetics – Lack of parentage information and therefore lack of accurate gene diversity estimates. Interspecific hybridization is possible with some species (red siskin and milky stork), and when it is an issue, it is unclear to what extent it is present in the population. 2. Funding – Lack of financial support/staffing to track parentage or transport animals. Birds held in flocks and large aviaries require manpower to track parentage through nest monitoring and observations of breeding behavior. 3. Social structures - Aggression and dominance behavior can lead to uncontrollable, prolific pairs where only a small proportion of males may contribute genetically.
Additional discussion, voting results, issues etc. Parentage data is difficult to track accurately when managing flocks in large aviaries (sometimes can’t even reach nest), and there are possibilities of extra-pair copulation and egg dumping. Social interactions with other species in mixed-species settings can result in competition for resources (nest location/material) and therefore poor nesting and less breeding success. Limited knowledge of natural history such as breeding, life expectancy, and social structure (ideal group size) can result in unknown breeding failure.
Page 45 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.2.07. Small Mammals
Facilitator: Phil Miller Recorder: Kendra Strohmayer
Attendees: Yvonne Strode Donna Bear Haley Blackwell Steven Gray Christine Hvilsom *Small group with little experience in multiple small mammal types it seems
Taxa/Species chosen for consideration: 1. Bat, Egyptian Fruit 2. Naked Mole Rats 3. Rock Hyrax
Top 5 issues/problems/challenges with group management, in descending order of importance: 1. Who to remove? When reducing colonies, we remove individuals randomly instead of selected. 2. Lack of space limits ability to separate and manage breeding more closely in small groupings, keep surplus males. 3. Pedigrees unknown 4. Genetic diversity difficult to analyze within population diversity, difficult to obtain proper data 5. Data lacking (more than tools)
Additional discussion, voting results, issues etc. Smaller groups desirable – resource limitation & space limitation. Secondary clusters– space limitations, space for surplus males, space for separate groups that needed to be maintained at individual institutions.
DISCUSSION POINTS: Additional Explanation and Examples • Bats – a lot of them have the same issues – sticking with the one example of bat. • Considered Meerkats – no one had experience with that species. • Group Management issue – need separate males and you can’t do that in the big population. (Single male groups can’t always be separate without removing from the overall population) bring them back one at a time to breed. • Difficulty in tracking individuals. • Lack of genetic diversity. • MULTs are common – unknown parentage. • No place for them to go (extra males disperse in wild) how to deal with individuals kicked out of groups? • Neutering males – anatomy. • One enclosure for entire colony – when reducing colony, random individuals are removed. • Limited resources (SPACE) for surplus males • Discussing the set of issues pre-listed for Egyptian fruit bat – Getting the data into the proper format for record-keeping – a general issue. • Example: Gestation period issue –(rock Hyrax) - Yvonne o Male 1 at 101 days o Male 2 at 241 days
Page 46 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
o Don’t always know which male was in with them at the exact time they got pregnant • Ex-situ – how to deal with individuals kicked out of groups? Males disperse in Wild, not so much in Ex-situ situation. Most have to be managed in-house. o Lots of extra males for birds ( 50/50) (Hyrax) o Keep offspring for a specific amount of time before transfer out – if get a lot of males – then not a lot of places for them to go. o Regional Management Issue – EAZA – culling, but other regionals might not cull o Rock Hyrax - FEMALES- implants, but long-term impact not known. o Rock Hyrax - Males – implants even in bachelor groups, always at young age to keep aggression down. o EAZA – uses a random process for removal of birds – if you have a pop of 160, need 100, remove what you can. o Christine provided example from EAZA, might be able to give more details if needed.
NOTES ON USING MURAL: o Creating an account delays starting working right away – suggest sending the link to Mural the day before to set up ahead of time. Also, a ten-minute How-To video would be helpful, to watch ahead of time, or at the start of the Second session or end of the 1st session. This would allow time for tech issues during the break. o The lines move! o Countdown timer – since it counts down, itinerary should match this, not the reverse. (For example, 50-40 minutes not 0-10 minutes. Made staying on track difficult). o Smaller column size recommended. Spent a lot of time scrolling. Can always add post-its down, and easier to see the columns side by side to keep people thinking. o Donna had an issue and a pop-up that occurred where should couldn’t type in the post-it o Hard to keep species colors straight when discussing – had to go back and check frequently.
Page 47 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.2.08. Ungulates
Facilitator: Amy Chabot Recorder: Linda Penfold
Attendees: Frank Princée Jack Windig James Biggs Jo Ann Smith Flueck John Andrews Kushall Selvarajah Rob Ogden Richard Emslie Nina Trontti Steve Metzler Amélie Mathieu
Taxa/Species chosen for consideration: Addax Caribou Peninsula pronghorn Huemol (South-Andean deer) White rhino Banteng
Top issues/problems/challenges with group management, in descending order of importance: 1. Genotypic and phenotypic differences between management units 2. Which animals are best to introduce as new blood into established pops? 3. Little scientific data for in-situ and ex-situ 4. Founders: Picking which individuals to use as founders when setting up new populations
Additional discussion, voting results, issues etc. Uncertain significance of phenotypic differences P-horses may have different color morphs but are all P-horses. Animals may develop different phenotypes that may or may not be evolutionarily important, hard to predict. Conversely, valuable male in an ex situ population may not resemble the species (stunted, short legs) and may not be selected for breeding, even though genetically important. Differences in appearance risk happening rapidly through genetic drift. Take home point – take measured approach to make sure phenotypic differences do not preclude integration genetically. Social grouping of ungulates can drive mate choice and genetic selection, and that this social aspect is not factored into genetic modeling.
Page 48 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.2.09. Carnivores
Facilitator: Karen Bauman Recorder: Katelyn Mucha
Attendees: Aliana Norris Ashley Franklin Candace Dorsey Cheryl Asa Monicque Silva Pereira Nicole Duplaix Stephanie Richmond
Taxa/Species chosen for consideration: 1. Asian short (or small) clawed otter (Aonyx cinereus) 2. Dwarf mongoose (Helogale parvula) 3. Painted (or African wild) dogs (Lycaon pictus) – representing group canids (wolfs, hyenids) 4. Sea otters (Enhydra lutris)
Top 5 issues/problems/challenges with group management, in descending order of importance: 1. Role of contraception, especially of dominant individuals and the potential effect on subordinates. 2. Aggression as it relates to social dynamics from group natural fission/fusion and/or creation of new groups for management. 3. Lack of parentage information (current and historic). 4. Inbreeding effects (current and historic). 5. Lack of space to manage some of these species well as groups.
Additional discussion, voting results, issues etc. Mate choice: We still do not understand the role of mate choice in group management (carnivores and all species) Reproductive suppression: We still don’t understand the role and degree that reproductive suppression plays in group managed carnivores (and some other taxon) Management euthanasia: Lack of acceptance. Data quality issues for most of the mustelids, and in many cases for small carnivores no studbook data at all.
Page 49 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
6.2.10. Primates
Facilitator: Gina Ferrie Recorder: Hana Johnstone
Attendees: Andrea Worley Betsy Herrelko Eric Tsao Mara Cristina Marques Paula Cerdán Wendy Chua Roopali Raghavan Monique Pool
Taxa/Species chosen for consideration: 1. Ring-tailed Lemur 2. Hamadryas Baboon 3. Bonobo 4. Lion Tamarins (3 species) 5. Macaques 6. Squirrel Monkeys
Top 5 issues/problems/challenges with group management, in descending order of importance: [We had several ties/overlapping challenges, the full voting results are in the section below] 1. Pedigrees: Knowledge gaps related to parentage/pedigree 2. Space: Limited housing opportunities/lack of space to separate out individuals for identification (tie with #3) 3. Complex breeding structures: Multi-male, multi-female breeding structure (tie with #2) 4. Mixture of individual and group management needed, varies within and across facilities/regions (tie with #5) 5. Limited resources for data clean up (tie with #4, similar to #1 but more focused on the lack of time/resources) Lots of historical pedigree/unknown parentage.
Page 50 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
Additional discussion, voting results, issues etc.
1. Data a. Pedigree/parentage: Potentially better pedigree than other taxonomic groups, can typically identify individuals (macaques, lemur, baboon, squirrel monkeys) i. How much of an issue are sneaker males? – recent paper on this suggests potential equal probability, not a major issue b. Little research on wild populations/poor ID info for wild populations where One plan approach might be used c. Sub-specific differences/origins d. Personality/social preferences 2. Life History a. Matrilineal dominance b. Family group stability/learned behavioral issues. Bonobos: moved around, not maintained in family groups early on with some specific individuals, some individuals taught other individuals to regurgitate and reingest, behaviors learned then transmitted through offspring/family 3. Management Limitations a. Social structure in breeding (across all). Geriatric animals, tied to group stability, stability threatened when individuals die. b. Zoo populations are limited, can be difficult to find zoos who want to house the species (e.g. macaques) Conflict responses in situ i. Macaques: randomly culled in wild, perceived as trouble, human-wildlife conflict ii. Lion tamarins: difficulty following recommendations at institution level, especially given space and communication limitations, tied to contraception issues 4. Limited Resources a. Data clean up, unknown ped, MULTs, historical info b. Large group sizes, can be difficult to account for each individual once groups get huge c. High infrastructure costs. Primates expensive in general. Singapore Zoo: exploring setting up RFID tracking to ID individuals, requires financial/planning resources d. Stigma regarding moving individuals between organizations (macaques) e. Limited housing opportunities across facilities, also lack of room to separate out individuals within a facility 5. Other a. Mix of individual/group-managed populations, can vary among and between regions b. Fast reproductive rates, difficult to track births in some species c. Challenges with medical treatments for aggression or geriatric animals d. Contraception in general, challenges with sterilization, particularly for targeted breeding
Poll Results 5 votes: Parentage/pedigree
4 votes: Limited housing opportunities Multi-male, multi-female breeding structure
Page 51 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
3 votes: Mixture of individual and group management Lots of historical pedigree/unknown parentage
2 votes: Individuals managed in groups in some regions, as individuals in others Social structure in breeding Little research on wild populations Family groups/stability
7. CONCLUSIONS
Shared and newly identified challenges
Following the presentations, working groups, and concluding open discussion period, we found that many of the challenges identified in breakout rooms were experienced in common across various taxonomic groups, and echoed and confirmed some of the challenges identified previously by the thematic teams who worked together prior to this workshop. However, a number of challenges also emerged that had not been previously identified.
Among the most common challenges identified, the top two were almost axiomatic: these were the challenges of having unidentified individuals and unknown pedigrees, combined with acute space and resource limitations. Clearly, these challenges are central to the definition of requiring group management. Other common challenges, which were less obviously expected, and therefore slightly more useful, included:
• Plants, invertebrates, fish lack common database and management software and standards. • Other taxa lack common group standards and implementation of group management. • Life histories that are “fast” or “slow”, highly fecund or varying, or otherwise complex, present particular challenges. • Lack of understanding about which data should be tracked & how to use them best. • Lack of understanding about which individuals to move or remove and when, and particularly with ungulates an unclear relevance of phenotype to management.
Among the challenges that were identified in this working group as key were: • The lack of a consistent definition for what a group is, what an accession is, and how these concepts relate. • Some species, across regions and life stages, will require a mix of individual- and group-based management, not just one or the other. • Social structures, management euthanasia, and contraception are almost the defining challenges in some taxa (particularly mammals), while almost irrelevant in other taxa (such as plants and aquatic invertebrates). • Lack of a clear process for decisions in the face of tradeoffs, for measuring success, and for using data to make mid-course management readjustments.
Next steps
By holding this working group, the Group Management Initiative has now largely completed the
Page 52 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
third step in the overall process we are using to reach our vision (Figure 4). The next steps will be to refine and use this collection of challenges to identify and agree on an initial set of goals which, if reached, would address the challenges. We will continue to search for and invite in any ongoing efforts that are aimed at reaching these or similar goals, along and will formulate and evaluate other alternatives for reaching these goals.
Figure 4: The steps proposed for use by the Group Management Initiative to fulfill its vision, adapted from the Conservation Planning Specialist Group’s species conservation planning system.
In conclusion, this working group revealed that the challenges are considerable, which is likely a large part of the reason why nearly two decades have passed since the last meeting focused on group management with only isolated, exceptional advances in this area. However, this working group also revealed that there is considerable need and a passionate interest in the conservation community in solving them, and we are hopeful that this working group will serve as a catalyst for more regular, integrated advances in the future.
Page 53 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
APPENDIX 1: REGISTRANT/PARTICIPANT LIST
First Name Last Name Organization Country Email Grant Abel Seattle Aquarium United States [email protected] Stephanie Allard National Aquarium United States [email protected] John Andrews AZA Population Management Center at Lincoln Park Zoo (AZA PMC at LPZ) United States [email protected] Cheryl Asa St Louis Zoo United States [email protected] Maria Balcazar European Association of Zoos and Aquariums Netherlands [email protected] Graham L Banes University of Wisconsin - Madison United States [email protected] Nancy Banevicius Association of Zoos and Aquariums Brazil Brazil [email protected] Yara Barros CPSG Brasil Brazil [email protected] Karen Bauman St. Louis Zoo United States [email protected] Iliana Baums Penn State University United States [email protected] Donna Bear Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens United States [email protected] David Bennett UFRGS United Kingdom [email protected] James Biggs ZAA of Australasia Australia [email protected] Haley Blackwell AZA PMC of Lincoln Park Zoo United States [email protected] Rachel Bladow AZA PMC of Lincoln Park Zoo United States [email protected] Megan Brown Association of Zoos and Aquariums United States [email protected] Mark Bushell Bristol zoological Society United Kingdom [email protected] Amy Byrne The Morton Arboretum United States [email protected] Taylor Callicrate Species Conservation Toolkit Initiative United States [email protected] Francesc Carbonell B. Torreferrussa Wildlife Recovery Center Catalunya Spain [email protected] Luis Carrillo Amphibian Ark Mexico [email protected] Valentina Cedeno Provita Venezuela [email protected] Paula Cerdán World Association of Zoos and Aquariums Spain [email protected] Amy Chabot African Lion Safari, Canadian Species Initiative Canada [email protected] Judy Che-Castaldo Lincoln Park Zoo United States [email protected] Brian Chouinard SeaWorld San Diego United States [email protected] Wendy Chua SEAZA, Wildlife Reserves Singapore Singapore [email protected] Emily Coffey Atlanta Botanical Garden United States [email protected] Brian Coyle Smithsonian Institution United States [email protected] Danny de Man European Association of Zoos and Aquariums Netherlands [email protected] Skalalis Diana Universitas Padjadjaran Indonesia [email protected] Andrea Donaldson National Environment and Planning Agency Jamaica [email protected] Candice Dorsey Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) United States [email protected] Nicole Duplaix SSC Otter Specialist Group United States [email protected] Andrea Echeverry-Alcendra Asociación Colombiana de Parques Zoológicos, Acuarios y Afines Colombia [email protected]
Page 54 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
First Name Last Name Organization Country Email Richard Emslie Ecoscot CS and IUCN SSC AfRSG South Africa [email protected] Nicole Errante Species360 United States [email protected] Jeremie Fant Chicago Botanic Gardens United States [email protected] Gina Ferrie Disney's Animal Kingdom United States [email protected] Elmar Fienieg European Association of Zoos and Aquariums Netherlands [email protected] Muhammad Firdaus A. SMK PETERNAKAN JUARA SUBANG Indonesia [email protected] Ashley Franklin AZA Reproductive Management Center at the Saint Louis Zoo United States [email protected] Glennon Frei Saint Louis Zoo United States [email protected] Gerardo Garcia Chester Zoo United Kingdom [email protected] Donald Gillespie Chiang Mai Night Safari United States [email protected] Steven Gray Lincoln Park Zoo United States [email protected] Myfanwy Griffith European Association of Zoos and Aquariums Netherlands [email protected] Laura Gruber White Oak Conservation United States [email protected] Catherine Grueber The University of Sydney Australia [email protected] ELIZABETH Hann Adventure Aquarium United States [email protected] Michelle Hatwood Freeport McMoRan Audubon Species Survival Center United States [email protected] Kayri Havens Chicago Botanic Garden United States [email protected] Philippe Helsen Centre for Research & Conservation, Antwerp Zoo Belgium [email protected] Jay Hemdal The Toledo Zoo and Aquarium United States [email protected] Betsy Herrelko NZP/SCBI United States [email protected] Carolyn Hogg The University of Sydney Australia [email protected] Paige Howorth San Diego Zoo Global United States [email protected] Christina Hvilsom Copenhagen Zoo Denmark [email protected] Jamie Ivy San Diego Zoo Global United States [email protected] Richard Jakob-Hoff Auckland Zoo/CPSG New Zealand [email protected] Matt James Dallas Zoo United States [email protected] Hannah Jenkins Zoological Society of London United Kingdom [email protected] Joleena Jewell OdySea Aquarium United States [email protected] Belen Jimenez-Mena Technical University of Denmark Denmark [email protected] Rose Marie Johnson Consultant in sustainable agriculture Canada [email protected] Hana Johnstone AZA PMC of Lincoln Park Zoo United States [email protected] Joan Joman RZoo and Park Indonesia [email protected] Samyuktha Kandregula The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong [email protected] Lucy Kemp Mabula Ground Hornbill Project South Africa [email protected] Klaus-Peter Koepfli Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation United States [email protected] Catharina Kreischer Refauna Brazil [email protected] Robert Lacy Species Conservation Toolkit Initiative United States [email protected]
Page 55 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
First Name Last Name Organization Country Email Amanda Lawless AZA PMC of Lincoln Park Zoo United States [email protected] Kristin Leus CPSG Europe/Copenhagen Zoo Belgium [email protected] Jean Linsky Atlanta Botanical Garden/Global Conservation Consortium for Magnolia Canada [email protected] Sonja Luz Wildlife Reserves Singapore Slovakia [email protected] Gwen Maggs Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust United Kingdom [email protected] Gowri Mallapur Central Zoo Authority, India India [email protected] Tiit Maran Tallinn Zoo Estonia [email protected] Mara Cristina Marques Fundação Parque Zoológico de São Paulo Brazil [email protected] Amélie Mathieu Government of British Columbia Canada [email protected] Steve Metzler San Diego Zoo Safari Park United States [email protected] Abby Meyer Botanic Gardens Conservation International U.S. United States [email protected] Michael Meyerhoff Angkor Centre for Conservation of Biodiversity Cambodia [email protected] Christopher Michaels Zoological Society of London United Kingdom [email protected] Philip Miller IUCN SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group United States [email protected] Jean Miller AZA's Institutional Data Management Scientific Advisory Group (IDMAG) United States [email protected] Jennifer Moore NOAA Fisheries United States [email protected] Kari Morfeld For Elephants, Inc.& Morfeld Research & Conservation, LLC United States [email protected] Katelyn Mucha Species360 United States [email protected] Asako Navarro San Diego Zoo Global United States [email protected] Mirjam Neu Benistra France [email protected] Aliana Norris Beijing Forestry University United States [email protected] Miftah Nur Fauzan Gadjah Mada University Indonesia [email protected] Rob Ogden University of Edinburgh United Kingdom [email protected] Steve Olson Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) United States [email protected] Carolina Ortiz Wildlife Ecology, Management and Conservation Lab, Univ. of São Paulo Brazil [email protected] Ramesh K. Pandey National Zoological Park New Delhi India [email protected] Rosalyn Pardave National Agrarian University La Molina Peru [email protected] Kate Pearce Zoos Victoria Australia [email protected] Paul Pearce-Kelly Zoological Society of London United Kingdom [email protected] Linda Penfold South-East Zoo Alliance for Reproduction & Conservation United States [email protected] Zjef Pereboom Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp Belgium [email protected] Riley Pollom Shark Specialist Group; Seahorse, Pipefish and Seasragon Specialist Group Canada [email protected] Heather Pong Wildlife Reserves Singapore Singapore [email protected] Monique Pool Green Heritage Fund Suriname Suriname [email protected] David Powell Saint Louis Zoo United States [email protected] Frank Princée Consultant in population management United Kingdom [email protected] Andrea Putnam San Diego Zoo Global United States [email protected]
Page 56 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
First Name Last Name Organization Country Email Becky Raboy Independent Consultant Canada [email protected] Roopali Raghavan Wildlife Reserves Singapore Seychelles [email protected] Borja Reh Allies For Wildlife Spain [email protected] Kathryn Rodriguez-Clark Smithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute (NZP/SCBI) United States [email protected] Erica Royer NZP/SCBI United States [email protected] Natalia Rozniewska Clinique Vétérinaire Saint Jean France [email protected] Kristine Schad Eebes AZA PMC of Lincoln Park Zoo United States [email protected] Mandi Schook Disney's Animals, Science and Environment United States [email protected] Kushaal Selvarajah Malaysian Conservation Alliance for Tigers Malaysia [email protected] Paul Senner AZA PMC of Lincoln Park Zoo United States [email protected] Rollan Shah Siantar Zoo Indonesia [email protected] Shyam sharma Independent Researcher Nepal [email protected] Fujun Shen Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding China [email protected] Monicque Silva Pereira SIMA Brazil [email protected] Brandie Smith NZP/SCBI United States [email protected] Jo Anne Smith Flueck Univ. Nacional del Comahue, Fundacion Shoonem Argentina [email protected] Michelle Smurl Brevard Zoo United States [email protected] Brandon Speeg White Oak Conservation United States [email protected] Edward Spevak Saint Louis Zoo United States [email protected] Jessica Steiner Wildlife Preservation Canada Canada [email protected] Yvonne Strode Peoria Zoo United States [email protected] Kendra Strohmayer AZA PMC of Lincoln Park Zoo United States [email protected] Erin Sullivan Woodland Park Zoo United States [email protected] Gloria Svampa La Torbiera Zoological Park, Italian Association of Zoos and Aquaria (UIZA) Italy [email protected] Kazutoshi Takami Toyohashi Zoo and Botanical Park; JAZA Japan [email protected] Benjamin Tapley Zoological Society of London United Kingdom [email protected] Devender K. Thakur Central Zoo Authority New Delhi India [email protected] Cristian Tirapelle MRCVS Italy [email protected] J. Vanda Tirtayani Gembira Loka Zoo Indonesia [email protected] David Tonkyn Independent scholar United States [email protected] Kathy Traylor-Holzer IUCN SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group United States [email protected] Dedi Trisasongko Bandung Zoological Garden Indonesia [email protected] Nina Trontti Helsinki Zoo Finland [email protected] Eric Tsao Taipei Zoo Taiwan [email protected] Raymond van der Meer European Association of Zoos and Aquariums Netherlands [email protected] Fabio Vannucchi Sao Paulo State University Brazil [email protected] Ye Wang Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding China [email protected]
Page 57 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group
First Name Last Name Organization Country Email Hirofumi Watabe Tama Zoological Park Japan [email protected] Murphy Westwood The Morton Arboretum United States [email protected] Nathan Wilke US Fish and Wildlife Service United States [email protected] Jack Windig Wageningen University Netherlands [email protected] Andrea Worley San Diego Zoo Global United States [email protected] Steven Yong Steinhart Aquarium at the California Academy of Sciences United States [email protected] Liang Zhang Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding China [email protected] Brian Zimmerman Bristol Zoological Society United Kingdom [email protected]
Page 58 of 58 CPSG 2020 Annual Meeting - Group Management Working Group