Finding Correlations among Successful Reintroduction Programs: An Analysis and Review of Current and Past Mistakes by Jillian Estrada A practicum submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Natural Resources and Environment) at the University of Michigan April 2014 Faculty advisor(s): Professor Bobbi Low, Chair Dr. M. Elsbeth McPhee Abstract In the past half century the world has seen a dramatic decline in species. More and more species are being pushed to brink of extinction. In the past, there have been several methods utilized to mitigate these trends, however with the recent surge of local extinctions, reintroductions have become a growing conservation tool. Despite many disadvantages of developing a reintroduction plan, hundreds have been attempted over the past 40 years, with mixed outcomes. Some conservationists have studied the factors associated with success; however the criteria on which their assessments were based were flawed. I attempted to complete my own assessment of successful programs using detailed program information along with life history traits of focal species. My results illustrate the many obstacles faced by reintroduction biologists. Based on the limitations faced throughout this study, I conclude that conservationists must take a step back and address the many issues with current reintroduction protocols prior to attempting any further assessments. My recommended solutions to some of these issues include defining universal criteria for a reintroduction program to be considered successful; monitoring, logging, and disseminating standardized data; and collaborating with captive facilities that have the ability to offer additional support. ii Acknowledgments Advisors Dr. Bobbi S. Low, Co-Chair, Professor of Natural Resources, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Dr. M. Elsbeth McPhee, Co-Chair, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology, Department of Biology/Environmental Studies, The University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, Wisconsin Funding source Rackham Graduate School, University of Michigan I wish to thank Dr. Bobbi Low not only for her advising but more importantly for her words of encouragement throughout this process. I would also like to thank Dr. Misty McPhee for her advising and organizational skills that helped me tackle this practicum in such a short amount of time. Lastly, I would like to thank the graduate students of the Bobbi lab for our relaxed discussions that enabled me to focus on my research and stay positive. Without their help this study would not have been feasible. iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................................... 7 3. Results ……………………………………………………………………………………………….15 4. Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………………...17 4.1 Defining success …………………………………………………………………………………17 4.2 Adequate data …………………………………………………………………………………….21 4.2 The future of reintroductions …………………...………………………………………………..24 4.3 The role of zoos …………………………………………………………………………………..36 4.4 Concluding remarks ……………...………………………………………………………………38 5. Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………………..41 6. Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………............44 iv Introduction In the past two decades, the number of species listed as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered has nearly doubled; there are now estimated to be over 20,000 species at least vulnerable to extinction (IUCN, 2013). As this number rapidly increases, conservationists are faced with the task of determining how to delay the trend. Two of the possible methods for achieving this goal are protection and restoration. Historically, conservationists have created policies, set aside protected areas, and raised awareness to safeguard species and their natural habitats (Erwin, 1991; Fiedler & Jain, 1992). Because the decline of so many populations is typically not due to one pressure but many, the protection of species and their habitat has been the most commonly used conservation tool. Habitat protection is typically the most cost efficient means to save species (MacKinnon & MacKinnon, 1991), although setting aside protected lands does not account for the dispersal of animals outside of these areas and may not always prevent threats from harming endangered populations. Additionally, increasing the amount of protected areas conflicts with human habitation and land use, which could promote human- wildlife conflicts that are currently threatening these species. More recently, as environmental protection has become standard practice, governmental and non-governmental organizations have turned to restoration tactics where protection was not an option. Restoration is a less attainable goal because the more degraded an area is, the more effort and funding is required to completely restore it. Moreover, the outcomes of such projects have high uncertainty as to the area of a project that can successfully be restored as well as the productivity level of a restored area (Suding, 2011). The effectiveness of restoration and protection varies widely with managing practices however they have become the two most prevalent methods of saving habitats and the species within them. While these practices are crucial to conservation, they are no longer an option in some dire situations. When a species is on the brink of becoming locally extirpated or has already become locally 1 extinct, there is truly only one method remaining to save that species in that area. Once a population has fallen to a certain point, the only way to improve population growth, or to return that species back to its original habitat, is by reintroducing individuals. Reintroduction is considered the “intentional movement of an organism into a part of its native range from which it has disappeared or become extirpated in historic times” (IUCN, 1987). While this conservation tool is critical for species on the brink of extinction, it is a last-resort method that should only be employed under very certain circumstances. Exploiting reintroduction could potentially reduce its overall success as a conservation strategy; the more effort put forth to save species that are not good candidates reduces the likelihood that well-fitting candidates will receive the support they need. An abundance of species have locally gone extinct prior to reintroduction (Stuart, 1991). In fact, at least 17 of the 27 programs used in this study did not have a local population at the time of release. Without captive breeding programs and recovery plans, these animals (such as the California condor, black-footed ferret, and Przewalski's horse, to name a few) would only exist in captivity and for an unknown amount of time. In addition to saving species from the brink of extinction, reintroductions provide many other benefits. Many of the species involved in these programs become archetypes for further conservation issues and efforts. They increase awareness about the fate of populations due to human activity and they promote the protection for key ecosystems (e.g., golden lion tamarin in Brazil and the gray wolf in the western United States). Along with their extinction, ecosystems in which these species are found could have adverse effects due to their absence. Many endangered species are apex predators or provide other critical services that allow their ecosystem to thrive (Ripple & Beschta, 2012; Ripple et al., 2014). Despite these benefits, many are opposed to reintroduction programs due to the stress incurred by the animals caused by handling and novel environments, as well as additional stressors in the wild that are not present in captivity (Beck et al., 1994). This has caused a heated debate among scientists and practitioners about the ethics of reintroducing captive-born animals into novel 2 environments (Harrington et al., 2013). Additionally, the type of species being reintroduced has caused backlash from non-supportive locals. This presents one of many issues with using reintroduction as a standard practice, including a lack of commonality among protocols, definitions, and criteria for success. Reintroducing a species into its original habitat is not a novel idea; however the concept has only become increasingly popular as a conservation strategy since the 1970s (Stuart, 1991). In the 40+ years of reintroductions as a conservation focus, there have been hundreds of attempts to reintroduce species to their natural habitat. Most have been small-scale “experimental” trials. Others have been complete recovery plans extending to habitat quality and post-release monitoring. The number of attempts and those that survived past experimentation is not as large as one would expect due to limitations of preconditions that must be met for a species to become a reintroduction candidate (Stuart, 1991; Seddon, et al., 2012). First, there must be suitable habitat available as a release site; it should include abundant food source, sufficient area for dispersing individuals, and limited or no competition for niche placement. Second, threats causing the initial population decline must be removed prior to release (Stuart, 1991). These threats are typically directly or indirectly caused by humans, such as habitat loss and poaching, but can also include