DOCSLIB.ORG

Reintroduction of Captive Animals Into Their Native Habitat: a Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reintroduction of Captive Animals Into Their Native Habitat: a Bibliography TITLE: REINTRODUCTION OF CAPTIVE ANIMALS INTO THEIR NATIVE HABITAT: A BIBLIOGRAPHY AUTHOR & INSTITUTION: Kay A. Kenyon, Librarian National Zoological Park Branch Smithsonian Institution Libraries Washington, D.C. DATE: September 1988 LAST UPDATE: August 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS General . 1 Invertebrates . 9 Fish . 11 Reptiles and Amphibians . 13 Birds . 18 Mammals . 35 GENERAL Newsletter: Re-Introduction News. 1990,-- no. 1--. Chairman, RSG: Dr. Mark Stanley Price. Edited by Minoo Rahbar. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group, c/o African Wildlife Foundation, P.O. Box 48177, Nairobi, Kenya. Fax (254)-2-710372; Tel (254)-2-710367. 1968 Petrides, G.A. 1968. Problems in species' introductions. IUCN Bulletin, New Series, 2(7):70-71. 1969 Wayre, P. 1969. The role of zoos in breeding threatened species of mammals and birds in captivity. Biological Conservation, 2(1):47-49. 1977 Brambell, M.R. 1977. Reintroduction. International Zoo Yearbook, 17:112-116. Kear, J. & A.J.Berger. 1977. The problem of breeding endangered species in captivity. International Zoo Yearbook, 17:5-14. Sankhala, K.S. 1977. Captive breeding, reintroduction and nature protection: the Indian experience. International Zoo Yearbook, 17:98-101. 1978 Jungius, H. 1978. Criteria for the reintroduction of threatened species into parts of their former range. In: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Threatened Deer, pp. 342-352. Morges, Switzerland: IUCN. 1979 Anon. 1979. Reintroduction hazards. Oryx, 15:80. 1980 Campbell, S. 1980. Is reintroduction a realistic goal? In: M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox, eds. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective, pp. 263-269. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinaur. Yoffe, A. 1980. Breeding endangered species in Israel. International Zoo Yearbook, 20:127-137. 1981 Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience, 31:131-134. 1983 Temple, S. 1983. Is reintroduction a realistic goal? Proceedings of the Jean Delacour/ IFCB Symposium on Breeding Birds in Captivity. pp.597-605. North Hollywood, CA: International Foundation for the Conservation of Birds. 1985 Jungius, N. 1985. Prospects for reintroduction. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London, 54:47-55. 1986 Cade, T.J. 1986. Reintroduction as a method of conservation. Raptor Research Report, 5:72-84. Conway, W.G. 1986. The practical difficulties and financial implications of endangered species breeding programs. International Zoo Yearbook, 24/25:210-219. Sale, J.E. 1986. Reintroduction in Indian wildlife management. Indian Forester, 112:867-873. 2 Soule, M., M. Gilpin, W.G. Conway, and T.J. Foose. 1986. The millenium ark: How long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers? Zoo Biology, 5:101-113. 1987 Durrell, L. and J. Mallinson. 1987. Reintroduction as a political and educational tool for conservation. Dodo, Journal of the Jersey Wildlife Preseravation Trusts, 24:6-19. IUCN. 1987. Introductions, Re-introductions and Re-stocking. The IUCN position statement on translocation of living organisms. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Johnson, B. 1987. Field research: charting the course for the zoo ark. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Regional Conference Proceedings, pp. 142-149. Luoma, J.R. 1987. A Crowded Ark, the Role of Zoos in Conservation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 209pp. Lyles, A.M. and R.M. May. 1987. Problems in leaving the ark. Nature, 326:245-246. May, R.M. and A.M. Lyles. 1987. Living Latin binomials. Nature, 326:642-643. Soule, M.E., ed. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 189pp. Wemmer, C. and S. Derrickson. 1987. Reintroduction: the zoo biologist' s dream-prospects and problems of reintroducing captive-bred wildlife. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Annual Conference Proceedings, pp.48-65. 1988 Cohn, J.P. 1988. Captive breeding for conservation. BioScience, 38:312-316. 1989 Clark, T.W., and R. Westerum. 1989. High-performance teams in wildlife conservation: a species reintroduction and recovery example. Environmental Management, 13(6):663-670. 1990 Flesness, N. and T.J. Foose. 1990. The role of captive breeding in the conservation of species. In: 1990 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals, pp. xi-xiii. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Kleiman, D.G. 1990. Decision-making about a reintroduction: do appropriate conditions exist? Endangered Species Update, 8(1):18-19. Jones, S., ed. 1990. Captive propagation and reintroduction: a strategy for preserving endangered species? Endangered Species Update, 8(1):1-88. LeComte, J., M. Bigan and V. Barre, eds. 1990. Re-introduction and re-inforcement of animal populations in France. (Proceedings of the Saint Jean du Gard Symposium, 1988). Revue d' Ecologie (La Terre et la Vie) Supplement 5, 350 pp. (In French). 3 Shepherdson, D. 1990. Beyond captive breeding: reintroducing endangered species to the wild. International Zoo News, 37(2):4-8. Wirth, R. 1990. Reintroduction - sometimes a conservation problem? International Zoo News, 37:13- 17. 1991 Beck, B.B. 1991. Managing zoo environments for reintroduction. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 436-440. Brown, P. 1991. Reintroductions in Australia: a brief overview. Re-introduction News, 2:2-3. Chivers, D.J. 1991. Guidelines for re-introductions: procedures and problems. In: Gipps, J.H., ed. Beyond Captive Breeding: Re-introducing Endangered Mammals to the Wild, pp. 89-99. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 62.) DeBlieu, Jan. 1991. Meant to Be Wild: The Struggle to Save Endangered Species Through Captive Breeding, Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 302pp. Dolan, J. 1991. Reintroduction-the sensitive side. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 147-151. Foose, T.J. 1991. Viable population strategies for re-introduction programmes. In: Gipps, J.H., ed. Beyond Captive Breeding: Re-introducing Endangered Mammals to the Wild, pp. 165-172. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no.62). Gipps, J. 1991. A safety net for survival. Lifewatch (London Zoo & Whipsnade), Winter:6-7. Gipps, J.H., ed. 1991. Beyond Captive Breeding: Re-introducing Endangered Mammals to the Wild. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 284 pp. (Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 62). Heuschele, W.P. 1991. The importance of infectious disease concerns in wildlife reintroductions. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 143-146. Hutchins, M., T. Foose and U.S. Seal. 1991. The role of veterinary medicine in endangered species conservation. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 22(3):277-281. Hutchins, M. and C. Wemmer. 1991. In defense of captive breeding. Endangered Species Update, 8:5-6. Kawata, K. 1991. Long-term captive propagation of wild animals. 5. Reintroduction: myth and reality. Animals and Zoos, 43(11):22-25. Lever, C. 1991. Reintroductions to Israel. Species (Newsletter of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN), 17:39-40. May, R.M. 1991. The role of ecological theory in planning re-introduction of endangered species. In: Gipps, J.H., ed. Beyond Captive Breeding: Re-introducing Endangered Mammals to the Wild, pp. 145-163. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 62). Michelot, J.L. 1991. Reintroduction and introductions of wild vertebrates in the Rhone-Alps region. Bievre, 12:71-99. (In French with English summary). 4 Seal, U.S. 1991. Life after extinction. In: Gipps, J.H., ed. Beyond Captive Breeding: Re-introducing Endangered Mammals to the Wild, pp. 39-55. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 62). Stuart, S.N. 1991. Re-introductions, to what extent are they needed? In: Gipps, J.H., ed. Beyond Captive Breeding: Re-introducing Endangered Mammals to the Wild, pp. 27-37. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 62). Toone, W.D. and T. Hanscom. 1991. The biopolitics of reintroductions. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 137-142. Vehrs, K.L. 1991. The role of zoos in recovery plans: what's in the future? American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 110-117. Woodford, M.H. and R.A. Kock. 1991. Veterinary considerations in re-introduction and translocation projects. In: Gipps, J.H., ed. Beyond Captive Breeding: Re-introducing Endangered Mammals to the Wild, pp. 101-110. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 62). 1992 AAZPA-Reintroduction Advisory Group. 1992. Guidelines for reintroduction of animals born or held in captivity. Bethesda, Maryland: AAZPA. Ballou, J.D. 1992. Genetic and demographic considerations in endangered species, captive breeding and reintroduction programs. In: McCullough, D.R. and R.H. Barett, eds. Wildlife 2001: Populations, pp. 262-275. Desai, J.H. 1992. Captive breeding, rehabilitation and re-introduction in India: A Status Report. CBSG News, 3(1):31-33. International Academy of Animal Welfare Sciences. 1992. Welfare guidelines for the re-introduction of captive bred mammals to the wild. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Rotter, Bar, pp. 1-10. Lindberg, D.G. 1992. Are wildlife reintroductions worth the cost? Zoo Biology, 11:1-2. Luoma, J. R. 1992. Born to be wild. Audubon, 94(1):50-53. Ralls, K. and J.D. Ballou. 1992. Managing genetic diversity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EU Zoo Inquiry Report Findings and Recommendations
    1 THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 An evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of animals in zoos. REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Written for the European coalition ENDCAP by the Born Free Foundation 2 THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 An evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of animals in zoos. REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS USED ............................................ 04 TERMS USED ............................................................... 04 FOREWORD ................................................................. 05 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 06 EC ZOOS DIRECTIVE 1999/22, SUCCESS, FAILURE – OR WORK IN PROGRESS? ..... 08 THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 FINDINGS 11 INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 12 METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 14 TRANSPOSITION ........................................................ 17 IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................... 22 ENFORCEMENT ........................................................... 28 COMPLIANCE .............................................................. 30 COUNTRY REPORTS AND UPDATES 41 AUSTRIA............................................................ 42 BELGIUM........................................................... 43 BULGARIA ........................................................ 44 CYPRUS............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Successful Reintroductions: the Combined Importance of Species Traits, Site Quality, and Restoration Technique
    Kaye: Toward Successful Reintroductions Proceedings of the CNPS Conservation Conference, 17–19 Jan 2009 pp. 99–106 © 2011, California Native Plant Society TOWARD SUCCESSFUL REINTRODUCTIONS: THE COMBINED IMPORTANCE OF SPECIES TRAITS, SITE QUALITY, AND RESTORATION TECHNIQUE THOMAS N. KAYE Institute for Applied Ecology, P.O. Box 2855, Corvallis, Oregon 97339-2855; Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 ([email protected]) ABSTRACT Reintroduction of endangered plant species may be necessary to protect them from extinction, provide connectivity between populations, and reach recovery goals under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. But what factors affect reintroduction success? And which matter more: traits inherent to the species, qualities of the site, or reintroduction technique? Here I propose that all three interact. First, reintroduction success will be highest for endangered species that share traits with non-rare native species, invasive plants, and species that excel in restoration plantings as reviewed from the ecological literature. Ten traits are identified as common to at least two of these groups. Second, reintroductions will do best in habitats ecologically similar to existing wild populations and with few local threats, such as non-native plants and herbivores. And third, the methods used to establish plants, such as planting seeds vs. transplants or selecting appropriate microsites, will influence outcomes. For any reintroduction project, potential pitfalls associated with a particular species, site, or technique may be overcome by integrating information from all three areas. Conducting reintroductions as designed experiments that test clearly stated hypotheses will maximize the amount and quality of information gained from each project and support adaptive management.
    [Show full text]
  • Alalā Or Hawaiian Crow (Corvus Hawaiiensis) 5-Year
    `Alalā or Hawaiian Crow (Corvus hawaiiensis) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office Honolulu, Hawai`i 5-YEAR REVIEW Species reviewed: `Alalā or Hawaiian Crow (Corvus hawaiiensis) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Reviewers ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review: ................................................................. 1 1.3 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy ......................... 2 2.2 Recovery Criteria .......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Updated Information and Current Species Status .................................................... 4 2.4 Synthesis......................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Recommended Classification ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem-Level Effects of Keystone Species Reintroduction: a Literature Review Sarah L
    REVIEW ARTICLE Ecosystem-level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review Sarah L. Hale1,2 , John L. Koprowski1 The keystone species concept was introduced in 1969 in reference to top-down regulation of communities by predators, but has expanded to include myriad species at different trophic levels. Keystone species play disproportionately large, important roles in their ecosystems, but human-wildlife conflicts often drive population declines. Population declines have resulted in the necessity of keystone species reintroduction; however, studies of such reintroductions are rare. We conducted a literature review and found only 30 peer-reviewed journal articles that assessed reintroduced populations of keystone species, and only 11 of these assessed ecosystem-level effects following reintroduction. Nine of 11 publications assessing ecosystem-level effects found evidence of resumption of keystone roles; however, these publications focus on a narrow range of species. We highlight the deficit of peer-reviewed literature on keystone species reintroductions, and draw attention to the need for assessment of ecosystem-level effects so that the presence, extent, and rate of ecosystem restoration driven by keystone species can be better understood. Key words: ecosystem restoration, ecosystem-level effects, keystone species, population declines, reintroduction species in their ecosystems. Wolves prevent ungulate overpop- Implications for Practice ulation, and in doing so prevent overbrowsing of vegetation • More research into ecosystem-level effects of keystone (McLaren & Peterson 1994), and provide scavengers with car- species reintroduction is required to fully understand if, rion in winters (Wilmers et al. 2003). Sea otters consume sea and to what extent, keystone species act as a restoration urchins (Strongylocentrotus spp.), thereby maintain the integrity tool.
    [Show full text]
  • The Network of Conservatoires Botaniques Nationaux in France Bardin & Moret
    The network of Conservatoires Botaniques Nationaux in France Bardin & Moret The network of Conservatoires Botaniques Nationaux in France and the implementation of the GSPC: results of fifteen years of activities Ph. Bardin and J. Moret Conservatoire Botanique National du Bassin parisien, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France Abstract The Conservatoire Botanique National of the Bassin Parisien: a leading role in plant diversity conservation in the French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development (Departement Ecologie et Gestion de la Biodiversite) In France, the Conservatoires Botaniques Nationaux are responsible for the conservation of plant diversity. The Conservatoire Botanique National of the Bassin Parisien, which comes under the National Museum of Natural History, has five main activities, which are in total accordance with the targets of the GSPC. The communication will present many advancements which have been obtained in these five domains: 1. The ambitious programme of biodiversity inventory: it allows us today to provide a widely accessible list of two thousand known species, with more than three million data items (the seventh GBIF contributor). The database is useful to support public policies for territorial projects including biodiversity 2. The research activity is carried out on very limited size populations and include demographic and genetic studies, the development of protocols and relevant tools for ecological engineering 3. A large programme of ex situ conservation, with a seed bank, an in vitro micropropagation unit and a living collection as a back up for the in situ conservation projects 4. Numerous in situ programmes are carried out: population reinforcement, reintroduction and transplantation. At the same time, an ecological management of habitats is established to protect the ecosystems 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Potential for Species Reintroductions in Canada
    Evaluating the Potential for Species Reintroductions in Canada JAY V. GEDIR, TIAN EVEREST, AND AXEL MOEHRENSCHLAGER Centre for Conservation Research, Calgary Zoo, 1300 Zoo Road NE, Calgary, AB, T2E 7V6, Canada, email [email protected] Abstract: Species reintroductions and translocations are increasingly useful conservation tools for restoring endangered populations around the world. We examine ecological and socio- political variables to assess Canada’s potential for future reintroductions. Biologically ideal species would be prolific, terrestrial, herbivorous, behaviorally simple, charismatic, easily tractable, or large enough to carry transmitters for post-release evaluations, and would have small home range requirements. Sociologically, Canada’s large geographic area, low human density, high urban population, widespread protectionist views towards wildlife, and sound economic status should favor reintroduction success. Canada has implemented legislation to safeguard species at risk and, compared to developing countries, possesses substantial funds to support reintroduction efforts. We support the reintroduction guidelines put forth by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) but realize that several challenges regarding these parameters will unfold in Canada’s future. Pressures from the rates of species loss and climate change may precipitate situations where species would need to be reintroduced into areas outside their historic range, subspecific substitutions would be necessary if taxonomically similar individuals are unavailable,
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 74/Thursday, April 16, 2020/Rules
    21282 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 74 / Thursday, April 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR United States and the Government of United States or U.S. territories as a Canada Amending the 1916 Convention result of recent taxonomic changes; Fish and Wildlife Service between the United Kingdom and the (8) Change the common (English) United States of America for the names of 43 species to conform to 50 CFR Part 10 Protection of Migratory Birds, Sen. accepted use; and (9) Change the scientific names of 135 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2018–0047; Treaty Doc. 104–28 (December 14, FXMB 12320900000//201//FF09M29000] 1995); species to conform to accepted use. (2) Mexico: Convention between the The List of Migratory Birds (50 CFR RIN 1018–BC67 United States and Mexico for the 10.13) was last revised on November 1, Protection of Migratory Birds and Game 2013 (78 FR 65844). The amendments in General Provisions; Revised List of this rule were necessitated by nine Migratory Birds Mammals, February 7, 1936, 50 Stat. 1311 (T.S. No. 912), as amended by published supplements to the 7th (1998) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Protocol with Mexico amending edition of the American Ornithologists’ Interior. Convention for Protection of Migratory Union (AOU, now recognized as the American Ornithological Society (AOS)) ACTION: Final rule. Birds and Game Mammals, Sen. Treaty Doc. 105–26 (May 5, 1997); Check-list of North American Birds (AOU 2011, AOU 2012, AOU 2013, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and (3) Japan: Convention between the AOU 2014, AOU 2015, AOU 2016, AOS Wildlife Service (Service), revise the Government of the United States of 2017, AOS 2018, and AOS 2019) and List of Migratory Birds protected by the America and the Government of Japan the 2017 publication of the Clements Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) by for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Checklist of Birds of the World both adding and removing species.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Actions
    CHAPTER 4 Conservation Actions Table of Contents Take Action! Get Involved! ................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Background and Rationale ................................................................................................................. 9 Conservation Action Classification System .................................................................................... 11 Conservation Action Description ........................................................................................................ 12 Best Practices for Conservation Actions ............................................................................................. 15 International Conservation Actions ................................................................................................ 15 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Regional Conservation Actions ........................................................................................................ 19 Regional Conservation Needs Program .............................................................................................. 19 Regional Action .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix, French Names, Supplement
    685 APPENDIX Part 1. Speciesreported from the A.O.U. Check-list area with insufficient evidencefor placementon the main list. Specieson this list havebeen reported (published) as occurring in the geographicarea coveredby this Check-list.However, their occurrenceis considered hypotheticalfor one of more of the following reasons: 1. Physicalevidence for their presence(e.g., specimen,photograph, video-tape, audio- recording)is lacking,of disputedorigin, or unknown.See the Prefacefor furtherdiscussion. 2. The naturaloccurrence (unrestrained by humans)of the speciesis disputed. 3. An introducedpopulation has failed to becomeestablished. 4. Inclusionin previouseditions of the Check-listwas basedexclusively on recordsfrom Greenland, which is now outside the A.O.U. Check-list area. Phoebastria irrorata (Salvin). Waved Albatross. Diornedeairrorata Salvin, 1883, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 430. (Callao Bay, Peru.) This speciesbreeds on Hood Island in the Galapagosand on Isla de la Plata off Ecuador, and rangesat seaalong the coastsof Ecuadorand Peru. A specimenwas takenjust outside the North American area at Octavia Rocks, Colombia, near the Panama-Colombiaboundary (8 March 1941, R. C. Murphy). There are sight reportsfrom Panama,west of Pitias Bay, Dari6n, 26 February1941 (Ridgely 1976), and southwestof the Pearl Islands,27 September 1964. Also known as GalapagosAlbatross. ThalassarchechrysosWma (Forster). Gray-headed Albatross. Diornedeachrysostorna J. R. Forster,1785, M6m. Math. Phys. Acad. Sci. Paris 10: 571, pl. 14. (voisinagedu cerclepolaire antarctique & dansl'Ocean Pacifique= Isla de los Estados[= StatenIsland], off Tierra del Fuego.) This speciesbreeds on islandsoff CapeHorn, in the SouthAtlantic, in the southernIndian Ocean,and off New Zealand.Reports from Oregon(mouth of the ColumbiaRiver), California (coastnear Golden Gate), and Panama(Bay of Chiriqu0 are unsatisfactory(see A.O.U.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Codes for 2154 Bird Species (And 108 Non-Species Taxa) in Accordance with the 60Th AOU Supplement (2019), Sorted Alphabetically by English Name
    Four-letter (English Name) and Six-letter (Scientific Name) Alpha Codes for 2154 Bird Species (and 108 Non-Species Taxa) in accordance with the 60th AOU Supplement (2019), sorted alphabetically by English name Prepared by Peter Pyle and David F. DeSante The Institute for Bird Populations www.birdpop.org ENGLISH NAME 4-LETTER CODE SCIENTIFIC NAME 6-LETTER CODE Abert's Towhee ABTO Melozone aberti MELABE Acadian Flycatcher ACFL Empidonax virescens EMPVIR Acorn Woodpecker ACWO Melanerpes formicivorus MELFOR Adelaide's Warbler ADWA Setophaga adelaidae SETADE African Collared-Dove AFCD Streptopelia roseogrisea STRROS African Silverbill AFSI Euodice cantans EUOCAN Agami Heron AGHE Agamia agami AGAAGA Ainley's Storm-Petrel AISP Hydrobates cheimomnestes HYDCHE Akekee AKEK Loxops caeruleirostris LOXCAE Akiapolaau AKIA Hemignathus wilsoni HEMWIL Akikiki AKIK Oreomystis bairdi OREBAI Akohekohe AKOH Palmeria dolei PALDOL Alder Flycatcher ALFL Empidonax alnorum EMPALN + Aleutian Cackling Goose ACGO Branta hutchinsii leucopareia BRAHLE Aleutian Tern ALTE Onychoprion aleuticus ONYALE Allen's Hummingbird ALHU Selasphorus sasin SELSAS Alpine Swift ALSW Apus melba APUMEL Altamira Oriole ALOR Icterus gularis ICTGUL Altamira Yellowthroat ALYE Geothlypis flavovelata GEOFLA Amaui AMAU Myadestes woahensis MYAWOA Amazon Kingfisher AMKI Chloroceryle amazona CHLAMA American Avocet AMAV Recurvirostra americana RECAME American Bittern AMBI Botaurus lentiginosus BOTLEN American Black Duck ABDU Anas rubripes ANARUB + American Black Duck X Mallard Hybrid ABMH* Anas
    [Show full text]
  • Seed Dispersal by a Captive Corvid: the Role of the 'Alala¯ (Corvus
    Ecological Applications, 22(6), 2012, pp. 1718–1732 Ó 2012 by the Ecological Society of America Seed dispersal by a captive corvid: the role of the ‘Alala¯ (Corvus hawaiiensis) in shaping Hawai‘i’s plant communities 1,4 1 2 1,3 SUSAN CULLINEY, LIBA PEJCHAR, RICHARD SWITZER, AND VIVIANA RUIZ-GUTIERREZ 1Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, 1474 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA 2Hawai‘i Endangered Bird Conservation Program, San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, Volcano, Hawaii 96785 USA 3Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Cornell University, Ithaca, NewYork 14850 USA Abstract. Species loss can lead to cascading effects on communities, including the disruption of ecological processes such as seed dispersal. The endangered ‘Alala¯ (Corvus hawaiiensis), the largest remaining species of native Hawaiian forest bird, was once common in mesic and dry forests on the Big Island of Hawai‘i, but today it exists solely in captivity. Prior to its extinction in the wild, the ‘Alala¯ may have helped to establish and maintain native Hawaiian forest communities by dispersing seeds of a wide variety of native plants. In the absence of ‘Alala¯, the structure and composition of Hawai‘i’s forests may be changing, and some large-fruited plants may be dispersal limited, persisting primarily as ecological anachronisms. We fed captive ‘Alala¯ a variety of native fruits, documented behaviors relating to seed dispersal, and measured the germination success of seeds that passed through the gut of ‘Alala¯ relative to the germination success of seeds in control groups. ‘Alala¯ ate and carried 14 native fruits and provided germination benefits to several species by ingesting their seeds.
    [Show full text]
  • Times to Extinction for Small Populations of Large Birds (Crow/Owl/Hawk/Population Lifetime/Population Size) STUART L
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 90, pp. 10871-10875, November 1993 Population Biology Times to extinction for small populations of large birds (crow/owl/hawk/population lifetime/population size) STUART L. PIMM*, JARED DIAMONDt, TIMOTHY M. REEDt, GARETH J. RUSSELL*, AND JARED VERNER§ *Department of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996; tDepartment of Physiology, University of California Medical School, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1751; tJoint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, Peterborough, PE1 1UA, United Kingdom; and §U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Fresno, CA 93710 Contributed by Jared Diamond, August 9, 1993 ABSTRACT A major practical problem in conservation such counts. European islands provide the most extensive biology is to predict the survival times-"lifetimes"-for small existing data set, and hence the best surrogates for 'Alala and populations under alternative proposed management regimes. Spotted Owl populations for the foreseeable future. The data Examples in the United States include the 'Alala (Hawaiian consist of counts of nesting birds tabulated in the annual Crow; Corvus hawaiiensis) and Northern Spotted Owl (Strix reports of bird observatories on small islands around the occidentalis caurina). To guide such decisions, we analyze coasts of Britain and Ireland, and on the German North Sea counts of ail crow, owl, and hawk species in the most complete island of Helgoland. Subsets of these data have been ana- available data set: counts of bird breeding pairs on 14 Euro- lyzed previously (2-9). pean islands censused for 29-66 consecutive years. The data set Our paper expands the previously analyzed data set to yielded 129 records for analysis.
    [Show full text]