See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314395301

Amphibian Captive Breeding Programs for : Where We Are Now and the Road Ahead

Article · February 2017

CITATIONS READS 0 123

5 authors, including:

Jeffrey Dawson Franco Andreone Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali

26 PUBLICATIONS 129 CITATIONS 383 PUBLICATIONS 3,476 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Devin Edmonds Illinois Natural History Survey

23 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Building a Future for Malagasy Amphibians View project

Systematic review of cophyline microhylids View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffrey Dawson on 09 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Amphibian Captive Breeding Programs for Madagascar: Where We Are Now and the Road Ahead

By Tsanta Fiderana Rakotonanahary1, Jeff Dawson2, Franco Andreone1,3, Justin Claude Rakotoarisoa 4 & Devin Edmonds4

adagascar supports nearly unparalleled frog species rich- In-country the main captive breeding centre for amphibians is ness and endemism. More than 300 frog species have been located near the town of Andasibe in east-central Madagascar. This M described from the island and recent DNA barcoding has part of the country supports an exceptional diversity of frog spe- revealed that Madagascar likely supports more than 500 (1). All cies, with more than 100 known from the area (8). The Andasibe but two species of exotic and recently introduced amphibians are captive breeding facility is run by the community group Mitsinjo endemic (2). Alarmingly, more than a quarter of the described frog and was opened in early 2011 through a contract of collaboration species are considered threatened with extinction by the IUCN Red with the Direction Générale des Forêts (DGF) and the Amphibian List, with the main threat habitat loss due to slash-and-burn agri- Specialist Group of Madagascar (ASG) (9, 10). The DGF help to culture, charcoal production and fuel wood harvest, logging and align the breeding center’s objectives with national priorities while timber extraction, and both artisanal and larger industrial mining members of ASG serve as scientific advisors to the project. activities. Climate change, invasive species, and infectious diseases, The Mitsinjo captive breeding facility works towards protect- including amphibian chytrid which has recently been detected in ing local amphibian species from extinction but is not currently Madagascar, are also a major concern. equipped to serve as a national centre for the entire country. The Despite the many threats facing Madagascar’s exceptional am- project’s Malagasy staff maintain a survival assurance colony of the phibian fauna, infrastructure and technical capacity to enact con- Critically Endangered Golden Mantella (Mantella aurantiaca) that servation breeding programs has only recently been developed was rescued from the footprint of the nearby Ambatovy nickel and in-country. Following the 2006 ACSAM initiative and resulting cobalt mine. Offspring produced are intended for release at created Sahonagasy Action Plan (3, 4), the country’s first biosecure cap- habitat to attempt to mitigate the mine’s environmental impact. tive breeding facility specifically for amphibians was developed in The breeding centre also works with an additional eleven local frog Andasibe east-central Madagascar. Training courses and exchanges species to gain experience maintaining those never kept in captiv- have also been held to support the development of additional facili- ity before, and to conduct hypothesis-driven husbandry studies to ties at other locations. Still, in spite of this encouraging progress the learn about best management practices. survival of Madagascar’s most threatened frog species remains un- Further east near the coast at Parc Ivoloina, another captive certain, and the ability to rapidly enact captive breeding initiatives breeding facility for Madagascar’s amphibians is under develop- for species in decline as well as properly design and implement as- ment. The centre is located on a private and botanical gardens sociated reintroduction and population supplementation programs managed by the Madagascar Fauna and Flora Group. Zoo staff is lacking. have been trained in amphibian conservation husbandry at a work- Herein we outline both the progress that has been made and dis- cuss the future direction of ex situ conservation for Madagascar’s amphibians, highlighting especially the continued need for support from the international zoo and ex situ conservation community.

WHERE WE ARE NOW The frogs of Madagascar have been kept by zoological institutions for decades, though only a handful of particularly charismatic and colorful species are well represented. A review of ISIS and ZIMS databases found barely two dozen of the more than 300 frog spe- cies known from Madagascar kept in captivity (5, 6). Nearly all of these were frogs from four genera: Dyscophus, Heterixalus, Mantella, and Scaphiophryne. Even though the species kept at abroad represent just a small portion of Madagascar’s amphibian diversity, important conservation research has been carried out with them. For instance, , , Paignton Zoo and the Paris Zoo have partnered with the Technical University of Braunschweig and the Emergency Chytrid Cell of Madagascar to develop effec- tive probiotic treatment to address the threat of amphibian chytrid (7). More often zoological institutions maintain public exhibits of these species to raise awareness of the plight of amphibians as a whole and, in some cases, to draw attention to conservation issues in Madagascar.

1Amphibian Specialist Group – Madagascar, c/o Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; 2Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; 3Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Via G. Giolitti, 36, I-10123 Torino; Local species maintained at Mitsinjo’s captive breeding facility in Andasibe. Photo: Devin 4 Association Mitsinjo, Lot 104 A Andasibe Gare, Andasibe 514, Madagascar. Edmonds. FrogLog 25 (1), Number 118 (February 2017) | 37 shop held in Andasibe, as well as through more recent exchanges are not appropriate or may not be the wisest use of resources to between Parc Ivoloina and Mitsinjo and abroad with Durrell Wild- protect species (12, 13, 14). Still, we see a role for continued devel- life Conservation Trust at . Currently the Parc Ivoloina opment of ex situ conservation measures, namely in the steps out- breeding facility supports live food colonies rather than frogs. lined below from within the most recent update of the Sahonagasy Keepers at the zoo are continuing to gain the skill set needed to Action Plan. maintain captive amphibians while infrastructure at the breeding ●● Selection of priority species for captive breeding programs. centre is improved. Already started using the Amphibian Ark Conservation To prioritize the species in Madagascar most in need of ex situ Needs Assessment tool, this action will identify the frog spe- conservation initiatives, the Amphibian Ark Conservation Needs cies most in need and direct resources to them effectively. Assessment tool (www.conservationneeds.org) has been used to Once completed, it will be crucial to present the results from evaluate more than 200 frog species from the country. This effort the assessment to national and regional government and to is being conducted by an international team of herpetologists to actively search for support to launch new breeding programs build upon an initial but outdated assessment from 2007. While for target species. still incomplete for all species, preliminary results have provided ●● Collection and integration of field data to captive programs. direction for captive breeding action in Andasibe and have already While much can be learned by keeping species in captivity and helped to select several new frog species which have recently been experimenting with different captive conditions, it is essential acclimated to captivity there (11). to have at least some understanding of the species’ biology be- fore doing so. The frogs of Madagascar as a whole are poorly THE ROAD AHEAD known and increasing field studies that directly improve or While much progress has been made, there is still a seemingly contribute to captive programs should be top priority. overwhelming gap between the conservation breeding programs ●● Continued training and capacity building in Madagascar. The that can be immediately enacted and the need. There is also very country’s first captive breeding facility for amphibians has little capacity developed in-country to facilitate the release and been established in Andasibe, but in all other regions of the monitoring of captive-bred stock to assist declining wild popula- country there is no capacity to enact conservation breeding tions or reintroduce species to areas they are now extirpated from. initiatives. It will be important in coming years to continue This leaves a long way to go before captive breeding programs for training new staff and organizations in these techniques, and the frogs of Madagascar can effectively address the many threats also to identify whether to focus on adding additional capa- they face. Indeed, in many situations captive breeding programs bilities to the existing ones in Andasibe and Ivoloina or to es-

Mantella aurantiaca. Photo: Devin Edmonds. 38 | FrogLog 25 (1), Number 118 (February 2017) tablish new local centers in other locations. Likely the easiest To accomplish the above actions requires not only financial sup- and most practical route to go is to expand existing captive port from abroad, but also willing and motivated international facilities. amphibian experts. We see a role for international zoological in- ●● Reinforce wild populations. Maintaining a genetically-viable stitutions to partner with existing breeding centers in Andasibe captive assurance colony of a highly threatened species can and Ivoloina, and especially for those zoos and aquariums that prevent its extinction, but as important is the proper design already keep Malagasy species overseas to make an effort to direct and implementation of releasing stock back to the wild. In resources to ex situ conservation breeding programs in Madagas- Madagascar, there is some existing reintroduction expertise car. Additionally, there is an opportunity for zoos to help design with taxa such as lemurs and tortoises but none so far for and conduct studies that help inform decisions on the ground in frogs. Bringing in skilled reintroduction specialists with ex- Madagascar and we would like to see more institutions involved pertise in designing programs specifically for amphibians is in this way. the next step. There is also a possible role for individuals outside the zoo com- munity, namely prospective students, volunteers and researchers. Much of the need that remains involves finding answers to ques- tions about poorly known frog species. Not only is there little un- derstood about the captive husbandry requirements for most of Madagascar’s frogs, but also nearly nothing is known about their natural history and ecology. This type of information is valuable not just to inform captive breeding programs but also is crucial when designing methodologies for releasing captive stock to help declining wild population or reintroducing species to areas where they have already been lost. Lastly, it is vital that governing bodies in Madagascar continue to be actively involved in amphibian conservation breeding pro- grams. The DGF has been supportive of the captive breeding facil- ity in Andasibe and is one of the project’s main partners, but to fa- cilitate future programs will require keeping government involved An overview of the main room for housing frogs at the breeding facility in Andasibe. at each step along the way. Photo: Devin Edmonds. Though the tasks that lay ahead may seem daunting, there is too much at stake not to act. The frogs of Madagascar represent a relatively large portion of the world’s amphibian diversity. With habitat destruction continuing at an alarming pace and with the recent detection of infectious amphibian diseases in-country, now more than ever the international ex situ conservation community needs to take steps to ensure a future for Madagascar’s exceptional amphibian fauna.

References: 1. R. G. B. Perl et al., Amphibia-Reptilia, 35, 197-206 (2014). 2. D.R. Vieites et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 106, 8267-8272 (2009). 3. F. Andreone, Ed., A Conservation Strategy for the Amphibians of Madagascar Monografie XLV (Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 2008). 4. F. Andreone, H. Randriamahazo, Eds., Sahonagasy Action Plan. Conservation Programs for the Amphibians of Madagascar (Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Conservation International, IUCN/SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, Mitsinjo technicians caring for a captive survival assurance population of the Critically Turin, Italy, 2008). Endangered frog Mantella aurantiaca. Photo: Devin Edmonds. 5. G. García, L. Bock, S. Earle, R. Berridge, J. Copsey, Captive breeding as a tool for the conservation of Malagasy amphibians: how ready are we to respond to the need?, in: F. Andreone, Ed., A Conservation Strategy for the Amphibians of Madagascar Monografie XLV (Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 2008), pp. 321-342. 6. G. García, D. Edmonds, Captive breeding and ex situ conservation of Malagasy amphibians, in: G. M. Rosa et al., Eds., ACSAM2, A Conservation Strategy for the Amphibians of Madagascar 2: abstract book. (Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Regione Piemonte, Torino), p. 27. 7. Progress in the Search for Anti-Bd Probiotics in Madagascar, Amphibians. org, http://www.amphibians.org/news/progress-in-the-search-for-anti-bd- probiotics/ 8. J. Heinermann et al. J Nat Hist, 49, 2213-2231 (2015). 9. D. Edmonds et al., Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 5, 57-69(e55) (2012). 10. D. Edmonds, J. C. Rakotoarisoa, J.C., FrogLog, 103, 32-34 (2012). 11. D. Edmonds, J. C. Rakotoarisoa, F. Rabemananjara, J. Randrianirina., AArk Newsletter, 34, 15-16 (2016). 12. B. Tapley, K. S. Bradfield, C. Michaels, M. Bungard, Biodivers Cons, DOI 10.1007/s10531-015-0966-9 (2015). 13. R. A. Griffiths, L. Pavajeau, Cons Bio, 22, 852–861 (2008). Staff at Parc Ivoloina learning how to prepare fruit fly media. Photo: Devin Edmonds. 14. A. E. Bowkett, Animal Conservation, 17, 101-103 (2014). FrogLog 25 (1), Number 118 (February 2017) | 39

View publication stats