Endangered Species UPDATE Science, Policy & Emerging Issues

January–March 2006 Vol. 23 No. 1 pages 1–56 Endangered Species UPDATE Science, Policy & Emerging Issues

School of Natural Resources and Environment THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Contributors Endangered Species A. R. Dar is Doctoral Scholar in the Centre of Plant Taxonomy (COPT), UPDATE Department of Botany, University of Kashmir. Science, Policy & Emerging Issues Dr. G. H. Dar is Profesor & Incharge of the KUBG and the Centre of Plant Taxonomy (COPT), Department of Botany, University of Kash- A forum for information exchange on endangered species issues mir. January-March 2006 Vol. 23 No. 1

Andrew C. Miller was Chief of the Aquatic Ecology & Invasive Species Laura M. DiPrizio...... Editor Branch at the U.S. Army Engineer R&D Center (ERDC), a research facil- Jennifer Muladore...... Editor ity for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers located in Vicksburg, Missis- Michele Tobias...... Editor sippi. Since the early 1980s he has conducted field and laboratory stud- Katia Aviles-Vazquez...... Editorial Assistant ies on the ecology and distribution of mussels, techniques for protecting Sarah Seiter...... Editorial Assistant Lauren Sullivan...... Editorial Assistant and improving aquatic habitats, and impacts of water resource devel- Vanessa Tobias...... Editorial Assistant opments in lotic systems in the central United States. He is now retired Sarah Scheitler...... Subscriptions Coordinator from the ERDC and can be reached at [email protected]. Bobbi Low...... Faculty Advisor Emily Silverman...... Faculty Advisor Fred Nelson is a MBA/MS candidate at the University of Michigan Johannes Foufopoulos...... Faculty Advisor School of Natural Resources and the Environment, and the Erb Insti- tute for Global Sustainable Enterprise. He spent seven years working in Advisory Board northern Tanzania on natural resource management at the local level. Richard Block Santa Barbara His interests are biodiversity and species conservation and the ways Zoological Gardens in which enterprise, incentives, and resource rights can be used locally Susan Haig, PhD and through policy formulation to drive sustainable natural resource Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem management. Science Center, USGS Oregon State University Barry S. Payne is an aquatic ecologist at the ERDC. He has conducted Patrick O’Brien, PhD numerous field and laboratory studies on the physiological ecology of ChevronTexaco Energy Research Company native and nonnative freshwater mussels in relation to predicting and Jack Ward Thomas, PhD Univeristy of Montana evaluating effects of water resource projects in medium to large rivers. He is the leader of a research team that focuses on freshwater inver- Subscription Information: The Endangered Species UPDATE is tebrate studies for the Aquatic Ecology & Invasive Species Branch at published four times per year by the School of Natural Resources ERDC. and Environment at The University of Michigan. Annual rates are: $78 institution, $33 individual, $25 student/senior, and $20 Dr. Zafar Reshi is Reader in the Department of Botany, University of electronic. Add $5 for postage outside the US, and send check or Kashmir. money order (payable to The University of Michigan) to: Ariana Rickard is a M.S. candidate in the Resource Ecology and Man- Endangered Species UPDATE agement program at the School of Natural Resources at the University School of Natural Resources and Environment The University of Michigan of Michigan in Ann Arbor and is currently studying wetlands restora- 440 Church Street tion and amphibian reintroduction programs. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041 (734) 763-3243; fax (734) 936-2195 Edythe Sonntag is presently working on her PhD at Michigan State E-mail: [email protected] University in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Her research http://www.umich.edu/~esupdate area is amphibian conservation locally and regionally while mainly fo- Cover: Photo of adult Blanchard’s cricket frog courtesy of cusing on the Blanchard’s cricket frog decline in Michigan. She can be Ariana Rickard. contacted at [email protected] The views expressed in the Endangered Species UPDATE may not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or The University of Michigan.

The Endangered Species UPDATE was made possible in part by Chevron Corporation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Endangered Species.

Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Assessment of Translocations of Blanchard’s Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) in Southeast Michigan

Ariana Rickard Abstract An entire population of Blanchard’s cricket frogs (Acris crepitans blanchardi) threatened by construction, was translocated to three restored wetlands within the historic School of Natural Resources range of the species in the summer of 2004 and 2005. Working with the National Am- and Environment phibian Conservation Center at the Detroit Zoo, state natural agencies and the devel- University of Michigan oper, we moved about 1060 Blanchard’s cricket frogs, a Michigan Species of Special Ann Arbor 440 Church Street Concern, from Lakewood Farms before housing construction began. This case study Ann Arbor, MI 48109 represents the first effort to track the effectiveness of translocations as a method of conserving cricket frogs in Michigan. I collected data on population structure and breeding success of the translocated populations of cricket frogs. I monitored nearby wild populations of cricket frogs to get baseline comparison data for the translocated frogs. Data on population size and breeding success were used to develop recommendations on amphibian translocation. Although initial breeding attempts were observed at all three release sites, and over 240 juvenile cricket frogs were seen at one of the translocation sites in August 2005, all translocated populations had declined rapidly by October 2005. The translocations apparently did not result in viable, self-sustaining populations of Blanchard’s cricket frogs at any of the release sites. I recommend that no more cricket frog translocations occur until the causes of the decline is known and effectively removed at release sites. Conservation dollars and research should focus on habitat preservation and determining the causes of declining numbers of cricket frogs in the Midwest. Resumen Una población entera de Acris crepitans blanchardi amenazada por el desarrollo fue trasladada a tres pantanos restaurados en el área histórica de las especies durante los veranos del 2004 y 2005. Trabajando con el centro nacional de conservacion de amfibios en el Zoológico de Detroit, agencias de naturaleza estatales y el desarrollador, nosostros mudamos 1,060 ranas Acris crepitans blanchardi, una especie de Michigan de aten- ción especial, de Lakewood Farms antes que la construcción de casas comenzara. Este estudio representa el primer esfuerzo de monitorear la eficacia de los traslados como un método de conservación para estas ranas en Michigan. Se recolectó data sobre la es- tructura poblacional, éxito reproductivo de las poblaciones trasladadas de estas ranas. Tambien se llevaron a cabo conteos de las poblaciones silvestres cercanas de esta rana para tener una comparación de base con las ranas trasladadas. Datos del tamaño de la población, y éxito reproductivo fueron usados para desarrollar recomendaciones de traslado de amfibios. A pesar que se observaron intentos iniciales de reproducción y se observaron mas de 240 juveniles en las áreas de traslado en agosto del 2005, para oc- tubre del 2005 todas las poblaciones trasladadas habían disminuido rápidamente. Los traslados aparentemente no resultaron en poblaciones viables auto-sustentables de la rana Blanchard en ninguna de las áreas de traslado. Recomiendo que no se hagan mas traslados de la rana Blanchard hasta que las causas de la disminución se conozcan y se remuevan de manera efectiva de las áreas de traslado. El dinero e investigación para conservación debe enfocarse en la preservación de hábitat y la determinación de las causas de la disminución del número de ranas en el medio-oeste de los EE.UU. Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE Introduction as an amphibian conservation strategy Since the late 1980s, there has been a (Marsh and Trenham 2001; Seigel and global decline in population sizes and Dodd 2002). There are no generally ac- geographical ranges of a number of cepted or widely used criteria for as- amphibians (Blaustein and Wake 1990). sessing the success or failure of trans- Possible causes for amphibian declines locations (Fischer and Lindenmayer include habitat destruction and altera- 2000). Some measures that might be tion, introduction of nonnative preda- used to assess translocation success in- tors, pathogens, competitors, overex- clude population growth, and evidence ploitation, pesticides, pollution, acid of successful breeding (Towns & Fer- rain, global warming, and UV radiation reira 2001). (Blaustein and Wake 1990). The root Here I report on a translocation that causes of many declines are unknown. was used as a last resort to try to save a The Blanchard’s cricket frog was list- population of cricket frogs by introduced as a Species of Special Concern in ing individuals into other wetlands be- Michigan in 1986 (Lee 1998). Surveys fore their breeding pond was destroyed conducted in 1997 found 47 extant sites, to construct condominiums and houses. so the species is too numerous to meet On May 18, 2004, I visited sites in Yp- the state’s criteria for threatened status silanti, Michigan (Washtenaw County), (Lee 1998). In an attempt to increase the where cricket frogs had been previ- number of extant populations of cricket ously reported (Lehtinen 2002). I heard frogs in southeast Michigan, the Na- cricket frogs calling in three distinct tional Amphibian Conservation Center areas. One location, Lakewood Farms, initiated a translocation project to try to seemed to host the largest population establish a self-sustaining population of of cricket frogs in the area. The devel- cricket frogs in a restored wetland at the oper of Lakewood Farms had plans to Detroit Zoo. build condominiums and single-family homes on the property, and intended to Usefulness of translocations as a man- fill in the cricket frog breeding ponds agement tool for the entrance driveway into the com- Habitat loss appears to be the most sig- plex. After negotiations with the devel- nificant factor contributing to amphib- oper, the Detroit Zoo, working together ian declines (Wake 1991). Preserving with the Michigan Department of En- critical habitat for threatened and environmental Quality (DEQ), arranged dangered species is probably the best to remove the frogs from the property method for conserving species. Habitat before development began. preservation is not an option, however, when wildlife regulations do not man- Goals and questions date protection of habitat and when My main objective for this study was to these laws are not properly enforced. determine the effectiveness of transloca- One proposed method for mitigating tion as a management tool to conserve habitat destruction is translocation, populations of the Blanchard’s cricket which is defined as the “intentional frog. I hypothesized that populations release of animals to the wild in an at- of cricket frogs in their native wetlands tempt to establish, reestablish, or aug- will have greater breeding success than ment a population and may consist of populations of cricket frogs that were more than one release.” (Griffith et al. recently translocated into created or re- 1989). Translocations are often promot- stored wetlands. I attempted to assess ed as tools for conserving amphibians, the success of this ad hoc translocation yet there is no consensus–and few data by surveying natural and release sites. on the effectiveness of translocations Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Methods Study areas All study sites were located in southeast Michigan. They were divided into two groups: potential donor populations and translocation recipient sites. Only two large populations of Blanchard’s cricket frogs remain in southeast Michi- gan (Lehtinen 2002). I surveyed these two sites, Ford Lake in Ypsilanti (hereafter referred to as city park wetland), and Ives Road Fen in Tecumseh (hereafter referred to as Nature Conservancy site), for consideration as donor populations. After meetings of Detroit Zoo and Michigan Department of Natural Resources scientists, three sites were selected as translocation recipient sites: (1) Port Huron State Game Area, Avoca (hereafter referred to as release site 1); (2) National Amphibian Conservation Center, Detroit Zoo, Royal Oak (release site 2); and (3) St. John’s Wildlife Marsh Area, New Baltimore (release site 3); (Figure 1). covers most of the pool and shoreline Figure 1. Location of do- nor and release sites. Release site 1 is a marsh complex. vegetation circles the pond. Formerly farmland; it was transformed Survey Methods into wetlands in 2003 as mitigation for I surveyed all study areas for cricket the construction of a Meijers store in frogs from May 2004 to September 2005. Marysville. Release site 2, a wetland I conducted three types of surveys: vi- adjacent to the National Amphibian sual encounter, photographic “mark- Conservation Center (NACC) at the De- recapture,” and calling surveys. These troit Zoo, was created in early 2000. A surveys lasted between 2-4 hrs per site. highway and suburbs border the zoo, I started each survey at a different loca- therefore no natural areas provide up- tion, and alternated walking clockwise land habitat or migration corridors for and counterclockwise. I used a modi- the cricket frogs. Release site 3 extends fied version of a visual encounter sur- over 2400 acres and has been intensively vey during day visits to locate and count managed by the Michigan Department frogs (Crump and Scott 1994). I walked of Natural Resources for over 13 years. along the shoreline of the ponds in each The Nature Conservancy site consists study site and counted cricket frogs ob- of two abandoned gravel pits. Large served within 1 m of transect path. stands of Phragmites encircle these shallow groundwater-fed ponds, which Translocation contain no fish and are prone to drying Due to planned construction at the out or freezing. The city park wetland Lakewood Farms site in summer 2005, is only about one acre in size; it is bor- volunteers and staff from the Detroit dered by Ford Lake Park and residen- Zoo removed 1060 cricket frogs in the tial development. Emergent vegetation fall of 2004 and early summer of 2005, and relocated the frogs to the translo-

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE cation recipient sites. All three-release heard calling at the release site 2. The sites received juveniles in fall 2004, 2005 translocation of adults was more while only release site 2 received tad- successful, as these animals produced poles. In summer 2005, we captured 57 large numbers of juvenile cricket frogs adults (31 males, 22 females, and four seen during visual encounter surveys unknown) and released them at the site in 2005 (Table 2). Adults released at re- with the most comparable cricket frog lease site 1 in spring 2005 survived long habitat (Release Site 1). enough to breed, and juvenile numbers at release site 1 were comparable to the Analysis natural sites from late July until early Translocations are generally regarded September 2005. The population, how- as successful when a viable self-sustain- ever, appeared to decline drastically in ing population is established (Johnson late September and early October, as 1990). To assess the success of these few cricket frogs were found at the site translocations, I compared population by mid-October. size and breeding success of founder frogs to frogs found at source and other Natural Sites natural sites. I surveyed natural populations to provide baseline comparison data for Results translocated populations. I encountered The initial population surveys in 2004 between 52 to 351 juveniles, with an and 2005 indicated that some released average of 183.2 juveniles (SD = 124.6, frogs survived at the release sites, but Table 2) at the Nature Conservancy site few animals were found in a fall 2005 and between 43 to 96 juveniles in 2005, survey. The first and second transloca- with an average of 69.5 juveniles (SD = tions apparently did not result in self- 37.5) at the City park wetland (Table 2). sustaining, viable populations at any of the release sites. Comparison of translocation and natural sites Release sites To assess the breeding success of trans- Twenty-three days after the initial relocated frogs, I compared juvenile crick- lease of juvenile cricket frogs on Sep- et frog numbers from release site 1 to tember 14, 2004, I encountered an av- counts of juvenile cricket frogs from the erage of 8.5% (SD = 4.6) of the frogs at natural sites. Surveys of translocation all three release sites (Table 1). Calling sites and natural sites were compared surveys and visual encounter surveys if they occurred within 7 days of each in May and August 2005 indicated other (Table 2). The juvenile cricket frog that few individuals survived from the Table 1. Results of visual number at the city park wetland was translocation of 2004; eight surveys re- encounter survey of re- usually lower than the number seen at sulted in only two frogs, which were lease sites, Oct. 7, 2004 the other two sites; this is probably due Number of Number of to the smaller size of the city park wet- frogs released juvenile frogs Encounter land, which has a shoreline distance of Site in August and encountered rate 214m, while release site 1 and the Na- Sept. 2004 during VES ture Conservancy site have shoreline distances of 762m and 703m, respec- Release site 1 189 juveniles 26 14% tively. 347 juveniles and Combining the counts from the two Release site 2 20 6% 102 tadpoles ponds at the Nature Conservancy site Release site 3 195 juveniles 12 6% provides a fairer comparison between the Nature Conservancy site and release site 1 surveys, as the shoreline distance,

Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Nature Nature Table 2. Juvenile cricket Release City park Date Conservancy Conservancy frog numbers in 2005 site 1 wetland pond A pond B *NSC = no survey con- 7/3 – 8/3 66 NSC* 52 NSC* ducted 8/17 – 8/23 238 71 128 43 8/26 – 9/2 171 101 143 96 9/7 – 9/11 216 225 126 NSC 10/13 – 10/14 8 35 35 NSC and thus, total area of suitable habitat, were comparable to the number of ju- are then similar in size. For most of the veniles seen at the Nature Conservancy season, release site 1 juvenile cricket frog site for most of the summer and fall, numbers were similar to those seen at until mid-October, when release site 1 the Nature Conservancy site. The popu- numbers dropped well below those at lation of juvenile cricket frogs appeared the Nature Conservancy site. While re- to decrease rapidly at release site 1 at lease site 1 should be surveyed again in the beginning of fall 2005, however. On spring 2006 to determine if any of the October 14, 2005, only 8 juvenile cricket juvenile cricket frogs survived, it seems frogs were seen at release site 1, while a unlikely that our project succeeded in survey conducted the day before at the establishing viable, self-sustaining pop- Nature Conservancy site recorded 70 ulations of cricket frogs at any of the re- cricket frogs. lease sites. Release site 1 is (155 km) north of Discussion the Nature Conservancy site, and it is The goal of any translocation project possible that cricket frogs in release is the establishment of a self-sustain- site 1 shifted to hibernation earlier than ing, viable population (Dodd and Sei- Nature Conservancy cricket frogs, due gel 1991). Translocation programs can to the temperature difference between be assessed at various points to deter- the sites. The timing and weather con- mine progress (i.e., the establishment ditions varied between the two survey of translocated animals at release sites) dates; the Nature Conservancy survey (Tasse 1989). In this project, initial sur- occurred on a warmer day and later veys at the three release sites in fall in the afternoon than the release site 1 2004 indicated some establishment of survey. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that juvenile cricket frogs in their new habi- latitudinal and temperature differences tat after the 2004 translocation of adults, among the sites account for the dispar- juveniles, and tadpoles (Table 1). But by ity in juvenile cricket frog numbers. The the following spring, no cricket frogs timing of the population reduction at were seen or heard at any release site. both sites is comparable to the timing of The results of the repeated surveys at population contractions for other crick- the release sites indicate that the 2004 et frog populations and suggests that translocations failed to establish breed- the main contributor to the decreased ing, self-sustaining populations at the survival of cricket frogs at release site translocation sites. 1 is predation, not winter conditions. Initially, the 2005 translocations Cricket frogs are most vulnerable to of adult cricket frogs to release site 1 predation in the late summer and fall seemed more successful: adults were after metamorphosis (Gray and Brown seen during early summer surveys and 2005, and I did observe an adult green these adults reproduced, as indicated frog eating a juvenile cricket frog at re- by the high number of juveniles found lease site 1). later in the summer (Table 2). Juvenile recruitment numbers at release site 1 Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE tions for relatively common species: gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor), spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer), spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum), wood frogs (Rana sylvatica), common toads (Bufo bufo), and common frogs (Rana temporaria) (Cook 1989; Sexton et al. 1998; Cooke and Oldham 1995). Only one translocation project involving a rare or threatened species (the natterjack toad, Bufo calamita), resulted in the establishment of several self-sustaining populations (Denton et al. 1997). The translocation of another threatened species, Hamilton’s frog (Leiopelma hamiltoni) yielded a survival rate of 58.33% for adult frogs; however, breeding at Port Huron The Blanchard’s cricket frog transloca- translocation site the new site was not confirmed at the tion in the context of other amphibian time of publication (Brown 1994). Other translocations threatened species translocations have Previous reviews have found low not been monitored long enough to success rates for translocations and par- determine success; these include the ticularly low rates for amphibian trans- Wyoming toad and the Puerto Rican location programs. Griffith et al. (1989) crested toad (AZA 1998; Johnson 1990). estimated that nearly 700 bird and mam- A translocation project involving the mal translocations occur each year; the boreal toad (Bufo boreas), an endangered overall success rate of these projects is species in Colorado, failed; no tadpoles 44%. A review of 120 re-introduction or adults were seen at the release sites papers found a success rate of 26%, during intensive monitoring surveys while the outcome of 47% of the projects (Muths et al. 2001). Lastly, short distance was unknown at the time of publication translocations of mountain yellow- (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2000). Fisch- legged frogs (Rana muscosa) resulted er and Lindenmayer (2000) emphasized in loss of body mass of displaced frogs that the re-introduction success rate (Matthews 2003). Matthews concluded they found was probably an over-esti- that moving frogs may be stressful, and mate, since authors are more likely to animals may lose valuable foraging or publish their results if their project is a breeding time looking for their home success. Dodd and Seigel (1991) exam- site. ined 25 relocations, repatriations, and Various factors affect the likelihood translocations (RRT) programs for am- of success for translocation projects: phibians and reptiles and found that for example, type of animal released only five (19%) were considered suc- (wild vs. captive-bred, game vs. sensi- cessful. None of the amphibian RRTs (n tive taxa), causes of decline, number = 5) could be definitively classified as of animals released, and location of successful (Dodd and Seigel 1991). release sites within the species range Although Dodd and Seigel’s earlier (Griffith et al. 1989). Translocations review in 1991 noted few successful am- were more likely to succeed when the phibian translocation projects, a num- source population was wild rather than ber of later projects (and one project captive-bred (Griffith et al. 1989; Fischer they might have overlooked) achieved and Lindenmayer 2000). All the cricket the goal of a self-sustaining popula- Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 frogs released in our project were wild, No consensus exists in the litera- although the animals from 2004 were ture on the suitability of amphibians held in captivity for varying lengths for translocations. Marsh and Tren- of time, ranging from a few days to six ham (2001) asserted that amphibians weeks. The time spent in quarantine are well suited for translocations, since and travel between sites might have most amphibians lack parental care, heightened the stress levels of animals and are thus good candidates for egg and increased possible disease trans- and larval translocations. They suggest mission; both of these factors might that translocations may be “indispens- have lowered the likelihood of success able tools” for conserving amphibians for our translocation experiment. in landscapes with multiple breeding Translocations that involved native ponds and may be necessary to pro- game species have a higher success rate mote regional population persistence than those that move sensitive species when ponds are isolated. These state- like the Blanchard’s cricket frog: Griffith ments contrast with the findings of pub- et al (1989) report an 86% success rate lished translocation studies that the ef- for these species compared to 46% fectiveness of amphibian translocations for threatened, endangered, or sensi- is unclear, many attempts have failed, tive species. In addition, if the original and those that have succeeded usually causes of decline are known and ad- involve non-threatened species (Seigel dressed, translocations are more likely and Dodd 2002; Muths et al. 2001; Dodd to succeed (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2005; Matthews 1993). 2000). Unfortunately, because the rea- While some amphibians may be sons for the decline for cricket frogs in candidates for translocations and cap- the Midwest are unknown, it is unlikely tive-breeding programs, most threat- that any original cause of decline was ened species are not, due to life history removed at the release sites. traits such as low reproductive output, Translocations also tend to be more short life spans, and low natural popu- successful when a large number of ani- lation numbers or density (Dodd 2005). mals (n > 100) are released (Fischer and Translocation projects can also harm Lindenmayer 2000). In this case, our conservation efforts by siphoning off translocation followed best practices: all funds that could be used for habitat our release sites received more than 190 preservation or other research (Dodd Volunteers came from cricket frogs in 2004, and, while only 2005). Lastly, animals used in transloca- various organizations 57 adult cricket frogs were released in tions can transmit pathogens and para- to help and learn more about local ecology. 2005, these cricket frogs bred and produced over 200 juvenile cricket frogs. Translocations into the core of a species’ historical range are more successful than those on the periphery or outside historical ranges (Griffith et al. 1989). Our release sites were on the northern extent of the range of Blanchard’s cricket frog, which might have contributed to the low success rate of our project (Lehtinen 2002). Thus, our cricket frog translocation met only two of the five factors observed to increase the likelihood of success for translocation projects.

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE sites to other release animals or resident promoted as solutions to the prob- animals of the same species, leading to lem of declining wildlife populations? unknown consequences for the translo- Reasons commonly cited for the use of cated individuals, resident animals and translocations include favorable press the release ecosystem (Cunningham attention, public education, conserva- 1996). Dodd (2005) suggests that trans- tion potential, and mitigation of hu- locations should only be considered as man-animal conflicts (Fischer and Lin- a last resort for amphibians and Reinert denmayer 2000; Dodd and Seigel 1991). (1991) argues that translocations should The main rationale for our translocation only be considered if other options, project was the impending destruction such as protecting extant populations of a cricket frog breeding pond. and improving habitat, are not avail- Translocation projects, particularly able, but Burke (1991) maintains that those that involve the “rescue” of ani- translocations should be considered in mals from doomed sites to safer loca- any species recovery program. tions, can attract considerable favorable publicity (Fischer and Lindenmayer Motives for translocations 2000). Articles about our cricket frog If translocations are considered risky, translocation project appeared in three Lakewood Farms before experimental techniques, why are they and after construction. local newspapers: the Ann Arbor News, the Livonia Observer & Eccentric, and the Oakland Press. All the newspaper articles praised the Detroit Zoo for the cricket frog “rescue” and included information about the status of cricket frogs in Michigan. Publicity about translocation projects can educate the public about threats to declining species and might generate funding for other conservation activities, such as research and land preservation (Dodd and Seigel 1991). If press articles gloss over the difficulties of succeeding in translocations, they give a false impression of the ability of translocations to conserve wildlife species. Developers can argue that it is okay to destroy critical habitat as long as the threatened animals are moved to new locations. One Department of Environmental Quality official praised the developer of the cricket frog breeding pond, saying that the developer de- served a “pat on the back” for coming up with a solution (Kuban 2004). I tried to emphasize to the reporters who wrote about our project that we would need to monitor the release sites before we can claim success for the rescue effort, but only the Ann Arbor News included a quote stating that there was no guarantee of success for the translocation proj-

10 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 ect. That same article implied that the the property. cricket frogs would be safe in their new Translocations are often promoted homes, where “the only danger is hun- as a win-win solution to human-ani- gry bull frogs, not bulldozers” (Rueter mal conflicts. Developers are allowed to 2004). Post-relocation results are rarely destroy habitat for sensitive species as reported in the media (Dodd and Seigel long as they grant permission to conser- 1991) and, because our translocation re- vation officials to move the animals be- sults were not reported in any articles, fore construction begins. Participants in most readers probably assumed that the relocation attempts are happy that they animals survived and thrived in the re- are “saving” the animals from bulldoz- lease sites. This assumption might dam- ers. As Edythe Sonntag, the Detroit age efforts to preserve habitat, because Zoo keeper in charge of our relocation translocations seem to solve the conflict effort, told the Ann Arbor News: “It’s a between habitat destruction and threat- good feeling to know they’re not going ened species protection. to be rolled over by a bulldozer” (Ru- Another motive for conducting a eter 2004). Moving animals away from translocation is public education. In- certain death seems to be a humane so- volving community members as volun- lution to habitat destruction (Dodd and teers in the relocation effort can culti- Seigel 1991). But, there is no guarantee vate interest in conservation issues and that the animals will survive at the new activities (Dodd and Seigel 1991). Many site, so the question of when the ani- volunteers from diverse backgrounds mals die becomes more important than assisted with our translocation; most if they die (Dodd and Seigel 1991). Al- had no previous training or experience though the cricket frogs we moved did with amphibians. Participants in the not die immediately from bulldozers, it relocation project might have learned appears that we simply delayed their more about local amphibian species deaths. and the threats facing them in our own One of the main threats to cricket backyards. frogs is widespread ignorance and apa- Translocations are used to try to thy about its conservation status among conserve threatened species. Our trans- state and federal government agencies location project was an attempt to - es (Gray and Brown 2005). The unsupport- tablish more cricket frog populations ive responses of some local and state in southeast Michigan, because cricket government agencies to our requests frogs are declining or nearly extirpated for assistance with protecting the cricket (Lehtinen 2002). Translocation efforts frog population reveals a lack of politi- might ultimately hinder preservation cal will for protecting threatened non- projects, however, by diverting funds game species. This problem is prevalent that could be better used for other con- throughout the range of the cricket frog, servation purposes, and increasing and could be contributing to its decline. the risk of disease transmission (Dodd For example, one solution proposed to 2005; Cunningham 1996). A preferable save the cricket frog breeding pond was method to conserve threatened species to reroute the entrance driveway to the is early identification of populations condo complex around the pond. The or habitats threatened by development local roads commission would not al- (Griffith et al. 1989). In our case, we only low this, however, because a local stat- discovered that the cricket frog breed- ute mandates that entrance driveways ing pond was threatened with develop- should come straight off of the nearest ment a few months before construction major intersection and not be displaced began, limiting options for protecting to the side of the intersection.

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 11 Recommendations for future transloca- ect and try to publish the results, even tion projects and research on Blanchard’s if they are not successful (Fischer and cricket frog declines Lindenmayer 2000). Given the mixed results of amphibian The causes of the population de- translocation projects and the low suc- clines of Blanchard’s cricket frog are cess rates of threatened amphibian re- unknown: thus, advocating more translocation programs, it is not surprising locations seems to be promoting a so- that our cricket frog translocation did lution to a problem that has not been not succeed in establishing viable, self- identified (i.e., why cricket frogs are de- sustaining populations at the release clining). The best way to protect cricket sites. Amphibian translocations should frogs in Michigan at present is to pre- only be attempted if no other manage- serve their habitat and provide more le- ment options are available. Protecting gal protection to the species. The Michi- the species and its critical habitat is gan Department of Natural Resources is usually the best way to conserve threat- considering upgrading the status of the ened animal and plant species (Reinert Blanchard’s cricket frog to threatened 1991). We attempted translocations with in 2006 (Lee, personal communication). cricket frogs because we were not able This additional protection might pre- to stop development of the cricket frog vent more cricket frog breeding ponds breeding site. from being destroyed for subdivisions Despite our failure to establish addi- and urban sprawl. tional populations of cricket frogs, our Habitat destruction is still the great- experience provides lessons on improv- est threat to the survival of most am- ing the success rate of future transloca- phibian species (Dodd 2005). Translo- tions. First, the timing of translocations cations will not solve the problem of and life stage released affected survival additional habitat loss for cricket frogs rates at release sites. Juveniles released and research dollars should be directed late in the fall did not survive very long at the causes of decline and other, more (Table 1), whereas adults released early effective management options. Empiri- in the breeding season were able to es- cal evidence demonstrates that the ini- tablish breeding territories and breed tial cause of decline must be removed successfully before dying or migrating for a successful translocation (Fischer away from the wetland. Dodd and Sei- and Lindenmayer 2000). Otherwise, gel (1991) cite 50-500 as the minimum animals might be placed in unsuitable number of individuals that should be habitats where they will still be affected released to sustain a viable breeding by the factors that caused their original population. Releasing 57 adults at re- decline (Dodd 2005). We will not suc- lease site 1 appeared to result in succeed in conserving cricket frogs until cessful breeding: high juvenile recruit- we know more about their ecology and ment was observed later that summer the causes of their decline. (Table 2). Lastly, a plan and process Literature Cited for assessment needs to be put in place AZA (American Zoo and Aquarium Associa- before starting a translocation project. tion). 1998. Wyoming toad and 98 fact sheet. Long-term intensive monitoring, such http://www.aza.org/programs/ssp/ssp.cfm as shoreline and calling surveys, should Blaustein, A., D.B. Wake. 1990. Declining Am- phibian Populations: A Global Phenomenon? be used to evaluate the progress of the Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:203-204. project and determine what factors Brown, D. 1994. Transfer of Hamilton’s frog, Leio- might influence the success or failure of pelma hamiltoni, to a newly created habitat on the project. Project managers should se- Stephen’s Island, New Zealand. New Zealand lect specific criteria to assess their proj- Journal of Zoology 21: 425-430. Burke, R.L. 1991. Relocations, Repatriations, and 12 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Translocations of Amphibians and Reptiles: Matthews, K.R. 2003. Response of Mountain Yel- Taking a Broader View. Herpetologica 47:350- low-Legged Frogs, Rana muscosa, to Short Dis- 357. tance Translocation. Journal of Herpetology 37 Cook, R.P. 1989. And the voice of the grey tree (3):621-626. frog was heard again in the land... Park Sci- Muths, E., T.L. Johnson, P.S. Corn. 2001. Ex- ence 9:6-7. perimental repatriation of boreal toad (Bufo Cooke, A.S., R.S. Oldham. 1995. Establishment of boreas) eggs, metamorphs, and adults in Rocky populations of the common frog, Rana tempo- Mountain National Park. Southwestern Natu- raria, and common toad, Bufo bufo, in a newly ralist 46: 106-113. created reserve following translocation. Her- Reinert, H.K. 1991. Translocation as a Conser- petological Journal 5: 173-180. vation Strategy for Amphibians and Reptiles: Crump, M.L., N.J. Scott, Fr. 1994. Visual Encoun- Some Comments, Concerns, and Observa- ter Surveys. Pages 84-92 In W. R. Heyer, M. A. tions. Herpetologica 47:357-363. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and Rueter, A. September 2, 2004. “Zoo extends safe- M. S. Foster, editor. Measuring and Monitor- ty net to tiny, and rare, frogs: Rescuers step in ing Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for before condominium construction begins.” Amphibians, Smithsonian Institution Press, Ann Arbor News, pg. E1 and E2. Washington and London. Seigel, R.A. and J.C.K. Dodd. 2002. Transloca- Cunningham, A.A. 1996. Disease risks of wildlife tions of Amphibians: Proven Management translocations. Conservation Biology 10:349- Method or Experimental Technique? Conser- 353. vation Biology 16:552-554. Denton, J.S., S.P. Hitchings, T.J.C. Beebee, and A. Sexton, O.J., C.A. Phillips, T.J. Bergman, E.B. Gent. 1997. A recovery program for the natter- Wattenberg, and R.E. Preston. 1998. Abandon jack toad (Bufo calamita) in Britain. Conserva- Not Hope: Status of Repatriated Populations tion Biology 11: 1329-1338. of Spotted Salamanders and Wood Frogs at Dodd, C.K. Jr. 2005. Population Manipulations. the Tyson Research Center, St. Louis County, Pages 265-270 In M.L. Lannoo, editor. Am- Missouri. Pages 340-344 In M. L. Lannoo, edi- phibian Declines: The Conservation Status of tor. Status and Conservation of Midwestern United States Species, University of California Amphibians, University of Iowa Press, Iowa Press, Berkeley. City. Dodd, C.K. Jr., R.A. Seigel. 1991. Relocation, Re- Tasse, J. 1989. Translocation as a strategy for pre- patriation, and Translocation of Amphibians serving endangered species. Endangered Spe- and Reptiles: Are They Conservation Strate- cies UPDATE 6:6-6. gies That Work? Herpetologica 47:336-350. Towns, D.R., S.M. Ferreira. 2001. Conservation of Fischer, J., D.B. Lindenmayer. 2000. An assess- New Zealand lizards (Lacertilia: Scincidae) by ment of the published results of animal reloca- translocation of small populations. Biological tions. Biological Conservation 96:1-11. Conservation 98:211-222. Gray, R.H., L.E. Brown. 2005. Decline of North- Wake D.B. 1991. Declining Amphibian Popula- ern Cricket Frogs (Acris crepitans). Pages 47-54 tions. Science 253:860-860. In M.L. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Spe- Acknowledgements cies, University of California Press, Berkeley. Thanks to Emily Silverman and Bobbi Low Griffith, B., Scott, J.M. Carpenter, J.W., Reed, C. for helpful comments on this manuscript. Thanks 1989. Translocations as a species conservation to Kevin Zippel for initiating the translocation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477-480. project and bringing me on board. To Michael Johnson, R.R. November 1990. Release and Lannoo, thanks for sharing your knowledge of Translocation Strategies for the Puerto Rican cricket frogs and reviewing my research pro- Crested Toad, Peltophryne lemur. Endangered posal. Thanks to Edi Sonntag for managing the Species UPDATE 8:54-57. cricket frog translocation, helping me out in the Kuban, K. August 29, 2004. “Rescue effort saves field, and providing data. We would not have tiny frogs from doomed wetland.” Livonia been able to move the cricket frogs from Lake- Observer & Eccentric. Pg. A8 wood Farms before construction began without Lee, Y.M. 1998. Final report on Blanchard’s crick- the assistance of James Sallee from the Michigan et frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) surveys in Department of Environmental Quality. I really southern Michigan. appreciate Mr. Sallee taking our concerns seri- Lehtinen, R.M. 2002. A historical study of the ously and negotiating with the developers to al- distribution of Blanchard’s Cricket Frog (Acris low our translocation to occur. Thanks to Doug crepitans blanchardi) in southeastern Michigan. Pearsall of the Nature Conservancy and Ernie Herpetological Review 33:194-197. Kafcas at the Michigan Department of Natural Marsh, D.M., P.C. Trenham. February 2001. Resources for access to research sites. This proj- Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian ect would not have occurred without financial conservation. Conservation Biology 15:40-49. support from the Doris Duke Charitable Foun- Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 13 dation, the Marshall Weinberg Fellowship, and Rackham Discretionary Funding. Lastly, thanks to all the volunteers who assisted with the translocation.

14 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 In response to: Assessment of translocations of Blanchard’s cricket frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi) in southeast Michigan

Edythe Sonntag Abstract As one of the researchers involved in the project referenced in Ariana Rickard’s article, Assessment of translocations of Blanchard’s cricket frogs (Acris crepitans Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and blanchardi) in southeast Michigan (this issue), I have a different interpretation Wildlife, and Detroit Zoologi- of the results and accomplishments of the emergency translocation of cricket cal Institute National Amphib- frogs from the Lakewood Farm construction site. Rickard’s interpretation of ian Conservation Center this program as a failure may eventually prove to be accurate, but is, at best, premature. Long-term monitoring is required before an accurate assessment of the success or failure of an established, self-sustaining population at the translocation sites can be completed. Though I agree with many basic principles presented in Rickard’s article, translocation should not be eliminated as a possible conservation tool for this and other species until long term and more complete monitoring data are available. The inevitable destruction of habitat in this case required the translocation of parts of the endangered local population of Blanchard’s cricket frogs to occur sooner than expected. Since a full feasibility study was not possible given the immediace of the situation, decisions were based on the best life history data available. Even if the population translocations that were attempted were complete failures (which remains to be determined), these failures will provide valuable information on which to base future plans for translocation when extensive planning can be done with more adequate time.

Resumen Como uno de los investigadores involucrados en el proyecto al que hace ref- erencia el articulo de Ms. Richard; Evaluación de los traslados de la rana Ac- ris crepitans blanchardi en el sureste de Michigan (este volumen), tengo una interpretación diferente de los resultados y logros de este traslado de emer- gencia de ranas Blanchard del lugar de construcción en Lakewood Farms. La interpretación de Ms. Rickard de este programa como un fracaso puede ser correcta eventualmente, pero es prematura. Se necesita monitoreo a largo plazo antes que se pueda completar una evaluacion correcta de éxito o fracaso en el establecimiento de una población auto-sustentable en las áreas de traslado. Aunque estoy de acuerdo con muchos de los principios básicos pre- sentados en su artículo, el traslado de poblaciones no se debe eliminar como una posible herramienta de conservación para ésta y otras especies hasta que los datos de monitoreos mas completos y a largo plazo estén disponibles.

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 15 History And Background Of The al determines the size of the next year’s Program breeding population. Stochastic events This research project was initiated as a can cause a severe decline or the com- feasibility study for potential transloca- plete elimination of a small population tion activities with translocation experi- in a single year. In an undisturbed land- ments planned only after habitat choice scape, metapopulation dynamics allow and population dynamics of the species the reestablishment of small populations was better understood in extant, local eliminated by such stochastic events populations. Rickard was studying the through immigration from source to dynamics of the extant southeast Michi- sink populations. With connective cor- gan populations while I was perform- ridors, it is possible for this species to ing habitat characteristic comparisons utilize ideal as well as sub-prime habi- among potential translocation sites and tat, avoid dense predator areas, and extant populations in southeast Michi- maintain genetic diversity through gan and Ohio. Our intent was to make subpopulation mixing. Unfortunately, fully educated and responsible deci- migratory corridors have too often been sions prior to any translocation activity eliminated in urbanized environments being initiated. and reestablishment of these migratory At a symposium in September 2003 corridors is not feasible. Thus, reestab- at the USGS/National Park Service fa- lishment of the population connection cilities at Indiana Dunes National Lake- may only be possible through the use of shore, amphibian experts discussed translocation to create new populations and established working theories to of cricket frogs in their historic range. explain the decline of the species across Currently, this species is listed only the northeastern extent of the cricket as a Species of Special Concern in Mich- frog’s range. Likely causes identified igan and therefore receives little legal included habitat loss, fragmentation, protection. This listing indicates the need toxins/pollutants, disease, and invasive to closely monitor the species but does species. Habitat fragmentation may be not provide the habitat protection that the leading cause because it is wide- comes with threatened and endangered spread throughout the region and pres- species status. Without legal protection, ents landscape barriers too extensive destruction of the Ypsilanti Lakewood for this species to traverse. Transloca- Farms population habitat was unstop- tion was considered as a potential pop- pable, resulting in the need to either ulation management and conservation translocate the population and/or to tool to overcome habitat fragmentation mitigate for expected losses on site. An through establishment of more popula- emergency translocation was initiated tions that could assist with genetic mix- with the support of the Detroit Zoologi- ing of isolated populations and return cal Institute, the Michigan Department the species to its former range. This of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the emergency translocation afforded us an Michigan Department of Environmen- opportunity to explore this theory fur- tal Quality (MDEQ). In addition, the ther. developer agreed to redesign the miti- Cricket frogs are an annual species gation wetland (changing the shoreline with breeding occurring in the early structure and vegetation and excluding summer, adult dispersal and/or death fish) to provide “in kind” replacement occurring shortly after breeding, and of the cricket frog habitat lost. Although metamorphs hibernating through the unlikely to replace all of the habitat winter and breeding the next year. Late lost and though time is required to de- summer and winter metamorph surviv- velop habitat structure and function

16 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 and overcome threats such as invasive The Potential For Translocation As species, this mitigated area may sup- Science port more cricket frogs than the origi- As mentioned by Rickard, in the review nal planned mitigation. The “in kind” of amphibian translocation by Dodd mitigation also presented an opportu- and Seigel (1991), the authors took a nity to test the theories of cricket frog critical view on translocation as a con- habitat choice and migratory behavior servation measure and as science. Some while identifying potential barriers to of their concerns included the low suc- establishing populations in restored cess rate from documented accounts of and mitigated wetlands. An extensive translocations, the potential impact on monitoring plan for the mitigation site the practice of habitat protection, the began April 2006 even though planting lack of long-term monitoring, and the had not been completed. Because miti- ambiguity of the terms “success” and gation on site would only be completed “failure” in reference to a transloca- after the destruction of the current hab- tion program. This article is seriously itat, the translocation was initiated to out dated having been published in remove animals that faced elimination 1991 and conclusions were based on due to construction activities. lack of reproductive activity in released The release sites for the translocat- populations at that time, that no popu- ed animals in this program were based lation at that time was self-sustaining, on habitat available including consid- and therefore, in their opinion, were eration of shoreline slope, plant com- not successes. They also noted that the munities present, and water chemistry. perception of success, lack of published Since comparisons were already being failed projects, public support, and self made with extant population habitat to interest tended to perpetuate the belief use an area on the Detroit Zoo’s proper- that translocation was (is) a viable prac- ty for a future translocation (should the tice that saves species (Dodd and Seigel area prove to be appropriate), the deci- 1991). sion was made to conduct a transloca- Burke (1991) and Trenham and tion on the Zoo’s property based on the Marsh (1991) replied to this paper in preliminary site data and the belief that the same issue of Herpetologica, taking a population could utilize surrounding a slightly less critical stance on translo- natural areas within the 125 acres of the cation for conservation. Burke pointed Zoo’s property. The Port Huron and St. out that Dodd and Seigel failed to con- John’s Marsh sites were both selected sider invasive species, which could be as they were restored and managed viewed as successful translocations. by MDNR game areas, surrounded by Trenham and Marsh supported trans- light residential, agricultural, and natu- location as a means to help amphib- ral areas. These sites appeared to offer ians overcome landscape barriers and appropriate habitat in the form of re- distance between populations. In 2002, stored, fishless, prairie wetland com- Seigel and Dodd published another pa- plexes but more time to further assess per taking a slightly less critical stance the suitability of these sites would have regarding translocation but retained certainly been desirable. Additional their statement that translocation has sites were identified as future, potential not been proven science using scientifi- translocation sites but full assessments cally objective data but concluding that will be completed before any new trans- much more research is needed (Seigel locations are attempted. and Dodd 2002). I agree with aspects of each of these papers. Translocation can be a viable op-

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 17 tion for the conservation of species when that may affect the outcome of a trans- properly and responsibly researched location (IUCN 2000). These guidelines and when decisions are made that are have been referenced in recent translo- in the best interest of the animals and cations attempts, however, some of the not politically motivated. The process earlier programs did not take such de- of understanding the habitat and other tailed considerations into mind when needs of a species is crucial in its con- moving animals. Using such guidelines servation even if translocations are not in the planning of a translocation, and considered to be a viable option. Trans- interpreting the resulting data, may of- locations must be programs performed fer more consistent interpretations and as scientific experiments that consider all easier direct comparability between components of the habitat and ethol- programs. ogy of a species. The papers referenced Based on the life history of the above, more than anything, indicate the Blanchard’s cricket frog, extensive read- need for better science in translocations. ing, and research into translocations All these papers also agree that the lack and reintroductions in amphibians and of publishing of failed attempts and the other species, an appropriate monitor- lack of long-term monitoring are criti- ing protocol for this species should in- cal needs for advancing the scientific clude a series of milestone events that understanding of the value of translo- would give indications of a successful cation programs. translocation. These milestones include, Rickard notes in her article that initial survival and first year breeding of there is no generally accepted and released animals, survival of first year widely used criteria for assessing suc- offspring to breeding age and to the cess or failure in translocation. This is a following breeding season, successful difficult parameter to identify in a trans- breeding of first year offspring with an location given the variable life histories increase in population size, and contin- Table 1. Successful am- of translocated species. However, the ued population growth to a level com- phibian translocation World Conservation Union (IUCN) has parable to a similar “natural” popula- programs. S=success, put forth guidelines for the translocation. As the sites are monitored closely, U=unknown, F= failure, and I=invasive tion of living organisms that have taken it will be possible to identify where the into consideration many of the variables program is encountering difficulties Species Common Name Result Authors Bloxam, et al. (1995), Dodd, et al. (1991), Seigel, et Alytes muletensis Mallorcan Midwife Toad S, U al. (2002), Zippel (2005) Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger Salamander S Burke (1991) Bufo baxteri Wyoming Toad S, F Dodd, et al. (1991), Seigel, et al. (2002) Beebee (1996), Banks, et al. (1988), Burke (1991), Bufo calamita Natterjack Toad S, F Dodd, et al. (1991) Bufo lemur Puerto Rican Crested Toad S, U Bloxam, et al. (1995), Dodd, et al. (1991), pers. com. Bufo marinus Marine Toad S, I Beebee (1996), Burke (1991), Chirixalus romeri Romer’s Tree Frog S Dudgeon and Law 1999 in Zippel (2005) Dendrobates auratus Green and Black Dart Frog S, I Burke (1991) Desmognathus quadramaculatus Black-bellied Salamander S Burke (1991) Hyla arborea European Treefrog S, U Zvirgzds (1995, 1998) in Zippel (2005) Litoria raniformis Green and Gold Frog S, U Tyler 1978 in Zippel (2005) Nectrus maculosus Mudpuppy S Burke (1991) Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog S, I Burke (1991), Hirai (2004) Rana dalmatina Agile Frog S, U Gibson and Freeman 1997 in Zippel (2005) Rana Tarahumarae Tarahumara Frog S,U Sredl et al. 2004 in Zippel (2005) Xenopus laevis African Clawed Frog S, I Burke (1991)

18 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 and where alterations in the reintroduc- and alterations have impacted the sites, tion plans are or will be necessary. Even a site situated on a protected and ex- with initial indications of breeding, pansive natural area in the periphery of only over a span of 5-10 years will we the range is preferential to a remnant in be able to make definitive statements the core of the historic range. regarding the success or failure for this There are examples of amphibian or other translocated cricket frog popu- translocation that have been successful lations. The science of translocation is completely outside the historic range of a learning process at this time. No one the species. Litoria raniformis is a species claims to know exactly how to perform that was once common in Australia but a successful translocation, nor would it has experienced significant declines in be possible to set such a universal pro- its native range. An introduced popu- tocol even based on taxonomic order lation in New Zealand has been estab- or family. The translocation of cricket lished and is thriving (Zippel 2005). frogs will provide valuable information Similarly, Nevada supports a popula- on life history and ways to better con- tion of Ambystoma tigrinum that has serve this species. become well established as an exotic Rickard also mentions that there species while the species is endangered, is debate as to whether animals should threatened or vulnerable in a large por- only be released into the center of their tion of its historic range. These estab- historic range or if they can succeed lished populations are ideal case stud- at the periphery. Translocations at the ies to determine what characteristics of periphery may be less successful due the habitat are valuable to each species to more drastic and long-term habitat and what is necessary to protect extant changes, climatic changes, or elimina- populations and increase the success tion of habitat. If the reasons for past of translocations as a conservation tool extinctions are successfully identified, when necessary. exact location within the range of the All translocations do not succeed, species may not be of concern as long as however, if these practices are moni- those factors have been mitigated. His- tored and documented, the success toric ranges should be used as a guide- rate will increase as we learn. As with line for potential translocation recipient any branch of science, initial attempts sites, but studies of all potential sites are often not successful, but they are should be done to ensure that the neces- valuable. Table 1 contains examples of sary components of the habitat are pres- monitored and documented successful ent for the species. For southeast Michi- amphibian translocation programs that gan, the core areas of the range of the are in the literature. A good portion of cricket frog are highly urbanized and the disagreement in the result of each altered. With habitat loss and fragmen- of these programs is related to the date tation playing a significant role in the when the paper was published. For decline in this species, the more periph- example, both Bufo baxteri and Bufo le- eral areas of the historic range offer bet- mur have recently shown breeding and ter habitat, lower human densities, and population growth sufficient to indicate more connectivity to other habitats. success that were not evident when the Restoration and reclamation of agri- programs were in their early stage. cultural land and expansion of natural Translocations are intended to be areas have created or restored areas of used as a conservation measure to in- habitat that were once lost. It is possible crease population size, distribute ani- to utilize these areas for translocation. mals into multiple populations, and Though it is not the original habitat, assure the long-term survival of the spe-

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 19 cies. Some species, however, are moved the extent that habitat protection and for reasons other than conservation and limitations on future developments can have impacts on the recipient site cannot be expected to reverse the deg- biota. Bufo marinus, Rana catesbeiana, radation of habitat and the loss of popu- Xenopus laevis and Dendrobates aruatus lations. Though I support all efforts to have all successfully established new preserve natural areas and habitat first populations when moved by humans, and foremost, there are situations when even on different continents. These spe- it is not possible. This translocation was cies have life history characteristics that initiated as an attempt to save animals allow them to utilize non-native habitat that would have been destroyed by con- and resources, sometimes to the exclu- struction activity, however that is not sion of the native species. Though the why the investigation that identified the ecological impacts that have resulted problem was initiated in the first place. are negative, the study of these inva- Landscape barriers that have formed sions as unintentional translocations due to human activity and urban sprawl that succeeded exceptionally well may cannot be traversed by small species give indications of ways to better apply like the cricket frogs. The remaining translocation in management of recov- populations in southeast Michigan are ery programs for threatened and en- isolated from each other and face fu- dangered species. ture impacts of loss of genetic variation Rickard states that the translocation due to inbreeding, stochastic events, of Bufo calamita is the only successful and potential disease events that could establishment of a threatened species. eliminate the population completely. In Interestingly, early accounts in the lit- this case, and many similar cases where erature indicated the failure of this pro- isolation and fragmentation leave scat- gram. The aforementioned Bufo baxteri, tered populations, translocation may be Bufo lemur, Litoria raniformis, and Am- the only way assure the existence of this bystoma tigrium translocations, as well species in Michigan. as Chirixalus romeri, and Alytes muletensis are examples of successful estab- Interpretations Of The Cricket Frog lishment of threatened and endangered Translocation Results species using translocation. C. romeri I would first like to present a few ob- declined to an estimated 1300 animals servations and clarifications with re- before initiation of a captive breeding gards to the information presented in and reintroduction program that re- Rickard’s article. First, in her results she sulted in the establishment at seven of states that animals were heard calling at the eight release sites. A. muletensis was site 2 in the spring of 2005 but in the dis- believed to be extinct when relict popu- cussion states that no cricket frogs were lations were discovered. A mixture of heard or seen in any of the release sites wild-caught and captive bred animals, that spring. Based on call surveys done was translocated in 1989 and subse- by myself and the staff at the Detroit quent monitoring has identified young Zoo, cricket frogs were heard calling and tadpoles every year since (Zippel at the Port Huron Site (site 1) and the 2005). Detroit Zoo Site (site 2). Though these These data indicate that the trans- numbers were small, they gave indica- location of amphibians as a conservation that there were appropriate hiber- tion tool can be successful and help nacula at both sites 1 and 2, and that the to assure the long-term existence of a animals were able to locate these hiber- species. Anthropogenic impacts have nacula between their release and the altered the ecosystem and landscape to onset of winter. Second, in her abstract, Rickard 20 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 states that initial breeding attempts population trends in the first year. The were observed at all three release sites. trends of the data presented in Table 2 This species does not breed in the late of Rickard’s article indicate a significant summer and adults disperse or die af- decline in all surveyed sites between ter breeding in the early to mid sum- the September and October surveys, mer. Animals were released between not just at site 1. However, without data August 24 and October 8, 2004 with site from multiple years and including sur- 1 and St. John’s Marsh (site 3) receiving rounding wetlands, actual population animals only on September 14, 2004, trends cannot be identified. The only which is well past the breeding season. information that is definitive from these In addition, in 2004 only 12 animals that data is that some animals released at were released were identified as adults site 1 survived and bred. The number of (based on size only), 11 of which were pairs that bred, genetic variability with- released at site 2 and one released at site in the population, survival rates, and 3. No adult size animals were released population trends require significantly to site 1. The remainder of animals were more data to make any conclusions but juveniles and tadpoles and not sexually need to be analyzed as this project con- mature. Though it is possible that these tinues. breeding attempts were observed in late Rickard’s table 2 also assumes ani- summer and the translocation of the mals remained in the wetland where animals to new territories stimulated they were released. Site 1 and site 3 are a change in adult behavior, that would both surrounded by large natural areas only account for this statement being containing a variety of wetland features made for sites 2 and 3. However, if these that could be utilized by the cricket frogs animals maintained their natural breed- for migration, hibernation or breeding. ing cycle, that would require them be- The migratory abilities of this animal ing seen at all three sites in the spring are unclear and surrounding areas were of 2005 which she previously stated did not surveyed to determine if they were not occur. being colonized. In addition, the Nature Third, as stated above, there were Conservancy site is situated in a sparse- animals that survived and were calling ly vegetated gravel pit with little to no at site 1 in the spring of 2005 prior to cover for migrating animals while site the release of an additional 57 animals. 1 and 3 are surrounded by tall prairie Though animals released in 2005 were grasses which afford a degree of pro- marked to indicate year of release, the tection from desiccation and predation actual parentage of the offspring at the during movements. The grassy areas site cannot be assumed to be from the of site 1 and 3 also support burrowing 2005 release animals. Therefore, it is crayfish at significant distances from possible that the few animals that sur- the edges of the wetlands while the Na- vived the winter were able to produce ture Conservancy site crayfish burrows young. More accurate indications of appear to be concentrated near the wet- over-winter survival and breeding will land shoreline. Crayfish burrows are be evident during the spring and sum- considered to be utilized as hibernacula mer of 2006 and subsequent year sur- by cricket frogs. It is possible that ani- veys. mals were dispersing and not seen at The analysis of this program has the shoreline at the time of the survey. been presented based on a single year’s Rickard also suggested that the data and under the assumptions that an reason for the 2005 decline in site 1 was established population and a newly re- most likely predation. All sites con- leased population would show identical tained similar biotic assemblies of am-

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 21 phibians, birds and reptiles and were to be on the shoreline and easily visible. known to contain green frogs. The Therefore, the differences between sites consumption rate of cricket frog meta- could be behavioral due to climatic con- morphs by green frogs at site 1 should ditions. be similar to that at the Nature Conser- vancy site unless there is a significant Conclusion difference in the size of the green frog Translocations are a viable conservation population, and no evidence of that tool to overcome landscape barriers, was presented. Therefore, the impact maintain genetic diversity in isolated of green frogs cannot be assessed objec- populations, utilize restored habitat, and tively based on data presented. Without protect biodiversity. Emergency translo- established, quantitative differences be- cations should only be used when other tween predator assemblages at each of options such as habitat protection and the release sites and the extant popula- improving habitat adjacent to threat- tion site, cause and effect cannot be at- ened populations are not feasible. The tributed to predation differences. fragmented landscapes that have been Rickard dismisses the potential for created through anthropogenic activi- differences in animal activity levels ties often leaves few options to - trans and visibility being related to air and locations in urbanized and degraded water temperatures, as well as loca- areas. Species such as the Blanchard’s tion. Though temperature cannot be cricket frog can benefit regionally from confirmed to be impacting these popu- the establishment of more populations lations at the time of survey, it is note- in their former range. The transloca- worthy that the Nature Conservancy tions of this study will result in a better Site was consistently warmer for the understanding of the life history of this week prior to surveying (figure 1) and species and will offer insights into ways that this trend continued back to the be- in which future translocation experi- ginning of the month of October. Also, ments should be performed. Performing in the month of October up to the sur- this study before the species declines to vey date, site 1 only experienced four critically low levels will minimize the sunny or partly sunny days while the impact of translocation attempts on the Figure 1. Comparison Nature Conservancy Site experienced remaining populations. of high and low tem- eight. This species is known to bask and Translocation must be treated as a peratures at Site 1 and prefer warm temperatures. With lower science, not just the movement of ani- the Nature Conser- mals from point A to point B. Proper vancy Site for the week temperatures and less basking oppor- prior to the last survey tunities, the frogs would be less likely planning and responsible decisions day. are required, taking into consideration the natural history of the species, habitat use and availability, the impacts of the donor population, the impacts on the recipient site, and the possibility of disease transmission as well as a long term commitment to the management and monitoring of the population that becomes established. The lack of previously published and monitored translocation leaves today’s ecologists only a minimal framework for designing a program. The lessons learned from successes and failures will better prepare the next scientist and increase success 22 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 rates. No branch of science or conserva- around our translocation project and tion technique proves perfect when first focus on the point of habitat protec- tried. The expectation of near perfection tion first and foremost. Unfortunately, in translocation is unrealistic, especially as state and federal laws stand, there in a natural system with a myriad of are often no legal means of stopping a potential influencing factors. It is the construction project. If our project was responsibility of all involved in a trans- able to spur residents into action and location to share what was learned to encourage their involvement in protect- increase the probability of success in ing their environment, then something future projects. has been gained and the likelihood of Human-animal conflicts are -com future emergency translocations being mon in urbanized and developing ar- needed decreased. eas. In most circumstances, little or I agree with Rickard that there is a nothing is done in an attempt to save need for greater legal habitat and spe- the animals prior to construction. His- cies protection. At this site, the redi- torically, it has been assumed that the rection of the entrance road may have animals will move and find new habitat. allowed for preservation of the site as- When construction is performed where suming the rest of the development there are connected natural areas, some and changes in the surrounding area animals may be able to move. However, did not cause significant degradation. this is not the case in a majority of the However, we had no legal recourse to urbanized areas. In some cases, natural change the road design plans based on areas are preserved and maintained as the status of the species (Species of Spe- habitat for the animals. These scattered cial Concern) and wetland protection stands are often completely isolated laws. The concession of redesigning the from other habitat and other popula- mitigation site was a measure suggest- tions. The result is a collection of physi- ed by the MDEQ based on “in-kind” cally and genetically isolated popula- replacement rules, but if the contractors tions that face genetic homogenization refused, I am not aware of any legal re- and are unable to sustain the impacts course to make them change the design. of stochastic events. Though I believe This project was not initiated to assist we should protect all possible natural the contractors but to make at least an areas, regardless of location or size, we attempt to save some animals. No one must also consider the context of these claims that translocation will solve the areas and the need for management problem of additional habitat loss for of the populations within these areas cricket frogs. It is, however, a tool that before deeming them to be ecological may allow some reversal of population saviors. Translocation gives us a tool to losses while attempts to preserve the manage these isolated populations as remaining natural populations are un- well as a tool to establish new popula- derway. tions and avoid an “all eggs in one bas- My research on this species is con- ket” scenario. tinuing and the MDNR is supporting a The general public tends to view portion of this research. Michigan Nat- translocation as a catch-all answer for ural Features Inventory representatives threatened populations. This project have been working with the MDNR to received a significant amount of press up-list the Blanchard’s cricket frog to coverage and continues to generate in- Threatened. With this higher level of terest for speaking engagements. This protection, more habitat conservation continued interest has given me the will be possible in the future. With a opportunity to explain the situation more educated public, more legislation

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 23 that protects natural areas is also possible. There are many unknowns with re- gards to the natural history and causes for declines in the Blanchard’s cricket frog in Michigan and throughout its range. Multiple researchers in the region are working to better understand these factors. This translocation project may fail but the data to date does not prove failure. It indicates declines that may result in failure or may be related to natural fluctuations, sampling error, or climatic conditions. Long term monitoring, comparisons between extant and release sites, will increase the chance of future project success. Even if this project does not succeed in establishing a new population of cricket frogs, it will be a valuable learning experience. Literature Cited Burke, R.L. 1991. Relocations, Repatriations, and Translocations of Amphibians and Reptiles: Taking a Broader View. Herpetologica 47:350- 357. Dodd, C.K. Jr., R.A. Seigel. 1991. Relocation, Re- patriation, and Translocation of Amphibians and Reptiles: Are They Conservation Strate- gies That Work? Herpetologica 47:336-350. IUCN Species Survival. IUCN/SSC Guidelines for Reintroductions [cited 1/8/2004]. Available from http://www.iucn.org/themes/scc/pubs/policy/ reinte.htm Seigel, R.A. and J.C.K. Dodd. 2002. Transloca- tions of Amphibians: Proven Management Method or Experimental Technique? Conser- vation Biology 16:552-554. Zippel, K. Amphibian Web: Information on amphibian biology and conservation. 2005. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. [cited 2/14/2006]. Available from http://amphibiaweb.org

24 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 The Fat Threeridge (Amblema neislerii), the Surprisingly Common Endangered Mussel in the Apalachicola River, Florida

Andrew C. Miller1,2 Abstract Barry S. Payne1,3 Native freshwater mussels (Family: Unionidae) are the most ‘endangered’ organisms in North America; in January 2006 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed 70 species as threatened or endangered. Although some species are wide- 1Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research ly distributed throughout the central and eastern United States, many others and Development Center, are localized and found only in certain watersheds. For example, the fat three- Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 ridge mussel, Amblema neislerii (Lea, 1858), is now restricted to the Apalachicola River, Florida. Although results of surveys conducted during the 20th century suggest that this species was always rare in the river, our findings indicate that [email protected] in moderately depositional areas near shore, A. neislerii is common-to-abundant and exhibits good evidence of recent recruitment. In 6 surveys between 1996 [email protected] and 2003, divers and waders searched for mussels at approximately 100 sites in the 171-km-long river. Over 4,500 live mussels were collected and 19 species were identified. Amblema neislerii dominated the bivalve fauna at moderately depositional sites where it constituted approximately 36% of the fauna. Evi- dence of recent recruitment (live individuals less than 30 mm total shell length) was evident at many sites. This article examines the status of A. neislerii in the Apalachicola River based on a literature review and recent surveys. Resumen Mejillones nativos de agua fresca son los organismos mas amenazados en América del Norte; en enero del 2006 el Servicio de Pesca y Vida Silvestre de EE.UU. listó 70 especies como amenazadas o en peligro. A pesar de que algunas especies están ampliamente distribuidas por todo el centro y la parte este de los EE.UU., muchas otras están localizadas y se encuentran solo en ciertos acuífe- ros. Por ejemplo, el mejillón Amblema neislerii (Lea, 1858) está ahora restricto al Río Apalachicola, Florida. Aunque los resultados de conteos realizados durante el siglo 20 sugieren que esta especie siempre fue rara en el río nuestros resultados indican que en áreas cerca de la orilla de deposición moderada, A.neislerii es de común a abundante y hay buena evidencia de reclutamiento reciente. En 6 conteos de 1996 a 2003, buzos y vadeadores buscaron mejillones en aproxima- damente 100 lugares en el estrecho de 171 km del río. Más de 4,500 mejillones vivos fueron recolectados y se identificaron 19 especies. Amblema neislerii do- mina la fauna bi-valvular en lugares de deposición moderada, donde formaba parte del 36% de la fauna. Evidencia de reclutamiento reciente (individuos vivos de menos de 30mm de largo de concha) estaba presente en muchos de los lugares. Este artículo examina el estatus de A.neislerii en el Río Apalachicola basado en una revisión de la literatura y conteos recientes.

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 25 Introduction compared with charismatic species such The Apalachicola River provides habi- as mammals and birds, concern has tat for an endemic freshwater mussel been expressed by some that inverte- (family: Unionidae) the fat threeridge, brates have been largely overlooked by Amblema neislerii (Lea, 1858), which was the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Kel- listed as endangered on 15 April 1998. lert 1993; Opler 1987; Bean 1993; Mur- The decision to list this and 6 other mus- phy 1991; Hughes et al. 2000; Black et sel species in the Southeast was partial- al. 2001). Regardless, of the 297 mussel ly based on results of a status survey species in the United States (Williams et conducted at 324 sites in the Apalachic- al. 1993), 62 are endangered and 8 are ola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river ba- threatened; therefore 24% have federal sin and 77 sites along the Ochlockonee protection. Considering this compara- River Systems, southeast Alabama, tively high percentage, one could con- southwest Georgia, and north Florida clude that either native mussels are in (Federal Register 63(50): 12664-12687). serious trouble (Stansbery 1970; Fuller Jayne Brim Box and James D. Williams 1974; Master 1990; Bogan 1993; Sed- conducted the status survey in 1991- don et al. 1998; Hayes 1998; Williams 93 using scuba and snorkeling, and by et al. 1993; Neves 1999; and Strayer et handpicking in shallow water. These al. 2004) or they benefit from strong ad- and other studies (Butler 1993) were vocates (Yaffee 1982). Most likely, it is a synthesized for the Technical/Agency combination of both. Draft Recovery Plan (Butler and Alam Between 1996 and 2003 six mussel 1999) and for the Final Recovery Plan surveys were conducted in the Apala- (Butler et al. 2003). chicola River for the U.S. Army Engi- As of January 2006 the total number neer District, Mobile. These studies of federally listed threatened and en- were designed to obtain information dangered species was 1,272, which in- on distribution and abundance of fed- Figure 1. The fat cluded 527 animals and 745 plants (US erally listed mussels to avoid impacts threeridge, Amblema neislerii. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). When of dredged material disposal. During this period nearly 211 hours were ex- pended searching at approximately 100 sites in the 171-km-long river. As a result of these surveys and a critical review of previous papers on A. neislerii, it became apparent that this species is more common in the Apalachicola River than results of previous surveys would suggest. The purpose of this paper is to discuss survey results and the status of A. neislerii in the Apalachicola River. The other federally-listed mussel in the Apalachicola River is the purple bank climber, Elliptoideus sloatianus (Lea, 1840), listed as threatened on 15 April 1998. Study Area The Apalachicola River, formed by the confluence of the Flint and Chatta- hoochee Rivers, originates at Naviga- tion Mile (NM) 106.3, just south of Lake 26 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Seminole in the tailwater of Jim Wood- ruff Lock and Dam. This 171-km river is the largest in Florida with a mean annual flow of 690 3m /sec (Light et al. 1998). The Apalachicola-Chattahooch- ee-Flint (ACF) River Basin, in Georgia and northeastern Florida, drains approximately 210,448 hectares. The river enters the Apalachicola Bay at Apala- chicola, Florida. Jim Woodruff Dam is located at Navigation Mile 106.3 on the Apalachic- ola River and forms the Lake Seminole impoundment. Jim Woodruff Dam and Lake Seminole are operated as a run- of-the-river reservoir with the capabil- ity for only limited water storage. The tailwaters below Jim Woodruff Dam on the Apalachicola River are free-flowing and unobstructed, but can be affected by upstream reservoir operations and releases. The USACE allows basin out- flows from Jim Woodruff Dam toap- chicola River in recent years has been Figure 2. Sites surveyed proximately equal inflows from the light and has consisted mainly of rec- for A. neislerii, Apala- chicola River, Florida, upstream reservoirs in the basin except reational vessels. A number of factors November, 2003. when upstream reservoirs are refilling. have led to an unreliable navigation However, to avoid having discharge fall channel and the observed reduction in below 141.6 cms (minimum flow) dur- commercial navigation on the river, in- ing low flow periods, flows can be aug- cluding recurrent drought conditions, mented by releases from Jim Woodruff dredged material capacity shortfalls, Dam and/or other upstream reservoirs increasing restrictions on dredged ma- along the Chattahoochee River. terial disposal, and funding limitations. In 1875 the USACE was authorized The continued use of within-bank dis- to maintain a navigation channel in the posal areas has remained controversial Apalachicola River (U.S. Army Engi- within the State of Florida. However, neer District, Mobile 1987). In the early mussel surveys have been conducted 20th century sediments were dredged at all proposed within-bank disposal from the main channel, oxbows, tribu- sites prior to their use in order to avoid taries, and sloughs and placed on the impacts to threatened and endangered floodplain within natural riverbanks. mussels or their habitat. In the 1980s nearly 150 disposal areas Most dredged material disposal ar- were permitted throughout the river, eas are now located on erosional point although in any single year relatively bars, typically at a bend in the river few are used. Dredging was restricted so high flow redistributes sediments to the main channel and material was downriver. As is the case with all rivers, only placed at specifically designated downriver of the erosional point bar is a disposal areas primarily along shore in zone of moderate sediment deposition. within-bank disposal sites. Although Concerning sediment deposition, the maintained for commercial navigation, term ‘moderate’ is used to indicate that commercial river traffic on the -Apala during low flow fine-grained sediments

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 27 or silts will be deposited and gradually m2 quadrat (Miller and Payne 1993). increase in depth. Moderately depo- Mussel taxonomy is consistent with sitional areas are firm but muddy and Williams et al. (1993). will support benthic invertebrates such The major objective during most as mussels, snails, worms (oligochaeta) study years was to assess presence/ab- and dipterans (chironomidae). A period sence of threatened and endangered of high-velocity water will scour sedi- mussels in areas likely to be affected by ments and remove most of the smaller, dredged material disposal operations. short-lived fauna, although the site usu- In 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2002 these sur- ally recolonizes quickly. Depending on veys were conducted immediately up- conditions, these moderately deposi- and downriver of 57 disposal areas. In tional areas could scour several times 2001 searches were conducted immedi- a year, or simply maintain a dynamic ately up- and downriver of 34 sloughs equilibrium between erosion and de- scheduled for maintenance dredging position which is not detrimental to the for ecosystem restoration. All sites were fauna. Many shoals in large rivers such chosen by USACE and state environ- as the Ohio, Tennessee, and upper Mis- mental resource agency personnel and sissippi that support dense and diverse included both high quality benthic hab- mussel assemblages meet these latter itats as well as erosional zones not in- criteria habited by live mussels or other benthic organisms. Methods A second objective was to analyze Mussels were collected by 2-4 waders in Figure 3. Results of the A. neislerii size demography, and abun- HEC-2 SED model, which shallow water and by 2 divers in water dance with respect to water depth at depict depositional and deeper than 1 m. Searches were timed sites where this species was known to erosional reaches of the and usually lasted 15-20 minutes. Col- be common to abundant. These investi- Apalachicola River (indi- lecting was done tactilely since under- cated by positive and neg- gations were initiated to obtain a more ative changes in bed load, water visibility was poor. Divers were complete understanding of this species respectively) and identify equipped with a pneumofathometer in the Apalachicola River during low suitable habitat for mussels to record water depth and were teth- flow conditions. Population structure and A. neislerii. The verti- ered to the boat with a 100-m line. All and evidence of recent recruitment were cal lines indicate down- live mussels were taken to the boat or river (lower Navigation examined in 1999 by collecting quanti- Miles) and upriver reaches a station onshore and counted, identi- tative total substratum samples using of Disposal Areas 32A and fied, and returned to a location unlikely a 0.25-m2 quadrat. Total shell length of 33A. Mussels were typical- to be disturbed by future maintenance. each live A. neislerii was measured with ly found in slightly deposi- Demographic data were obtained at a tional reaches immediately digital calipers, and then it was returned downriver of the disposal single site by collecting total substra- to the river unharmed. These samples areas. tum quantitative samples using a 0.25- were taken from a moderately depositional area along the right descending bank of the Chipola Cutoff immediately downriver of the point where it exits the

1.5 Apalachicola River at NM 41.7. As part 1.0 of this objective, the distribution of A. 0.5 neislerii with respect to water depth was 0.0 investigated in November 2003 at 11 -0.5 -1.0 moderately depositional sites between -1.5 NM 30.0 and 73.3. Transects perpen- -2.0 dicular to shore were established that 31.6 31.8 32.0 32.2 32.4 32.6 32.8 33.0 33.2 33.4 33.6 33.8 34.0 ran from shallow (0.6 m) to deep (2.7 m) Change in Bed Elevation, m Navigation Mile water. At 0.3-m depth increments along

28 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 each transect 2 divers searched for mus- the CH3D-SED model (Raphelt and Al- sels for 15 minutes. A total of 100 timed exander 2001) identifies areas of mod- searches were conducted. Gauge height erate sediment deposition downriver and discharge at the nearest gauge near of point bars and disposal areas (Figure Blountstown, Florida (NM 78) was 1.11 3). A different impression of the - rela m, 266.7 cms (18 Nov 03); 1.27 m, 291.7 tive abundance of A. neislerii emerges cms (19 Nov 03); and 1.50 m 325.6 cms when collecting was restricted to mod- (20 Nov 03). erately depositional sites (Objective 2). At 11 depositional sites (8 separate lo- Results cations) A. neislerii ranked 1 of 12 and Data from the first objective, to constituted 35.8% of the fauna. Average search for endangered species at sites CPUE was 37.9 for all mussels and 13.6 likely to be affected by dredged mate- for A. neislerii. CPUE ranged from 0.5 to rial disposal, are summarized in Table 20.2 for A. neislerii and from 6.3 to 55.9 1. More than 4,200 live mussels were for total mussels on transects located collected at approximately 100 sites in perpendicular to shore (Figure 4). Total the Apalachicola River. A. neislerii con- shell length varied from 30 to 90 mm stituted 10% of the fauna and ranked with 12% less than 40 mm total shell 4th of 19 species. The most abundant length. Mussels were most abundant at species at these sites was Lampsilis teres a depth of 1.2 m. Mussels were virtually (Rafinesque, 1820), which constituted absent at water depths less than 1.2 m 35.2% of the fauna. This species is usu- likely because of predation and aerial ally common in sandy substratum in exposure. At depths greater than 2.7 rivers, streams, and lakes throughout m flow became erosional and few live the Midwest (Cummings and Mayer mussels were found. 1992). Overall Collection per Unit Effort To investigate A. neislerii population (CPUE; mussels collected per person demography, total substratum quantita- hour) for all mussels was 21.9 and for A. tive samples were taken at a moderately neislerii was 2.2. As noted above, these depositional site along the Chipola Cut- sites included some where A. neislerii off where it connects with the- Apala was common to abundant and others chicola River (approximate NM 41.7). where virtually no benthic organisms CPUE for all mussels was 145, and A. were found. neislerii was collected at the rate of near- Figure 4. CPUE of It became apparent that freshwa- ly 90 per hour and constituted slightly ter mussels, including A. neislerii, were Amblema neislerii and more than 61% of the molluscan fauna. total mussels at 11 most abundant in moderately deposi- Total shell length ranged from 12.8 to depositional sites in tional areas often located 1-2 km or less 63.7 mm with good evidence of recent the Apalachicola Riv- downriver of point bars. Output from er, Florida, 2003.

100 All Mussels A. neislerii 75

50 CPUE 25

0 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 Depth, m Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 29 Amblema neislerii reported that A. neislerii was ‘amazingly Chipola River, 10 August 1999 abundant’ in a natural impoundment in the lower Chipola River (referred to

25 as Dead Lake) where 10-15 Crenodonta (=Amblema) neislerii could be found in “every square meter” along a 200-me- 20 ter reach. In a survey conducted for the Office

15 of Endangered Species, Heard (1975) collected mussels at 150 locations in the Gulf and Southeastern States; 3 Frequency 10 were in the Apalachicola and 4 were in the Chipola River. He collected live A. 5 neislerii only in the lower Chipola River (Dead Lake). Heard (1975) reported no live A. neislerii in the Apalachicola River 0 12 17 22 27 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 67 although he did find shells at 1 of 3 sites. Shell Length, mm He provided no information on sampling methods, intensity, or locations. Figure 5. Length-frequency recruitment (Figure 5). We can only Richardson and Yokley (1996) col- histogram for A. neislerii, quantify the presence of small mussels, mouth of Chipola River, 10 lected mussels in the lower Apalachic- however, when total substratum sam- August 1999. ola River using quantitative (6-0.25-m2 ples were obtained. Mean density of A. quadrats and total substratum removal) neislerii was 27.2 individuals/m2, and samples at each of 3 sites where adult A. mean density for all mussels was 34.8 neislerii or E. sloatianus had been found individuals/m2. by previous investigators. Amblema neis- Discussion lerii was found at 1 of 3 sites (NM 21.8) The first published reference to A. neis- where it constituted 25% of the assem- lerii in the ACF basin was by Hyning blage. Three live organisms were small- (1925) who considered this species to er than 50 mm total shell length. Rich- be ‘rare.’ He made this statement af- ardson and Yokley (1996) concluded ter receiving an unreported number of that appropriate search methods (total A. neislerii from the Chipola River that substratum removal) would likely yield were given to him by a fisherman. Lat- additional evidence of recent recruit- er van der Schalie (1940) summarized ment for A. neislerii in the Apalachicola early mussel studies in the mainstem River. Chipola River and tributaries. He re- In 1991-92, Brim Box and Williams ported that A. neislerii was not found in (2000) surveyed 324 sites in the ACF tributaries but was collected at 2 sites in River Basin. They identified 33 species the Chipola River where it constituted from a collection of 5,757 live individu- 1.49 % of the unionid fauna. Clench and als and 2,988 shells. Most sites were in Turner (1956) reported that A. neislerii the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers up- was rare in the watershed, although river of Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam. In when present it could be locally abun- the Apalachicola River, Brim Box and dant. They considered it to be extinct in Williams (2000) collected 32 live A. neis- the upper Flint River where it had not lerii at 7 sites. been taken since the latter part of the Early studies (Hyning 1925, van der previous century, although they did Schalie 1940, Clench and Turner 1956, find some specimens in the lower Flint, Heard 1975) give an impression that Apalachicola, and Chipola Rivers. They A. neislerii is rare in the ACF basin, but

30 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Table 1. Summary of timed Species % Abundance % Occurrence CPUE, hr searches for mussels at disposal areas, slough mouths, or A. neislerii 35.8 47 13.57 banks requiring maintenance G. rotundata 32.36 55 12.26 in the Apalachicola River, Flor- ida (1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, and L. teres 10.67 28 4.04 2002).

E. icterina 8.26 21 3.13

Q. infucata 4.13 14 1.57

E. complanata 2.75 7 1.04

P. grandis 2.75 9 1.04

M. nervosa 1.03 4 0.39

U. peggyae 0.86 4 0.33

T. paulus 0.69 4 0.26

E. crassidens 0.34 2 0.13

V. lienosa 0.34 2 0.13

Total collections 100

Total individuals 581

Total species 12

Time, hr 15.3

CPUE, Catch per person hour 37.9 it is difficult to critically evaluate their less common in small streams. There- results without knowing details of the fore it was probably never common in surveys. It is also true that this species the smaller Flint or Chipola Rivers. It would accurately be described as com- is endemic to the ACF basin because mon-to-abundant in the Apalachicola it has been isolated from the Missis- River but uncommon in the ACF Basin as sippi drainage by marine conditions a whole. Richardson and Yokley (1996) to the south and physiography to the collected just 6 quantitative samples at east, north, and west. It was concluded a site in the Apalachicola River where that A. neislerii is common to abundant they knew A. neislerii was present and at moderately depositional sites in the reached conclusions similar to ours but Apalachicola River. If earlier workers different from previous workers. Over had access to powerboats and divers 200 hours were spent searching at ap- and conducted intensive and extensive proximately 100 sites in the Apalachic- surveys, they would likely have con- ola River. Over 4,800 live mussels were cluded that this species was common in processed and more than 600 live A. the Apalachicola River and uncommon neislerii were collected. This is far more in smaller tributaries. An alternative hy- than any previous surveys, even those pothesis seems unlikely. It is difficult to upon which the decision to list A. neisle- believe that A. neislerii was previously rii as endangered was based. uncommon in the Apalachicola River Amblema neislerii survives best in and that its abundance has greatly in- slightly depositional, low-flow reaches creased during the last 30 years. of medium-to-large sized rivers, and is These studies were initiated as-

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 31 Table 2. Summary % % ness of abundance and distribution of Species CPUE of results from Abundance Occurrence A. neislerii. A similar situation was not- timed searches at Lampsilis teres 35.22 58.3 7.7 multiple depths ed for the endangered bivalve Potamilus (0.3 – 2 m) at 11 lo- Glebula rotundata 23.81 46.9 5.2 capax in the St. Francis basin, Arkansas cations along the Elliptio icterina 14.48 22.9 3.16 (Miller and Payne 2005). mainstem Apala- Amblema neislerii 10 22.9 2.19 Depending on need, the USACE has chicola River, No- dredged along the Apalachicola River vember 2003. Quincuncina infucata 2.76 22.9 0.6 and has typically placed the dredged Elliptio crassidens 1.64 16.7 0.36 material near shore. Dredging impacts, Megalonaias nervosa 1.55 15.6 0.34 water levels, commercial uses of the river, and protection of endangered species Elliptoideus sloatianus 1.69 9.4 0.37 is central to coordination among conser- Pyganodon grandis 1.31 19.8 0.29 vation groups, navigation interests, and the USACE. A complete understanding Elliptio complanata 6.12 15.6 1.34 of the distribution and abundance of A. Toxolasma paulus 0.4 8.3 0.09 neislerii is therefore critical to managing the waterway. Utterbackia imbecillis 0.21 6.3 0.05 Literature Cited Villosa villosa 0.19 3.1 0.04 Bean, M. J. 1993. Invertebrates and the Endan- gered Species Act. Wings. 17(2):12-15. Pyganodon cataracta 0.16 3.1 0.04 Black, S. H., Shepard, M., and M. M. Allen. 2001. Endangered Invertebrates: The Case for Great- Uniomerus caroliniana 0.12 3.1 0.03 er Attention to Invertebrate Conservation. En- dangered Species Update 18(2):41-49. Elliptio arctata 0.19 3.1 0.04 Bogan, A. E. 1993. Freshwater bivalve extinctions Utterbackia peggyae 0.07 2.1 0.02 (Mollusca: Unionidae): a search for causes. American Zoologist 33:599-609. Pyganodon heardi 0.05 2.1 0.01 Brim Box, J., and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Ala- Lampsilis claibornensis 0.05 2.1 0.01 bama, Florida, and Georgia. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History No. 22. Total locations 96 143 pp. Butler, R.S. 1993. Results of a status survey for Total individuals 4,268 8 freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) endemic to eastern gulf slope drainages of the Total species 19 Apalachicolan Region of southeast Alabama, Time, hr 195.3 southwest Georgia, and north Florida. Status CPUE, Catch per Report Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- 21.9 person hour vice, Jacksonville, FL. suming that A. neislerii was extremely Butler, R.S., and S.K. Alam. 1999. Technical/ Agency Draft Recovery Plan for endangered uncommon and that intensive field fat threeridge (Amblema neislerii), shinyrayed searches would be needed to find live pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata), Gulf moc- specimens. However, results of these casinshell (Medionidus penicillatus), Ochlock- field studies indicated that this species onee moccasinshell (Medionidus simpsonianus), is not in imminent danger of becoming oval pigtoe, and threatened Chipola slabshell (Elliptio chipolaensis), and purple bankclimber extirpated in the Apalachicola River; (Elliptoideus sloatianus). Prepared for Southeast conversely, in appropriate habitat it is Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlan- abundant and exhibits good evidence of ta, GA. recent recruitment. In the Apalachicola Butler, R.S., Ziewitz, J., Alam, S.K., and H.N. Blalock-Herod. 2003. Recovery Plan for en- River, A. neislerii could even be used as dangered fat threeridge (Amblema neislerii), an indicator of good quality moderately shinyrayed pocketbook (Lampsilis subangu- depositional mussel habitat. The ESA lata), Gulf moccasinshell (Medionidus penicil- provided protection and raised aware- latus), Ochlockonee moccasinshell (Medionidus simpsonianus), oval pigtoe, and threatened 32 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Chipola slabshell (Elliptio chipolaensis), and America are necessary. Wings 12: 8-10. purple bankclimber (Elliptoideus sloatianus). Raphelt, N. K. and M. P. Alexander. 2001. Mul- Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- tidimensional Models in Rivers and Streams. vice, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. Coastal and Hydraulics Engineering Technical Clench, W.J., and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater Note CHETN-VII-2, U.S. Army Engineer Re- mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida search and Development Center, Vicksburg, from the Escambia to the Suwannee River. MS. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biologi- Richardson, T.D., and P. Yokley, Jr. 1996. A note cal Sciences 1(3):97-349. on sampling technique and evidence of re- Cummings, K.S., and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field cruitment in freshwater mussels (Unionidae). Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 137(1):135-140. Illinois Natural History Survey, Manual 5. 194 Seddon, M. B., Killeen, I. J., Bouchet, P., and A. pp. E. Bogan. 1998. Developing a strategy for mol- Fuller, S. L. H. 1974. Clams and Mussels (Mollus- luscan conservation in the next century. Jour- ca: Bivalvia). Pages 215-273 in C. W. Hart, Jr., nal of Conchology Special Publication No. and S. L. H. Fuller, editors. Pollution Ecology 2(1998): 295-298. of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press. Stansbery, D. H. 1970. Eastern freshwater mol- New York, NY. lusks: (I) the Mississippi and St. Lawrence Hayes, T. 1998. Conservation of Native Freshwa- River Systems. Malacologia 10(1), 9-22. ter Mussels: An Overview. Endangered Spe- Strayer, D. L., Downing, J. A., hag, W. R., King, T. cies Update 15(6):108-110. L., Layzer, J. B., Newton, T. J., and S. J. Nichols. Heard, W.H. 1975. Determination of the endan- 2004. Changing perspectives on pearly mus- gered status of freshwater clams of the Gulf sels, North America’s most imperiled animals. and Southeastern States. Terminal Report for BioScience 54(5): 429-439. the Office of Endangered Species, Bureau of US Army Engineer District, Mobile. 1987. Apala- Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, U.S. Department of chicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Waterway Navi- Interior (Contract 14-16-000-8905). gation Maintenance Plan. Mobile, AL. Hughes, J. B., Daily, G. C., and P. Ehrlich. 2000. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. http://ecos. Conservation of Insect diversity: A habitat ap- fws.gov/tess_public/servlet/gov.doi.tess_pub- proach. Conservation Biology 14:1788-1797. lic.servlets.TESSBoxscore?forma=print&type= Hyning, V.T. 1925. Amblema neisleri (Sic) nest lo- current&sysdate=12/17/2005 cated. The Nautilus 38(3):105. van der Schalie. H. 1940. The naiad fauna of the Kellert, S. R. 1993. Values and Perceptions of Chipola River, in northwestern Florida. Lloy- Invertebrates. Conservation Biology 7(4):845- dia 3(3):191-206. 855. Williams, J.D., Warren, M.L., Jr., Cummins, K.S., Light, H.M, Darst, M.R., and J.W. Grubbs. 1998. Harris, J L., and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conserva- Aquatic Habitats in Relation to River Flow in tion status of freshwater mussels of the United the Apalachicola River Floodplain, Florida. States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6‑22. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper Yaffee, S.L. 1982. Prohibitive Policy, Implement- 1594. ISBN 0-607-89269-2. ing the Federal Endangered Species Act. MIT Master, L. 1990. The imperiled status of North Press, Cambridge, MA. American aquatic animals. Biodiversity Net- Acknowledgments work News 3:1-2, 7-8. Studies were funded by the U.S. Army Engi- Miller, A. C., and B. S. Payne. 1993. Qualita- neer District, Mobile, Mobile, Alabama. The au- tive versus quantitative sampling to evaluate thors thank Will Green, Mark Farr, Naomi Van population and community characteristics at Tol, Donald R. Manning, and divrs from Tennes- a large-river mussel bed. The American Mid- see Valley Authority and Mainstream Commer- land Naturalist 130:133-145. cial Divers for field assistance. Joanne Brandt, Miller, A. C., and B. S. Payne. 2005. The curious U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile provided case of the fat pocketbook mussel, Potamilus financial and technical support for this project. capax. Endangered Species Update 22(2):61- The Chief of Engineers granted permission to 70. publish this information. Murphy, D. D. 1991. Invertebrate Conservation. Pages 181-198 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balanc- ing on the Brink of Extinction: the Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Neves, R. J. 1999. Conservation and commerce: management of freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) resources in the United States. Malacologia 41(2), 461-474. Opler, P. A. 1987. Invertebrate surveys in North Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 33 Conservation of Artemisia amygdalina – A Critically Endangered Endemic Plant Species of Kashmir Himalaya

A. R. Dar1,2 Abstract G. H. Dar1 Despite our reliance on plants for human well-being, a crisis point has Zafar Reshi1 been reached. Many of the world’s rare plant species are edaphic endemic, whose unique soil requirements, habitats, and restricted distri- 1 Centre of Plant Taxonomy bution make them especially vulnerable to human activities. Artemisia (COPT), University of Kash- amygdalina collected last in the Kashmir Himalaya, almost four de- mir, Srinagar cades ago, is a critically endangered endemic species, but has received little attention. Despite being a very important ethno-medicinal angio- 2 [email protected] sperm species, due to many factors, it has now been restricted to small pockets of the Kashmir Himalaya. The present study attempts to collect, cultivate, restore, propagate, and reintroduce this useful species in it’s known natural range. This study may prove vital to protect and conserve the germplasm of this species for future use, and at the same time serve as an impetus for its sustainable use. Our endeavour has been a grand success in conserving Artemisia amygdalina.

Resumen A pesar de nuestra dependencia en las plantas para el bienestar hu- mano, se ha llegado a un punto critico. Muchas de las especies raras de plantas son endémicas edáficas, cuyas características de suelo únicas, hábitats, y distribución restringida las hacen especialmente vulnera- bles a la actividad humana. Artemisia amygdalina recolectada hace casi cuatro décadas del Kashmir Himalaya, es una especie endémica en peligro de extinción crítico y ha recibido poca atención en los últimos años. A pesar de ser una especie de angioespermas etno-medicinales muy importante, ahora está restricta a pequeñas áreas del Kashmir Hi- malaya, debido a una agrupación de factores múltiples. Este estudio intenta recolectar, cultivar, restaurar, propagar, y reintroducir esta importante especie. Este estudio puede servir como una forma vital de proteger y conservar los germoplasmas de esta especie para uso futuro y a la misma vez servir como un ímpetus para su uso sustentable. El presente intento ha sido un gran éxito en la conservación de dicha especie.

34 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Introduction Plants are a vital part of the world’s biological diversity and an essential resource for human well-being. In addition to crop plants that provide our basic food and fibre, many thousands of plants have great economic and cultural importance and potential to provide food, medicine, fuel, clothing, and shel- ter for vast numbers of people throughout the world. Plants also play a key role in maintaining the basic ecosystem functions and are essential for the survival of the world’s animal life. Yet, despite our reliance on plants, a crisis point has been reached. Although much work remains to be carried out to evaluate the status of the world’s plants, it is reported that between 60,000 to 100,000 plant species are threatened worldwide. Artemisia amygdalina Decne. Plants are endangered by a combination Perennial herb, large, glabrous; rhizome solid, hard, woody, 2.5-3.5 cm in of factors: habitat loss and degradation, diameter, blackish-brown, almost straight–slightly curved; stem erect, 2-3 m in height, 0.5 – 1.5 cm in diameter, leafy, prominently grooved, bears unsustainable agriculture and forestry dense, small, leafy branches and branchlets. Leaves simple, rather mem- practices, urbanization, pollution, land branous, acuminate, glabrous and bright-green above, dull-white and pubescent below, serrate, 3-9 cm in length and 0.5 – 1.5 cm in breadth, use changes, spread of invasive spe- sub sessile-sessile. The terminal, tapering portion of stem bears a number cies, and climatic changes. Even by the of flowering heads; flowering heads in terminal branched raceme, ovoid, most conservative estimates, the rate of 0.5-1.5 cm in length and 0.4 – 0.6cm in diameter; involucre bracts oblong, obtuse, glabrous with pappery margins; outer florets female, fertile; disc species loss is shocking – 27,000 species florets hermaphrodite, fertile, yellow, tubular. Population restricted toa disappear each year; 74 each day, and 3 small area in lower Jhelum Valley, flowering tops browsed by cattle. every hour! (Gadagkar, 1996). Habitat There is an implicit principle of hu- Occurs in sandy, relatively loose and moist soil along the foothills in al- man behaviour important to conserva- most open sub-alpine situations. tion: the more we know of an ecosystem, the less the chances of our destroying it. needs, habitats, and restricted distribu- Despite the interest and efforts to collect tion make them especially vulnerable and compile information on these spe- to human activities (Hopper et al. 1990; cies (e. g. CSIR [Council of Scientific and Briggs and Leigh 1996, and Narendran Industrial Research] 1989; Chaurasia and Cherian 2002). and Singh 1996; Gaur 1999; Kala 2000; The concept of endemism in biol- Dar & Naqshi 2001; Kala 2002a, 2002b, ogy dates back to De Candolle (1820). 2000c), it is because of the inaccessibil- The topic, however, has received little ity of the high-altitude areas in the Hi- attention of researchers in the field of malayas and the restricted distribution modern biology. Nonetheless, ende- of threatened species, that a paucity of mism is one of the most important and information exists on their distribution interesting subjects in plant geography, pattern, population status and indige- and is useful in indicating antiquity, nous use pattern. Habitat loss and deg- isolation, and diversification of habi- radation are believed to threaten 91% of tats (Polunin 1960). Endemism may be the rare plants in the world (IUCN 2002). particularly useful in the recognition Many of the world’s rare plant species of different floristic regions and also in are edaphic endemic, whose unique soil determining or expressing the degrees Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 35 in which floras are peculiar. Now-a- survey trips were conducted through- days endemism is considered to signify out the sub-alpine and alpine habitats unique biodiversity and is of great sig- of the Kashmir Himalaya, to locate and nificance to phylogenetic biographers, collect the species. For collection pur- conservation biologists and ecologists. poses, polythene bags, shears, tags, Endemic taxa are useful for developing specimen bottles, and field-note books conservation priorities. Twenty eight were used. The specimens were ex- major endemic centres of plants are rec- pelled from the soil along with rhizome ognized in India, among them are some (whole plant). The specimens collected areas in the Kashmir Himalaya. Various for planting purpose were put in poly- estimates have been given for endemics thene bags and brought as quickly as in Kashmir flora, however, as per the possible to the already selected land latest information (Dar and Nasreen plot in the Kashmir University Botani- 2003), 152 (ca. 8%) taxa are endemic to cal Garden (KUBG) and planted there. this region, which forms just about 3% A few flowering specimens of the spe- of the total Indian angiosperm endem- cies were collected separately for the ics. Nonetheless, the extent of ende- purpose of identification. The speci- mism in Kashmir can be appreciated mens collected for herbarium use were by considering the fact that this region processed in the laboratory of the Cen- constitutes only 0.48% of the total land- tre of Plant Taxonomy (COPT). These mass of India, is geologically younger specimens were subjected to standard and, among adjoining regions, has the methods of pressing, drying, etc. and least area per endemic taxon. Artemisia latter identified. The identification was amygdalina is one of the critically en- confirmed by matching our specimens dangered endemic plant species of this with those deposited in KASH. region. This species was last collected from this region in 1971 by Gurcharan Field Survey and Collection Singh. Since then no specimen has been Various field survey trips were orga- collected. The populations of this spe- nized during the present study through- cies have been restricted now to spe- out the sub-alpine and alpine habitats cific pockets, and in fact during pres- of the Kashmir Himalaya. Most of the ent study the species was located from trips actually failed and we returned only one sub-alpine, relatively isolated empty handed. During one survey trip and less disturbed area in the Kashmir we happened to see a patch of Arte- Himalaya. The endemic nature, ethno- misia amygdalina in a less-disturbed, botanical uses, threat status, and me- low-inhabited, and far off area. A dense dicinal importance of other species of patch of population was located along genus Artemisia explored in other parts the slopes of the area, interspersed with of the world inclined us to address this Pinus wallichiana and Picea smithiana species. trees at lower places, and a few Betula utilis tree-higher up. We collected about Materials and Methods 25-30 accessions with long runner type The Kashmir University Herbarium rhizomes which were planted in the ex- (KASH) was searched for the specimens perimental plot at KUBG. of Artemisia amygdalina in order to ob- Standardization of Propagule tain information regarding collection, Almost all of the rhizomes sprouted localities, altitudes, and other details. nicely and produced many off-shoots. Likewise the relevant literature about The rhizomes were hard, woody, and the floristics of this region was also pe- relatively resistant to water logging rused for the same purpose. During the providing standard propagating propa- present study (2004-2005) various field gule. Later, the field trials indicated that 36 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Rooted juvenile twigs stem segments and young shoots are of A. amygdalina in also capable of propagation and multi- open trial beds plication of this species. Survival and acclimatization The collected rhizomes planted in open sunlight flourished in the experimental plot which is now densely covered due to spreading of the plants. The 25- 30 accessions which were collected and planted have now multiplied to form a considerable number of individuals. From a single piece of rhizome (which at the time of collection had only one off- Juvenile twigs of A. shoot in natural habitat) 3-6 off-shoots amygdalina for rooting have been produced in the experimental in shaded trial pots plot. These off-shoots grew vigorously in the plot and attained a height of 2- 3 m, and even produced inflorescence in the very first year of establishment, which is actually a rarity as much of the plants energy is used simply to survive in it’s natural habitat.. Such plants usually take 1-2 years to first get established and then share resources for reproduction, even then only some species produce flowers and seeds. The acclimati- mote rooting of the off-shoots. The ju- zation, vigorous growth, propagation, venile off-shoots were planted in these reproduction, and seed production in trial pots and watered, some placed in the very first year is thrilling. On com- the open and some placed in the shade paring growth of the species in its natu- of the plot as well as. in the open and ral habitat and in the experimental plot, shaded field beds. The entire experi- it was found that individuals attained mental setup was kept under constant greater height (2-3 m) and vigorous observation. After about 20-25 days, growth in experimental plot than in the several planted off-shoots in each plot natural habitat, where height was 1-2 were dug out carefully and checked for m, and the growth normal. rooting. It was found that in each case Efforts for Propagation a few thin, long, bright-white roots had With a healthy and established popu- developed on the underground portion. lation of plant material present in the Upon comparison, the individuals in experimental plot, we attempted to en- the shaded trial pots and beds showed hance the propagation of the species at a less pace of growth as compared to larger level. Juvenile small leafy shoots those in trial pots and beds kept in open were cut carefully from the main stem sunlight. The leaves in shaded plants and transferred to an already designed were dull-colored and their stem rela- experimental setup consisting of two tively weak as compared to open-plant- sets of trial pots: one set containing only ed off-shoots.The individuals in sandy simple garden soil and the second con- soil trial depicted rapid root formation taining soil and sand mixed in 1:1 ratio. and healthy growth, while those in gar- The experiment was designed to pro- den soil rooted slowly and showed rela-

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 37 tively slower growth. Similarly, experi- improving. ments were performed to make stem cuttings root and actually pace -the al Discussion ready started mass propagation. Artemisia amygdalina , last located in 1971, has altogether been neglected Reintroduction since then. This narrow endemic spe- With the success of the experiment, we cies may prove potentious for this now had enough material in hand to at- region and to overall humanity as is tempt reintroducing this species (in the evident from its ethno botanical impor- form of various propagules) at different tance and medicinal properties of the high altitude sites in the Kashmir Hi- related species. Over the years many malaya, with first reintroduction in pro- operational factors, such as low popula- Flowering specimen tected sites (e,g. High Altitude Botanical tion size, habitat specificity, narrow dis- of A. amygdalina in Garden-Gulmarg, 2,500 m). The species tribution ranges, land-use disturbance, experimental plot at is growing successfully in this site; it heavy livestock grazing, construction KUBG seems to indicate that this species will of dams and roads, fragmentation and not have much trouble if transferred to degradation of populations, population natural habitat sites in the Kashmir Hi- bottle necks (Kala 1998, 2000; Weekly malaya. and Race 2001; Oostermeijer et al. 2003; Verger et al. 2003) have reduced the pop- Apparent strategy of the plant ulation of rare species, and A. amygda- In the natural habitat of theArtemisia lina is no exception to this. The location amygdalina, the population was ob- and collection of this species from the served minutely for a few months in the Kashmir Himalaya proved like looking spring and summer seasons (2004-2005). for needle in a heap of straw. Our most Most of the individuals were without difficult, exertive, and troublesome inflorescence, but the overall popula- field survey trips proved most often to tion density was higher and there ap- be a mere failure. This may be evident peared to be no signs of decline in the that in the present study the said spe- number of individuals. On further ob- cies was located from only one locality servation, it was found that the popula- of the Kashmir Himalaya to date. The tion is visited regularly by tribal people, successful cultivation of the species who’s cattle graze on the inflorescence in the experimental trial, resulted in of flowered individuals and no other standardizing methodology for mass part. The injury caused to the plant and level propagation of this species from its vital propogating parts, has contin- its various organs vegetatively, which ued over many years and may have led is very much unique to this species. to the plant’s inability to rely on propa- This methodology is potentious, easy, gation through seeds. To compensate, economical, less sophisticated, adop- the plants have started investing more tive and accommodative, time saving, resources to their rhizomes and devel- and practical as compared to the usual oped them as potential and effective modern methods (e.g. tissue culture) of means of propagation. Still propaga- propagation of RET species. It is impli- tion by seeds has not been stopped alto- cative that indigenous knowledge sys- gether, as it appears to have been kept tem and traditional survival strategies as subsidiary means although most of should be adequately valued. The re- the seeds produced through sexual results achieved during the present study production have been found to be non are of direct practical relevance in con- viable. Perhaps the plant will stop allo- servation and sustainable use of plant cating resources towards seed produc- biodiversity of the Kashmir Himalaya. tion if it finds that conditions are not This will pave the way for the recov- 38 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 ery, restoration and conservation of this dia. Current Science 83: 814-817. and other economically important and Kala, C. P. 2002c. Paradise under fire. Down to Earth 11: 46-48. critically endangered, narrow endemic Naredran, T. C., and P. T. Cherian. 2002. On some angiosperms of Kashmir, thereby pro- misconceptions on conservation of insects. viding long-term backup collections for Zoosprint 17 (1): 687-688. sustained use by the local populace. Oostermeijer, J. G. B., S. H. Lujiten, and J. C. M. den Nijs. 2003. Integrating demographic and Literature Cited genetic approaches in Plant Conservation. Bi- Briggs, J. D., and J. H. Leigh. 1996. Rare or Threat- ological Conservation 113: 389-398. ened Australian Plants. CSIRO, Collingwood. Polunin, N. 1960. Introduction to Plant Geogra- Victoria, Australia. phy and Some Related Sciences. Longmans, Chaurasia, O. P., and B. Singh. 1996. Cold desert London. Plants. Volumes I-IV. Field Research Labora- Vergeer, P. R. Rangelink, A. Copal, and N. J. tory, Defense Research and Development Or- Ouborg. 2003. The interacting effects of ge- ganization, Leh, India. netic variation, habitat quality and population Council of Scientific and Industrial Research size on performance of Succisa pratensis. Jour- (CSIR). 1989. The wealth of India: raw materi- nal of Ecology 91: 18-26. als. Publications and Information Directorate, Weekly, C. W., and T. Race. 2001. The breeding CSIR, New Delhi. system of Ziziphus Celata Judd and D. W. Dar, G. H. & Aman, N. 2003. Endemic angio- Hall (Rhamnaceae), a rare endemic plant of sperms of Kashmir: assessment and conser- the Lake Wales Ridge, Florida, U. S. A: impli- vation, Pp. 63 (abstract) in: National seminar cations for recovery. Biological Conservation on recent advances in plant science research, 100: 207-213. October 12-14, 2003, Department of Botany, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India. Dar, G. H. & A. R. Naqshi. 2001. Threatened flowering plants of the Kashmir Himalaya-A checklist. Oriental Science 6 (1): 23-53. De Candolle, A.P. 1820. Essai elmentaire de geographique. In: Dictionaire de Sciences Naturelles. Vol. 18. Flevrault, Strasbourg and Paris. Gadagkar, R. 1996. Biology in the 21st Century- back to stamp collection. Scampus 98:5. Gaur, R. D. 1999. Flora of the district Garhwal northwest Himalaya (with ethno-botanical notes). Tran media, Srinagar Garhwal, India. Hooper, S. D., S. Van Leeuwen, A. P. Brown, and S. J. Patrick. 1990. Western Australia’s Endan- gered Flora. Department of Conservation and management, Perth. Western Australia, Aus- tralia. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). 2002. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland. Switzerland. Kala, C. P. 1998. Ecology and Conservation of alpine meadows in the Valley of Flowers Na- tional Park, Garhwal Himalaya. Ph. D. thesis. Forest Research Institute, Dehra-dun, India. Kala, C. P. 2000. Status and Conservation of Rare and Endangered Medicinal Plants of Indian Trans-Himalaya. Biological Conservation 93: 371-379. Kala, C. P. 2002a. Medicinal Plants of Indian Trans-Himalaya. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh. Dehra-Dun, India. Kala, C. P. 2002b. Indigenous knowledge of Bhotiya tribal community on wool dying and its present status in the Garhwal Himalaya, In-

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 39 Book Review People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Edited by Rosie Woodroffe, Simon Thirgood, and Alan Rabinowitz. Cambridge University Press 2005

Fred Nelson

School of Natural Resources and Environment, and the Stephen M. Ross School of Business University of Michigan Ann Arbor [email protected]

40 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 The essential challenge of modern must inevitably lose? What conditions, natural resource conservation is how strategies, and management systems to find space on the planet for the 12- best enable co-existence, and thus, con- 15 million species that live here in the servation? This new volume, People and face of increasing levels of resource Wildlife, attempts to synthesize a wealth consumption by a single species: of global experiences and informa- humans. Although this competition for tion to provide answers to these criti- habitat and resources affects nearly all cal questions. Containing 24 chapters, species, it is particularly pronounced nearly 500 pages, and a total of 65 con- for large animals, such as primary tributing authors from a wide range of predators, that compete most directly backgrounds and disciplines, this book with people and thus threaten human is nothing if not a comprehensive treat- livelihoods. For centuries, the result of ment of the subject. this conflict has been the displacement People and Wildlife combines over- of wildlife and gradual extirpation arching thematic discussions of key of species populations. Lions, for conflict areas- such as attacks on people, example, ranged from southern Europe crop raiding, and livestock predation, to India to the Cape of Good Hope two with a rich set of geographically fo- thousand years ago, but today survive cused case studies from five continents. mainly in the savannahs of east and Two introductory chapters by the three southern Africa. The Caspian and Bali co-authors provide a basic conceptual sub-species of tiger went extinct during foundation by illustrating the two fun- the twentieth century, and in the damental aspects of human-wildlife continental United States wolves and conflict. First, that people often cause grizzly bears were persecuted to nearly wildlife extirpation or even extinction, the same status. such as by killing livestock predators; Such a track record of interactions and second, that wildlife imposes sub- between people and wildlife can sug- stantial damage to people, particularly gest that co-existence is impossible, poor people in rural areas of the tropics, ecologically and socially, and that the as a result of these same conflicts. This future will continue to see the gradual balanced introductory overview reflects disappearance of more and more spe- the editors’ pragmatic and honest treat- cies. Famed photographer Peter Beard, ment of the subject, and drives home in his classic depiction of East Africa’s the critical point that human-wildlife modern environmental apocalypse, The conflict must be considered from both End of the Game, talks of “the shape of ecological and socioeconomic view- things to come: an elephant reaching points if it is to be understood and man- for the last branch on a tree, a vestigial aged effectively. giraffe plodding out of the picture, its Chapters 3 through 10 provide gen- legs lost in mirage.” More recently, Da- eral overviews on different elements of vid Quammen, in his renowned 2003 human-wildlife conflict, including di- book on people and wild predators, rect attacks by animals on people, crop Monster of God, concluded, “when I look destruction, lethal control of predators, into [the] future, I don’t see any lions, and zoning as a mitigation strategy. In- tigers, or bears.” cluded here are three chapters that re- Is the future of wildlife conserva- view some of the critical economic tools tion really this bleak? Is co-existence for wildlife management, including between people and wildlife a chime- compensation schemes, ecotourism as ra? Is the overwhelming reality truly a a source of conservation incentives, and zero-sum conflict battle which wildlife wildlife utilization. The latter subject

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 41 is addressed by Nigel Leader-Williams social context of conflicts between crop- and Jon Hutton, who provide a -valu raiding wildlife and local communities able overview, replete with local exam- in Uganda adjacent to Kibale National ples, of the potential and challenges of Park. sustainable use management strategies In terms of a biological analysis of for mitigating conflicts between people human-wildlife conflict, the standard- and wildlife. These three chapters help bearer is a chapter by Simon Thirgood to illustrate how the line between co- and Steve Redpath, based on ten years existence and conflict is largely an eco- of studying the interaction of hen har- nomic one; animals, which continue to riers and red grouse on British moor- impose unacceptable livelihood costs lands used by private landowners for on people, will not be tolerated and will commercial grouse hunting. This study disappear. The converse of that, howev- also illustrates the important point that er, is that wildlife which produces sig- in some instances the conflicts between nificant local economic benefits in excess local economic interests and predator of its costs is likely to be conserved and conservation are not easily reconciled; even promoted as a form of land use. As the hen harriers do limit grouse popula- Leader-Williams and Hutton point out, tions, and the size of grouse populations this economic cost-benefit equation has is the critical management goal of the driven wildlife recoveries on private landowners. While many conservation- lands throughout much of southern Af- ists might call for stronger protections rica over the past thirty years with the for the harriers in light of persecution growth of profitably game ranching, from landholders, it is the profitability tourism, and safari hunting industries. of grouse hunting which produces land- The initial ten thematic chapters in holder incentives to maintain moorland People and Wildlife are all informative, as a form of land use, conserving bio- thorough, and serve to build a holistic diversity in the process. Thirgood and overview of the critical issues facing Redpath note that rather than enacting terrestrial human-wildlife conflict man- stricter harrier protections, conservation agement around the globe. It is how- of these raptors may best be served by ever, the thirteen case study chapters loosening restrictive laws and allowing that ultimately provide the empirical active limitation of harrier numbers on richness and diversity of perspectives grouse moorlands in order to encour- that makes this a valuable work. Alan age landholders to adopt more flexible Rabinowitz discusses conflicts between conflict mitigation strategies. jaguars and livestock in Latin America, If the fortunes of any species are and recent efforts to collaborate actively cause for hope that co-existence between with ranchers in Brazil’s Pantanal. Ul- predators and people is feasible, albeit las Karanth and Rajesh Gopal provide far from easy, it is those of the wolf in an ecological overview of human-tiger the United States during the past thirty conflict and co-existence in India, while years. Since the 1970’s, wolves have ex- Dale Miquelle and colleagues discuss panded in the Midwest from their hold- similar issues with respect to the Amur out in Minnesota to significant popula- tiger in the Russian Far East. Elephants, tions in both Wisconsin and Michigan. perhaps the most notorious problem In the Northern Rockies, the reintroduc- animal species in sub-Saharan Africa tion of wolves to Yellowstone National and consequently the subject of a vast Park and Idaho in 1995-96 has played array of mitigation measures, merit two out as one of the most successful efforts chapters here. One, by Lisa Naughton- in the country’s recent conservation his- Treves and Adrian Treves examines the tory. Writing from the perspectives of

42 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 on-the-ground wolf managers, Ed Bangs policies to address it, over the past three and colleagues review the experiences decades in their country. They describe of wolf-human conflict in the Northern long-standing calls within policy-mak- Rockies following the reintroductions ing circles to deal with these conflicts a decade ago. They emphasize the im- by devolving management of wildlife portance of culturally laden percep- to the local level, so that rural commu- tions, values, and biases in determining nities and private landholders can best attitudes towards wolves and in fram- make decisions about how to manage ing of conflicts. Since their return to the wild animals which are destructive yet region, wolves have caused relatively highly valued in terms of tourism and little direct economic damage through hunting enterprises. This approach has livestock predation, particularly when however been stymied by political ob- compared to the impacts of other spe- stacles, particularly a 1977 ban on all cies such as coyotes, but nevertheless forms of hunting in Kenya which per- wolves remain a flashpoint of political sists to this day. Without fixing these controversy and conflict. The lesson, political and policy problems, there is these authors suggest, is that conflict little chance of solving human-wildlife must be managed not only out on the conflict in a durable way. range but within society’s collective and All of these case study chapters con- individual minds, and mitigation must tain compelling stand-alone material; not only prevent negative economic im- assembled together as they are here, pacts from wolves, but must respond to they comprise a complex and engaging and be conscious of the political sensi- mosaic of lessons and experiences. The tivities and values of key stakeholders co-editors attempt to synthesize the key if the co-existence of people and large points and principles from both themat- predators is to be sustainable. ic and case study chapters in a relatively Richard Reading and colleagues brief conclusion that returns to the ten- make a similar point about conserva- sions over co-existence. They note that, tion’s social and political dimensions in despite the prevalence of human-wild- relation to the black-tailed prairie dog, life conflict, and the fundamental chal- which unlike the wolf continues to see lenges that these conflicts pose for wild- its fortunes decline in the face of en- life in an increasingly crowded world, trenched antipathy from the livestock there is plenty of evidence that co-exis- ranching community. What defines tence between people and large, preda- conflicts in these cases is not necessarily tor wildlife species is indeed possible. ecological facts (there is little point in Moreover, they remind us that if we are trying to persuade ranchers that prairie to have any hope for conservation, there dogs do not degrade livestock forage is no alternative to co-existence of peo- if rancher culture is committed to the ple and wildlife in the same landscapes. belief that they do) but in working col- National parks or other protected ar- laboratively to recognize the different eas that attempt to provide refugia for values and interests of different actors, wildlife and keep people outside, while and to work with them to develop ac- an invaluable part of any long-term ceptable management strategies. conservation strategy, can never be suf- Reflecting similar social and politi- ficient to sustain wildlife populations, cal sensibilities, David Western and John most of which exist outside parks or at Waithaka, both formerly of the Kenya least range far across their boundaries. Wildlife Service, broaden the discus- Here, as ever, these authors are prag- sion further still by exploring the evo- matic and realistic, and eschew any of lution of human-wildlife conflict, and the polarized rhetoric that characterizes

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 43 recent debate over the appropriate con- haps for a few case examples here and servation roles of protected areas, on there. Nevertheless, People and Wildlife the one hand, and private or local com- is a valuable addition to understanding munity management, on the other. contemporary wildlife management Rather, the authors make the only challenges in an integrated and practi- conclusion that seems plausible based cal manner. It will help a diverse range on the diverse material in People and of local and international actors in the Wildlife, which is that effective conflict elusive but attainable search for co-exis- mitigation requires a range of flexible, tence between people and wildlife. The locally adapted, and integrated strate- game is not over yet. gies. This may involve zonation, lethal control of predators, sustainable utiliza- Literature Cited Beard, P. 1988. The End of the Game. London: tion policies, devolution of ownership Thames and Hudson Ltd. rights, collaborative stakeholder-based Quammen, D. 2003. Monster of God: The Man- management processes, financial incen- eating Predator in the Jungle of History and tives such as landholder payments, or the Mind. New York: W.W. Norton & Com- pany. compensation for the loss of crops, livestock, or even human life. Many management systems will inevitably employ several of these strategies in combination, and through experimentation and adaptive management, the efficacy of different tactics can be determined over time. The authors emphasize the importance of this flexible and experimental approach, and reiterate that no ‘silver bullet’ conflict mitigation strategies exist. They also highlight the need for more and better quantitative analysis of the impacts of different strategies in order to help managers hone their strategies over time. People and Wildlife is a rich and skill- fully assembled collection which will be of value to a diverse audience, including natural resource management practitioners and managers, policy-makers, and conservation students and schol- ars. Many researchers will undoubtedly find topics of particular interest or ap- plicability within one or two chapters, although for most practitioners I would strongly recommend reading all or most of the case studies in order to capitalize on the diverse perspectives and conclusions that emerge from them. It is, it should be said, a synthesis collection, and for those with extensive familiarity with global wildlife management issues there may be little novel here, save per-

44 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 News From Zoos

Gentoo Chick Hatches at Newport Aquarium be about 50 African elephants remaining in the US. The American Zoo and Aquarium (AZA) Associa- Having zoo elephants serve to promote conservation-accredited Newport Aquarium had reason to tion for their wild counterparts is important, as celebrate in December of 2005, with the rare hatch- populations in Africa have dropped from 1.3 mil- ing of a gentoo penguin chick. Like most penguins, lion to about 400,000 since 1980. These factors have gentoos are difficult to breed in captivity. Only 20 created an ideal niche for Pittsburgh’s International institutions worldwide exhibit the species and the Conservation Center. Newport Aquarium was one of only five U.S. in- The Zoo also intends to utilize the Center to stitutions to successfully breed gentoo penguins in expand its work in support of other endangered 2005. As in the wild, the penguins are sensitive and species, including cheetahs, black rhinoceros, Af- require near perfect conditions to hatch. A success- rican wild dogs, and Grevy’s zebras. Breeding at ful birth shows that the aquarium has created an the facility is expected to begin in approximately environment that will promote captive breeding of two years. this rare animal. Gentoo penguins are found in the wild on Seven Endangered Hawaiian Palila Released Seven palila (Loxioides bailleui), critically en- many islands near Antarctica and are currently dangered honeycreepers native to Hawaii, were classified by the IUCN as near threatened due to recently released into the wild. They were raised habitat loss, human disturbance, and pollution. at the Keauhou Bird Conservation Center and re- Standing between 30 and 35 inches tall, the gentoo leased into the Puu Mali Forest Reserve on Mauna is also the fastest underwater swimming penguin, Kea. Twenty-two palila have been released into the reaching speeds of up to 22 mph. The success of the Mauna Kea Reserve since 2003. Both the Keauhou movie March of the Penguins has heightened pub- center and the Maui Bird Conservation Center were lic interest in the species, and this chick is serving established in 1996 as part of the Hawaiian Endan- as a valuable conservation ambassador for her wild gered Bird Conservation Program (HEBCP), which counterparts by allowing visitors to appreciate and is part of the AZA-accredited San Diego Zoo’s de- value the species in a whole new way by actually partment of Conservation and Research for Endan- seeing, smelling and hearing a real live penguin in gered Species (CRES). Newport, Kentucky. The HEBCP is working to recover 22 endan- Pittsburgh Zoo Purchases Land for Future Elephant gered bird species in Hawaii. Other endemic Ha- Breeding Center waiian species that are being propagated and man- The AZA-accredited Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG aged in captivity at the two breeding centers, and Aquarium is planning to construct an Interna- which may soon become part of the release efforts, tional Conservation Center that will serve as a are the Maui parrotbill, the Hawaii ‘akepa and breeding ground in North America for African el- creeper, the nene, and the ‘alala. ephants. The 724 acres of land for the breeding fa- SeaWorld Celebrates Birth of Sex-selected Dolphin cility, previously used as a hunting preserve, were With the innovation of technologically advanced purchased for $2.2 million. There are plans for a sperm-sorting processes, the Atlantic bottlenose large barn and exercise arena at the facility to hold dolphin is one of the first zoo animals to be bred the elephants in the winter months. Pittsburgh al- for a specific sex. Through sex-selection technology ready owns one of three breeding African elephant pioneered by the company XY Inc., AZA-accredit- bulls in the country; the new facility could hold up ed SeaWorld San Diego was able to artificially in- to five bulls and 20 elephants total. The ability to seminate one of their female dolphins with a previ- house additional bull elephants will be an encour- ously sorted mixture of X chromosome sperm. In aging step forward for captive breeding. About 174 October of 2005, a baby female dolphin was born. African elephants currently live in North American While data are not conclusive that the sex selection institutions. Without an increase in captive breed- process was solely responsible for the female calf, it ing, experts estimate that in 40 years there will only points strongly to the possibility that sex-selection Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 45 technology is right around the corner for some spe- educational event that was attended by 16 local cies managed in American zoos and aquariums. teachers. The success of this project is encouraging Why sort animal sperm prior to artificial -in for future reintroduction of the white-winged guan semination instead of letting nature run its course? throughout Peru. The answer lies in providing the most socially appropriate management for AZA zoo and aquarium Wolverine Kit Born at Northwest Trek Wildlife species. For example, wild dolphins tend to form Park female pods, while adult males travel alone or in On Valentine’s Day 2006, the AZA-accredited small groups of other adult males. This makes it Northwest Trek Wildlife Park in Eatonville, WA easier for zoos and aquariums to house more fe- bore witness to the uncommon captive birth of a males than males. The situation is similar with el- wolverine kit. The kit was removed from the wol- ephants, where females travel in matriarchal herds. verine habitat immediately following the birth and Sex-selection techniques will make it possible to cared for by keepers to give it the best possible sustain larger, more viable populations of animals chance for survival. The kit is snow white, a stark in social situations similar to those in the wild. difference from the dark brown coats of its parents. SeaWorld’s newest baby girl provides hope for the Wolverines are uncommon in accredited zoos; only future success of sex-selection techniques for all 10 North American institutions currently house the captive species. species. Other than Northwest Trek, only the De- troit Zoo has had a surviving litter of kits in the last White-winged Guans Reintroduced to Chaparri two years. Community Ecological Reserve, Peru The wolverine is a carnivorous mammal native The white-winged guan is a critically endangered to the northern areas of North America and Eu- bird endemic to the arid valleys of northwest Peru. rope; it is categorized as vulnerable on the IUCN The species has been decimated by hunting and Red List. Since the beginning of its decline in the there are now less than 200 individuals left in the mid 1800s, the wolverine is now found only in wild. Captive birds have been reintroduced to cer- scattered areas of the U.S. The main causes of the tain areas of Peru in an attempt to re-establish the species’ decline are trapping and habitat loss. Wol- guan population over the past few years. In 2003 verines have 38 sharp teeth, non-retractable claws and 2004, the American Zoo and Aquarium Associ- for attacking prey, and are frequently referred to as ation (AZA) Conservation Endowment Fund (CEF) “devil bear” or “skunk bear.” Despite their wicked supported a project to increase the population and reputation, wolverines obtain much of their food enhance community outreach at the Chaparri Com- by consuming dead animals and therefore play an munity Ecological Reserve. Rob Williams of Asoci- important role in ecosystems. ación Naymlap, Fernando Angulo Pratolongo of Asociación Cracidae Peru and George Wallace of National Zoo Kiwi birth the American Bird Conservancy coordinated the A North Island brown kiwi chick hatched in our project, which has made several notable accom- nation’s capital this February after a long stay in plishments since its inception. an incubator at the AZA-accredited Smithson- One goal is to establish a population of 40 ian National Zoological Park. This is the first kiwi white-winged guans in the reserve by 2007. Rein- chick born at the zoo since 1975 and only the sec- troduction efforts since 2003 increased the popula- ond to hatch in the zoo’s 116-year history. The chick tion from 11 to at least 31 birds in the reserve. The hatched with its eyes fully open, but despite its de- project also aimed to have four breeding pairs by veloped state will not begin foraging for its own 2004-2005. During this time, six pairs made breed- food until one week after birth. Kiwis hatch with ing attempts and produced 19 chicks so far. The an internal yolk sack that is slowly absorbed for community outreach component of the project was energy during this time. Of the five species of kiwi, equally successful; project educators disseminated the North Island brown is the only one listed as 5,000 leaflets, visited 20 local schools and held an endangered by the IUCN and is only bred at four

46 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 zoos (including the National Zoo) outside of New in February, each approximately four inches long Zealand. and weighing between 75 and 80 grams. The pine The kiwi is the nocturnal and flightless national snakes’ eggs are relatively large, but this is a nec- symbol of New Zealand. Unlike most birds, it has essary adaptation because the species feeds exclu- poor vision and an extraordinary sense of smell. sively on pocket gophers. The babies need to be 1.5 There are currently about 25,000 kiwis in the wild, to 2 feet long upon hatching in order to eat the go- but that number is decreasing at about 4-5% per phers. The Ellen Trout Zoo’s eggs are currently sit- year due to predation, introduced species, and ting in glass jars in a temperature-controlled room habitat decline. on a mixture of water and vermiculite that mim- ics the ground they would be buried under in the AZA Florida Facilities Aid in Manatee Rehabilita- wild. The eggs will remain here while they harden tion and hatch over the next two months. Hundreds of manatees are found injured or sick In addition to captive breeding, a number of off the coast of the southern United States each AZA institutions have conducted field projects to year. The specific environmental conditions neces- better understand the species. In 2003, the Mem- sary for a manatee’s survival in the wild often ne- phis Zoo performed a census and analysis of pine cessitate that injured and sick animals be rescued, snakes and Baird’s pocket gophers to aid in im- rehabilitated, and hopefully released. Rescue and proved management and conservation. Other proj- rehabilitation costs are estimated at about $20,000 ects include a Louisiana pine snake conservation per manatee, and even in the best conditions not all workshop and the creation of a release program. rescued animals survive. Human threats (including Louisiana pine snakes inhabit the longleaf pine boat collisions, poaching, fishing bycatch, and pol- forests of western Louisiana and eastern Texas. lution) are responsible for approximately 30% of Their natural habitat also includes sandy soils that all manatee deaths. Fortunately for the threatened maintain an herbaceous vegetation layer through manatees, several AZA-accredited institutions in periodic burning. Their endangered status largely Florida and Ohio participate in manatee research, stems from a lack of burning in their native pine rehabilitation, or release each year. The significant forests, leaving them with too little vegetation. Hu- number of recent manatee releases by Florida insti- man disturbance on roads and trails is also a cause tutions is a testament to these efforts. of decline. Four manatees from AZA-accredited SeaWorld Orlando and one from AZA-accredited Lowry Park Zoo were released back into the wild in February. The five manatees were released at Blue Spring State Park, where a spring keeps the water above 70 degrees. Winter is often a good time to release manatees back to the wild, since cold temperatures help force the animals to seek the warm water they need to survive. Over 475 manatees have been released to date, making a significant contribution to the 3,100 manatees that currently reside in Florida waters. Ellen Trout Zoo Welcomes Louisiana Pine Snake Eggs The Louisiana pine snake is one of the most endangered snakes in North America, and the AZA- accredited Ellen Trout Zoo in Lufkin, TX was recently rewarded with four eggs from their resident female Louisiana pine snake. The eggs were laid Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 47 48 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Call for Submissions

Our Mission Statement With increased pressures on our world’s plant and animal life, the success of endangered species recovery programs is more important than ever. The major downfalls faced by professionals involved in these programs, however, are based in miscommunication—scientists do not talk to policy makers and policy makers do not consult scientists. The Endangered Species UPDATE, an independently funded quarterly journal published by the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment, recog- nizes the paralyzing power of poor communication. Now entering its 23rd year, the UPDATE’s primary goal is to bridge the chasm between policy and science. Call for Articles The UPDATE is seeking articles ranging from feature articles to opinion articles to reports from the field regarding endangered species recovery and policy issues. We are currently accepting submissions for our July–September and October–December 2006 issues.

Interested authors may e-mail [email protected]. Please see the instructions to authors or visit our website at www.umich.edu/~esupdate for more information.

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 49 Instructions to Authors

The Endangered Species UPDATE is committed to advancing science, policy, and interdisciplinary issues related to species conservation, with an emphasis on rare and declining species. The UPDATE is a forum for information exchange on species conservation, and includes a reprint of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Endangered Spe- cies Technical Bulletin, along with complementary articles relaying conservation efforts from outside the federal program. The UPDATE welcomes articles related to species protection in a wide range of areas including, but not limited to: -Research and management of rare and declining species; -Theoretical approaches; -Strategies for habitat protection and reserve design; -Policy analyses and approaches to species conservation; -Interdisciplinary issues; -Emerging issues (e.g., wildlife disease ecology). In addition, book reviews, editorial comments, and announcements of current events and publications are welcome. Subscribers to the UPDATE are very knowledgeable about endangered species issues. The readership includes a broad range of professionals in both scientific and policy fields including corporations, zoos, and botanical gardens, university and private researchers. Articles should be written in a style that is readily understood but geared to a knowledgeable audience.

Acceptable Manuscripts The Endangered Species UPDATE accepts several kinds of manuscripts: 1. Feature Article — on research, management activities and policy analyses for endangered species, theoretical approaches to species conservation, habitat protection, and interdisciplinary and emerging issues. Manuscripts should be approximately 3000 words (8 to 10 double spaced typed pages). 2. Opinion Article — concise and focused argument on a specific conservation issue; may be more speculative and less documented than a feature article. These are approximately 450-500 words (About 2 double spaced typed pages). 3. Technical Notes/Reports from the Field — ongoing research, application of conservation biology techniques, species conservation projects, etc., at the local, state, or national level. These are approximately 750 words (3 double spaced typed pages). 4. Species at Risk — profiles of rare and declining species, including the following information: taxonomy, distribution, physical characteristics, natural/life history, conservation status, and economic importance. These profiles are approximately 750-1500 words (3 to 6 double spaced typed pages). 5. Book Reviews — reviews should include such information as relevant context and audience, and analysis of content. Reviews are approximately 750-1250 words (3 to 5 double spaced typed pages). Please contact the editor before writing a book review. 6. Bulletin Board — submissions of news items that can be placed on the back page. These items can include meeting notices, book announcements, or legislative news, for example.

Manuscript Submissions and Specifications Submit the manuscript to: Editor, Endangered Species UPDATE School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan 440 Church Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041

50 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 To submit your manuscript electronically, e-mail the manuscript as a Word file or rich formatted text (.rft) at- tachment to: [email protected]. Manuscripts should be typed, double-spaced, with ragged right margins to reduce the number of end of line hyphens. Print must be in upper- and lower-case letters and of typewriter quality. Metric measurements must be given unless English measurements are more appropriate, in which case metric equivalents must be given in pa- rentheses. Statistical terms and other measures should conform to the Council of Biology Editors Style Manual. All pages should be numbered. Manuscripts must be in English. Initial acceptance of a proposal or manuscript does not guarantee publication. After initial acceptance, authors and editors work closely on all revisions before a final proof is agreed upon.

Citations, Tables, Illustrations, and Photographs Literature citations in the text should be as follows: (Buckley and Buckley 1980b; Pacey 1983). For abbreviations and details consult the Editor and recent issues of the Endangered Species UPDATE. Illustrations and photographs may be submitted as electronic documents or as hard copies. If hard copies are submitted, the author’s name and the figure number should be penciled on the back of every figure. Lettering should be uniform among figures. All illustrations and photos should be clear enough to be reduced 50 percent. Please note that the minimum acceptable resolution for all digital images is 300dpi. Author credit instructions for each author of the article should accompany the manuscript.

Policy on Reviewing Proofs Authors are asked to do the final copy editing of their articles. It is in the authors’ power to save themselves and the journal the embarrassment of having to explain mistakes that could have been avoided.

Subscribe to the UPDATE today!

In its 21 years of publication, the Endangered Species UPDATE, published by the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, has established itself as the primary forum for government agencies, conservation organizations, private consulting and law firms, zoos, museums, educational institutions, and others to exchange ideas and information on species conservation issues.

Subscription rates are: Institutions $78 individual subscriptions $33 student/senior (65+) $25 address outside the US add $5 electronic subscription $20

To subscribe, make check payable to the University of Michigan and mail to: Endangered Species UPDATE School of Natural Resources and Environment The University of Michigan 440 Church Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041

or visit our website: http://www.umich.edu/~esupdate

Vol. 23 No. 1 2006 Endangered Species UPDATE 51 Contents Volume 23 No. 1 2006

3 Assessment of Translocations of 3 Evaluación de los traslados de la rana Blanchard’s Cricket Frog (Acris crepi- Acris crepitans blanchardi en el sureste tans blanchardi) in Southeast Michigan de Michigan Ariana Rickard Ariana Rickard

15 In response to: Assessment of translo- 15 Respuesta a: Evaluación de los traslados cations of Blanchard’s cricket frog (Ac- de la rana Acris crepitans blanchardi en ris crepitans blanchardi) in southeast el sureste de Michigan Michigan Edythe Sonntag Edythe Sonntag 25 Amblema neislerii, el sorprendente- 25 The Fat Threeridge (Amblema neislerii), mente abundante mejillón en peligro de the Surprisingly Common Endangered extinción en el Río Apalachicol, Florida Mussel in the Apalachicola River, Flor- Andrew C. Miller & Barry S. ida Payne Andrew C. Miller & Barry S. Payne 34 La conservacion de Artemisia amygdalina – Una especie de planta endémica del 34 Conservation of Artemisia amygdalina Kashmir Himalaya en peligro de extin- – A Critically Endangered Endemic ción crítico Plant Species of Kashmir Himalaya A. R. Dar, G. H. Dar &; Zafar A. R. Dar, G. H. Dar &; Zafar Reshi Reshi 40 Reseña del libro: People and Wildlife: 40 Book Review: People and Wildlife: Con- Conflict or Coexistence? flict or Coexistence? Fred Nelson Fred Nelson

School of Natural Resources and Environment Non-Profit The University of Michigan Organization 440 Church Street U.S. POSTAGE Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041 PAID Ann Arbor, MI Permit 144