The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or any of the funding organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Published by: IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group & Environment Agency-Abu Dhabi

Copyright: © 2018 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Soorae, P. S. (ed.) (2018). Global Reintroduction Perspectives: 2018. Case studies from around the globe. IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Environment Agency, Abu Dhabi, UAE. xiv + 286pp.

6th Edition

ISBN: 978-2-8317-1901-6 (PDF) 978-2-8317-1902-3 (print edition)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.08.en

Cover photo: Clockwise starting from top-left: I. Reticulated python, Singapore © ACRES II. Trout cod, Australia © Gunther Schmida (Murray-Darling Basin Authority) III. Yellow-spotted mountain newt, Iran © M. Sharifi IV. Scimitar-horned oryx, Chad © Justin Chuven V. Oregon silverspot butterfly, USA © U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VI. Two-colored cymbidium orchid, Singapore © Tim Wing Yam VII. Mauritius fody, Mauritius © Jacques de Spéville

Cover design & layout by: Pritpal S. Soorae, IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group

Printed by: Arafah Printing Press LLC, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Download at: www.iucnsscrsg.org www.iucn.org/resources/publications

ii Reptiles

Translocation trial of spiny-tailed lizard or dhub in Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Declan O’Donovan 1,2 & Ruth O’Riordan 2

1 - Wadi Al Safa Wildlife Centre, Dubai, UAE [email protected] 2 - School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences and the Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland [email protected]

Introduction The spiny-tailed lizard or dhub (Uromastyx aegyptia leptieni) is one of three subspecies of Uromastyx aegyptia and is found from Oman's Hajar al-Gharbi Mountains through to the northeastern United Arab Emirates (UAE). The species is listed on CITES Appendix II and categorised as vulnerable by the IUCN. Within the UAE, where this project is taking place, it is protected specifically under Federal Decree Law Number 9 of 1983. An estimated 1.5 million people are moving to cities globally each week. It is estimated that almost 90% of the UAE population will be urbanised by 2020, a trend obvious in Dubai in particular. Road infrastructure, services and megaproject construction are seriously impacting on available habitat for many local species of biota. Habitat conversion for development and agricultural use are identified as key threats to threatened reptile species of the Arabian Peninsula (Cox et al., 2012).

A translocation attempt moved dhubs from the Abu Dhabi Airport expansion (Barcello & Tourenq, 2005), with the subsequent recovery of animals at one of the release sites (Soorae et al., 2008). There is no other official documentation of translocating dhubs within the UAE, although there have been attempts within the Emirate of Dubai during the Al Maktoum Airport development and development of other coastal projects.

Goals Goal 1: Evaluate burrow usage and animal movements. Goal 2: Determine the feasibility and protocol for translocating U. a. leptieni. Goal 3: Monitor the release site fidelity in preparation for future translocations.

Success Indicators Indicator 1: Released animals remain within the release area over one brumation period. Spiny-tailed lizard or dhub

69 Reptiles

Holding pens placed on top of burrows for seven days

Indicator 2: Released animals follow a similar activity pattern to animals that were not translocated but monitored in a similar fashion. Indicator 3: Capture of animals with no mortality or injury.

Project Summary: Feasibility: Throughout their range, dhubs can be found on loose to hard gravel plains, avoiding soft sands. This is also prime construction land, as well as being a favoured surface for off road vehicles and weekend campers. There is some debate as to whether dhub are completely vegetarian or, as suggested by some authors (Castilla et al., 2011) whether they are selective scavengers. The authors (O’Donovan and O’Riordan, in prep.) suggest that those in the UAE are more likely to be incidental scavengers and consume non-vegetative items as they forage and therefore have specific dietary requirements. Preferred forage species from the study sites include, Heliotropium kotschyi, Tribulus sp., Fagonia bruguieri, Stipagrostis plumosa, Panicum turgidum, Helianthemum lippii, Pennisetum divisum and Leptadenia pyrotechnica seed pods when they were available. During the initial survey period, a total of 1,653 individual burrows (both active and abandoned) were identified. Of these the orientation of 784 were recorded with more than 50% orientated in a westerly direction, which was different to the primary orientation previously recorded for Uromastyx aegyptia (Cuningham, 2001).

Implementation: The initial phase of the present study saw 13 animals captured and fitted with radio transmitters (Model # R1860 ATS, Isanti, MN, USA) and Hygrochron Temperature & Humidity iButton (DS1923-F5# Embedded Data Systems) during 2014 and 2015. These 13 animals were monitored throughout subsequent phases allowing the collection of important movement data (O’Donovan and O’Riordan, in prep.). A localised trial translocation was attempted with three of these animals (AQ01, WAS 002 and WAS 004). Subsequently, in September 2014, two animals, NAK 003 and NAK 004, were moved from a proposed construction site to a new area approximately 1 km from their capture burrow. These two animals were each released into a holding pen placed on top of the release burrow, which was left in place for the first seven days after translocation.

70 Reptiles

In early October 2015, 10 more animals were caught on the same day, subjected to veterinary checks and fitted with the same transmitter and iButton combinations. Five were returned to their capture burrows and five translocated to a new site approximately 31 km away. For these five translocated animals, abandoned burrows, where there was adequate and suitable vegetation, which had been identified in earlier surveys (O’Donovan and O’Riordan, in prep.) were excavated and the animals released into these.

Post-release monitoring: Of the first three early localised translocations, AQ01 was successful, WAS 002 survived for 25 days before being predated and WAS 004 lost its transmitter. The other two dhubs, NAK 003 and NAK 004, who had been kept within holding pens for the first seven days after release, remained in their release area and were observed there in early 2017. All ten of the October 2015 tagged animals were monitored on a daily basis for the first 14 days and every alternate second day thereafter for four months. Of the five translocated animals, three died, two from predation as they did not settle in any specific burrow and one was presumed dead in a burrow where it took up residence in. All the deaths were within 90 days of release. The other two were considered to have established in the release area.

Of the five dhubs that had been tagged in October 2015 but were not translocated, four were found alive at the end of the monitoring, while one, WAS 059, was presumed predated as it disappeared with no radio signal detected. Of the remaining monitored but not translocated animals throughout the study, there was only one other mortality, MUG 005 which died of natural causes. The monitored animals showed a lot of movement between burrows and while there was certain burrow fidelity, animals were often recorded (using bespoke RFID traps - RFIDRW-E-232, Priority 1 Design, Melbourne, Australia) in burrows up to several hundred metres apart (O’Donovan and O’Riordan, in prep.). Also two of the translocated animals were recorded in RFID traps during January 2018.

Major difficulties faced Released animals establishing in release burrows. Predation from feral cats, foxes or raptors. Ability to identify release animals after removal of transmitter either after battery depletion or loss of transmitter. Follow up monitoring would be difficult without further captures.

Major lessons learned Release animals need to be retained in a Overview of habitat at release site (yellow arrow shows dhub)

71 Reptiles

temporary holding pen for several days at the release location and allowed to excavate their own way out. Old abandoned burrows can be utilised in translocation projects.

Success of project

Highly Successful Successful Partially Successful Failure √

Reason(s) for success/failure: There were too many mortalities which could be attributed to the homing instincts of dhub exposing them to increased risk of predation or chilling/ heating extremes. The chance of success was much greater when animals were held in release pens or caught and returned to the release burrow until it had established in the release area. Capture and monitoring protocols have now been established and can be implemented rapidly in the case of urgent translocation from construction projects. As this was a short-term pilot project the measurement of success was the ability to complete one brumation cycle effectively. Whether any of the translocated animals have contributed to the increase of the local population would be difficult to determine.

References Barcello, I. & Tourenq, C. (2005) Airport dhub (Spiny-tailed lizard - Uromastyx sp.) translocation operation. Abu Dhabi: Dhabi, E.A.A.

Castilla, A.M., Richer, R., Herrel, A., Conkey, A.A.T., Tribuna, J. & Al-Thani, M. (2011) First evidence of scavenging behaviour in the herbivorous lizard Uromastyx aegyptia microlepis. Journal of Arid Environments 75(7): 671-673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.02.005

Cox, N.A., Mallon, D., Bowles, P., Els, J. & Tognelli, M.F. (2012) The Conservation Status and Distribution of Reptiles of the Arabian Peninsula Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, and Sharjah, UAE: Environment and Protected Areas Authority.

Cunningham, P.L. (2001) Notes on the Diet, Survival Rate, and Burrow Specifics of Uromastyx aegyptius. Asiatic Herpetological Research 9: 30-33.

Soorae, P.S., Howlett, J. & Samour, J. (2008) Use of transponders in the post- release monitoring of translocated Spiny-tailed Lizards (Uromastyx aegyptia microlepis) in Abu Dhabi Emirate, United Arab Emirates. Herpetological Bulletin 106: 1.

72