See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314395301 Amphibian Captive Breeding Programs for Madagascar: Where We Are Now and the Road Ahead Article · February 2017 CITATIONS READS 0 123 5 authors, including: Jeffrey Dawson Franco Andreone Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali 26 PUBLICATIONS 129 CITATIONS 383 PUBLICATIONS 3,476 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Devin Edmonds Illinois Natural History Survey 23 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Building a Future for Malagasy Amphibians View project Systematic review of cophyline microhylids View project All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffrey Dawson on 09 March 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Amphibian Captive Breeding Programs for Madagascar: Where We Are Now and the Road Ahead By Tsanta Fiderana Rakotonanahary1, Jeff Dawson2, Franco Andreone1,3, Justin Claude Rakotoarisoa 4 & Devin Edmonds4 adagascar supports nearly unparalleled frog species rich- In-country the main captive breeding centre for amphibians is ness and endemism. More than 300 frog species have been located near the town of Andasibe in east-central Madagascar. This M described from the island and recent DNA barcoding has part of the country supports an exceptional diversity of frog spe- revealed that Madagascar likely supports more than 500 (1). All cies, with more than 100 known from the area (8). The Andasibe but two species of exotic and recently introduced amphibians are captive breeding facility is run by the community group Mitsinjo endemic (2). Alarmingly, more than a quarter of the described frog and was opened in early 2011 through a contract of collaboration species are considered threatened with extinction by the IUCN Red with the Direction Générale des Forêts (DGF) and the Amphibian List, with the main threat habitat loss due to slash-and-burn agri- Specialist Group of Madagascar (ASG) (9, 10). The DGF help to culture, charcoal production and fuel wood harvest, logging and align the breeding center’s objectives with national priorities while timber extraction, and both artisanal and larger industrial mining members of ASG serve as scientific advisors to the project. activities. Climate change, invasive species, and infectious diseases, The Mitsinjo captive breeding facility works towards protect- including amphibian chytrid which has recently been detected in ing local amphibian species from extinction but is not currently Madagascar, are also a major concern. equipped to serve as a national centre for the entire country. The Despite the many threats facing Madagascar’s exceptional am- project’s Malagasy staff maintain a survival assurance colony of the phibian fauna, infrastructure and technical capacity to enact con- Critically Endangered Golden Mantella (Mantella aurantiaca) that servation breeding programs has only recently been developed was rescued from the footprint of the nearby Ambatovy nickel and in-country. Following the 2006 ACSAM initiative and resulting cobalt mine. Offspring produced are intended for release at created Sahonagasy Action Plan (3, 4), the country’s first biosecure cap- habitat to attempt to mitigate the mine’s environmental impact. tive breeding facility specifically for amphibians was developed in The breeding centre also works with an additional eleven local frog Andasibe east-central Madagascar. Training courses and exchanges species to gain experience maintaining those never kept in captiv- have also been held to support the development of additional facili- ity before, and to conduct hypothesis-driven husbandry studies to ties at other locations. Still, in spite of this encouraging progress the learn about best management practices. survival of Madagascar’s most threatened frog species remains un- Further east near the coast at Parc Ivoloina, another captive certain, and the ability to rapidly enact captive breeding initiatives breeding facility for Madagascar’s amphibians is under develop- for species in decline as well as properly design and implement as- ment. The centre is located on a private zoo and botanical gardens sociated reintroduction and population supplementation programs managed by the Madagascar Fauna and Flora Group. Zoo staff is lacking. have been trained in amphibian conservation husbandry at a work- Herein we outline both the progress that has been made and dis- cuss the future direction of ex situ conservation for Madagascar’s amphibians, highlighting especially the continued need for support from the international zoo and ex situ conservation community. WHERE WE ARE NOW The frogs of Madagascar have been kept by zoological institutions for decades, though only a handful of particularly charismatic and colorful species are well represented. A review of ISIS and ZIMS databases found barely two dozen of the more than 300 frog spe- cies known from Madagascar kept in captivity (5, 6). Nearly all of these were frogs from four genera: Dyscophus, Heterixalus, Mantella, and Scaphiophryne. Even though the species kept at zoos abroad represent just a small portion of Madagascar’s amphibian diversity, important conservation research has been carried out with them. For instance, Bristol Zoo, Chester Zoo, Paignton Zoo and the Paris Zoo have partnered with the Technical University of Braunschweig and the Emergency Chytrid Cell of Madagascar to develop effec- tive probiotic treatment to address the threat of amphibian chytrid (7). More often zoological institutions maintain public exhibits of these species to raise awareness of the plight of amphibians as a whole and, in some cases, to draw attention to conservation issues in Madagascar. 1Amphibian Specialist Group – Madagascar, c/o Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; 2Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; 3Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Via G. Giolitti, 36, I-10123 Torino; Local species maintained at Mitsinjo’s captive breeding facility in Andasibe. Photo: Devin 4 Association Mitsinjo, Lot 104 A Andasibe Gare, Andasibe 514, Madagascar. Edmonds. FrogLog 25 (1), Number 118 (February 2017) | 37 shop held in Andasibe, as well as through more recent exchanges are not appropriate or may not be the wisest use of resources to between Parc Ivoloina and Mitsinjo and abroad with Durrell Wild- protect species (12, 13, 14). Still, we see a role for continued devel- life Conservation Trust at Jersey Zoo. Currently the Parc Ivoloina opment of ex situ conservation measures, namely in the steps out- breeding facility supports live food colonies rather than frogs. lined below from within the most recent update of the Sahonagasy Keepers at the zoo are continuing to gain the skill set needed to Action Plan. maintain captive amphibians while infrastructure at the breeding ● Selection of priority species for captive breeding programs. centre is improved. Already started using the Amphibian Ark Conservation To prioritize the species in Madagascar most in need of ex situ Needs Assessment tool, this action will identify the frog spe- conservation initiatives, the Amphibian Ark Conservation Needs cies most in need and direct resources to them effectively. Assessment tool (www.conservationneeds.org) has been used to Once completed, it will be crucial to present the results from evaluate more than 200 frog species from the country. This effort the assessment to national and regional government and to is being conducted by an international team of herpetologists to actively search for support to launch new breeding programs build upon an initial but outdated assessment from 2007. While for target species. still incomplete for all species, preliminary results have provided ● Collection and integration of field data to captive programs. direction for captive breeding action in Andasibe and have already While much can be learned by keeping species in captivity and helped to select several new frog species which have recently been experimenting with different captive conditions, it is essential acclimated to captivity there (11). to have at least some understanding of the species’ biology be- fore doing so. The frogs of Madagascar as a whole are poorly THE ROAD AHEAD known and increasing field studies that directly improve or While much progress has been made, there is still a seemingly contribute to captive programs should be top priority. overwhelming gap between the conservation breeding programs ● Continued training and capacity building in Madagascar. The that can be immediately enacted and the need. There is also very country’s first captive breeding facility for amphibians has little capacity developed in-country to facilitate the release and been established in Andasibe, but in all other regions of the monitoring of captive-bred stock to assist declining wild popula- country there is no capacity to enact conservation breeding tions or reintroduce species to areas they are now extirpated from. initiatives. It will be important in coming years to continue This leaves a long way to go before captive breeding programs for training new staff and organizations in these techniques, and the frogs of Madagascar can effectively address the many threats also to identify whether to focus on adding additional capa- they face. Indeed, in many situations captive breeding programs bilities to the existing ones in Andasibe and Ivoloina or to es- Mantella aurantiaca. Photo: Devin Edmonds. 38 | FrogLog 25