Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 172, April 2014, Pages 200-208
Biological Conservation

Animal reintroductions: An innovative assessment of survival

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.034Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Animal reintroductions will likely increase though quantitative and interim evaluations of progress are rare.

  • Adaptive management requires such assessments which are critical in redefining efforts to meet circumstances and budgets.

  • Results from an ongoing reintroduction effort of Boreal Toads illustrate how intermediate results can inform next steps.

  • We used a novel application of multistate robust design to estimate early-stage survival and quantify interim success.

  • We illustrate the efficacy of this method and the value of such information within an adaptive management framework.

Abstract

Quantitative evaluations of reintroductions are infrequent and assessments of milestones reached before a project is completed, or abandoned due to lack of funding, are rare. However, such assessments, which are promoted in adaptive management frameworks, are critical. Quantification can provide defensible estimates of biological success, such as the number of survivors from a released cohort, with associated cost per animal. It is unlikely that the global issues of endangered wildlife and population declines will abate, therefore, assurance colonies and reintroductions are likely to become more common. If such endeavors are to be successful biologically or achieve adequate funding, implementation must be more rigorous and accountable. We use a novel application of a multistate, robust design capture–recapture model to estimate survival of reintroduced tadpoles through metamorphosis (i.e., the number of individuals emerging from the pond) and thereby provide a quantitative measure of effort and success for an “in progress” reintroduction of toads. Our data also suggest that tadpoles released at later developmental stages have an increased probability of survival and that eggs laid in the wild hatched at higher rates than eggs laid by captive toads. We illustrate how an interim assessment can identify problems, highlight successes, and provide information for use in adjusting the effort or implementing a Decision-Theoretic adaptive management strategy.

Introduction

Over the last several decades, methodologies targeted specifically at species preservation have flourished. The family of tools termed relocation, repatriation, translocation, and reintroduction represent an approach to managing populations and species of concern that focus on moving individuals or groups of individuals from established populations (wild or captive) to historical or new habitat in response to threats ranging from habitat loss to population decline as a result of disease (Seigel and Dodd, 2002, Dodd, 2005). Despite ongoing use of this management tool (hereafter reintroduction), success is rare. Reintroduction efforts for birds, mammals, and fish are deemed successful less than 50% of the time (Griffiths et al., 1989, Harig and Fausch, 2002). Reintroduction efforts for amphibians and reptiles reflect similar results, for example, of 85 projects considered by Germano and Bishop (2008), 42% were considered successful. Griffiths and Pavajeau (2008) considered 58 projects that included reintroduction of amphibians and were able to assess 22 for success, of these; only 13 were considered highly successful. However, success can be defined on a continuum from survival of released individuals (low success, Griffiths and Pavajeau, 2008) to the establishment of a breeding population of adults and the presence of multiple age classes (high success, Griffiths and Pavajeau, 2008, Semlitsch, 2001, Dodd and Seigel, 1991) and because negative results are less likely to be published (Fanelli, 2012), the proportion of successful reintroductions is likely inflated.

Reintroduction efforts can have high stakes. Efforts are costly but may be critical to the persistence of the species. Endpoints can be elusive and typically, efforts suffer from lack of quantification and monitoring (Seigel and Dodd, 2002, Dodd, 2005, Field et al., 2007). Scenarios with high stakes, whether financial, or biological (i.e., the extinction of a species), call for accurate evaluations of reintroduction effort. Success depends on multiple factors, including habitat quality and the number of individuals that are released, and many of these attributes or characteristics can be quantified, allowing for an evaluation of effort. Despite this need, quantitative evaluations of reintroduction efforts are uncommon (but see Bell et al., 2004). Furthermore, reintroduction efforts provide an appropriate context (ongoing decisions and a high degree of uncertainty) within which managers can apply adaptive management methods (Runge, 2011). In particular, the Decision-Theoretic School (DTS) of adaptive management (Williams et al., 2007, Runge, 2011) uses formal tools for decision analysis but also incorporates predictive modeling (with ongoing updates from monitoring) and articulates levels of uncertainty. The identification of appropriate benchmarks to measure progress (Dodd, 2010) and a quantification of these elements prior to the completion of a reintroduction project offer an opportunity to assess and potentially re-direct conservation efforts. Information gleaned from incremental assessments can provide defensible estimates of biological success (e.g., survivorship of a release effort), identify potential cost savings (thereby increasing accountability), and importantly, provide insight into what “success” might look like in the particular situation.

Reintroduction is likely to be particularly important for conservation of amphibian species because of the increasing number of species brought from the wild into “assurance colonies” to protect them from acute threats such as disease that can presage likely extinction in the wild (e.g., Mendelson et al., 2006, Zippel et al., 2011). Such programs provide respite in the short term but maintenance of biodiversity in the long run requires returning animals to their native, or suitable new, habitat with subsequent successful natural reproduction.

Program initiation, implementation, and final outcomes are all topics that have been discussed thoroughly elsewhere (Dodd and Seigel, 1991, Denton et al., 1997, Griffiths and Pavajeau, 2008, Lukis, 2009). Instead, we focus here on measuring the progress of a reintroduction program, specifically survival of a particular life stage, using a novel application of the multi-state, robust design, capture–recapture model. Our focus on progress is unique; intermediate assessments of ongoing efforts are generally overlooked but can inform husbandry and colony maintenance, judge the short-term efficacy of release methods, determine the duration of efforts necessary before success is achieved, and importantly, refine plans for funding acquisition – all of which can provide foundational data for structured decision making and adaptive management strategies.

Intermediate assessment of reintroduction success (i.e., progress) could address any life stage between release and breeding age and may focus on a variety of questions specific to the situation and the natural history of the target species. For example, an informative question might be: How many of the released tadpoles survive to metamorphosis? An answer to this question provides data to use in calculating the cost of the introduction as well as an indication of the robustness of the tadpoles which may inform husbandry efforts. Moreover, these short-term results can inform, temper, and revise the time frame needed to meet long-term reintroduction goals. For example,understanding survival at each life stage can inform one of the most common questions in conservation biology and reintroduction activities; namely, how many released animals are required to provide the founding genetic material needed to capture most of the available genetic diversity and avoid the genetic pitfalls of small populations (e.g., Jamieson and Lacy, 2012, Zeisset and Beebee, 2012, Deredec and Courchamp, 2007, Soule and Wilcox, 1980).

Assessing a reintroduction effort is different in focus from typical monitoring exercises because information beyond occurrence and abundance is needed. Rigorous methods to quantitatively assess amphibian reintroductions are sparse and untested particularly in high elevation, sub-alpine environments. We present results from an ongoing reintroduction effort of Boreal Toads (Anaxyrus [Bufo] boreas) in such an environment in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado (Fig. 1) to illustrate how intermediate results can inform next steps. We (1) describe initial site selection; (2) quantify survival in eggs collected from the wild versus those produced in captivity; and (3) quantify survival to metamorphosis (i.e., over summer survival) of released tadpoles using removal sampling.

Section snippets

Study species

Boreal Toads are an endangered species in Colorado and have been petitioned for federal listing (Greenwald et al., 2011). They are also considered one of the top 10 most vulnerable amphibians and reptiles in the U.S. (Giese, 2013). The Boreal Toad is one of only four extant amphibian species in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP, northeastern Colorado) (Corn et al., 1997). These toads belong to the A. boreas species group but the toads in the southern Rocky Mountains likely represent a

Data analysis

We used the data collected above (2010–2013) to construct capture histories for each released individual, consisting of three primary periods (initial release, first removal sample, final removal sample) and two states (Td = tadpoles, M = metamorphs). Recaptures during the final removal were distributed randomly among histories from the marked cohort obtained during the first removal sample such that parameter estimates were not biased (Converse et al., 2008).

We analyzed capture history data from

Site selection and disease surveillance

The Red Mountain site was selected based primarily on criteria set forth by the Boreal Toad Recovery Team (Loeffler, 2001): (1) historical evidence of Boreal Toads in the area (Corn et al., 1997); (2) chorus frogs were the only amphibian present and this species often co-occurs with Boreal Toads; (3) no known Boreal Toad breeding populations were within 5 km; (4) no evidence of disease: ranavirus has not been detected in any amphibians in RMNP (Green and Muths, 2004) and while Bd has been

Discussion

Our goal was to describe the progress of this reintroduction effort, not to declare success or failure, which indeed, we cannot do at this point in the reintroduction program. Specifically, we have evidence of survival beyond metamorphosis which was lacking from earlier work. We note that research over the last 10 years has rendered some aspects of the boreal toad recovery plan (developed in 2001) either obsolete or moot. For example, requiring reintroductions to be isolated from extant sites

Conclusions

We assessed an ongoing effort to reintroduce Boreal Toads. We provide evidence for the efficacy of a novel application of a multistate robust-design model (using batch marks) to estimate survival of a critical life stage of this species indicating that defensible quantification of survival of metamorphs is possible. This is important from a natural history perspective because there are few studies that report demographic estimates, or attempt to track the activity of post-hatching, but

Acknowledgments

R. Scherer contributed statistical insights. We thank E. Davinroy, J. Marrinan, and T. Smith from CPW-NASRF and numerous technicians and volunteers. Members of the Hoke-Funk laboratory at CSU provided comments that improved the manuscript. All methods were approved by the USGS Animal Care Committee. This is contribution no. 470 of the USGS Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the

References (73)

  • E. Muths et al.

    Evidence for disease related amphibian decline in Colorado

    Biol. Cons.

    (2003)
  • J.D. Nichols et al.

    Monitoring for conservation

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2006)
  • R.C. Worrest et al.

    Photoreactivation of potentially lethal, UV-induced damage to boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) tadpoles

    Life Sci.

    (1975)
  • S.L. Annis et al.

    A DNA-based assay to identify Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in amphibians

    J. Wildl. Dis.

    (2004)
  • B.J. Barth et al.

    Life in acid interactive effects of pH and natural organic acids on growth, development and locomotor performance of larval striped marsh frogs Limnodynastes peronii

    J. Exp. Biol.

    (2010)
  • B.D. Bell et al.

    The fate of a population of the endemic frog Leiopelma pakeka (Anura: Leiopelmatidae) translocated to restored habitat on Maud Island, New Zealand

    New Zealand J. Zool.

    (2004)
  • K.A. Berven

    Population regulation in the wood frog, Rana sylvatica from three diverse geographic localities

    Aust. J. Ecol.

    (1995)
  • R. Biek et al.

    What is missing in amphibian decline research: insights from ecological sensitivity analysis

    Cons. Biol.

    (2002)
  • C.J. Briggs et al.

    Investigating the population-level effects of chytridiomycosis: an emerging infectious disease of amphibians

    Ecology

    (2005)
  • K.P. Burnham et al.

    Model Selection and Multimodel Inference

    (2002)
  • C. Carey et al.

    Environmental and life history factors that limit recovery in southern rocky mountain populations of boreal toads (Bufo boreas)

  • C. Carey et al.

    Experimental exposures of boreal toads (Bufo boreas) to a pathogenic chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis)

    EcoHealth

    (2006)
  • G. Caughley

    Directions in conservation biology

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (1994)
  • N.D. Chelgren et al.

    Using spatiotemporal models and distance sampling to map the space use and abundance of newly metamorphosed western toads (Anaxyrus boreas)

    Herpetol. Cons. Biol.

    (2011)
  • S.J. Converse et al.

    A traditional and a less invasive robust design: choices in optimizing effort allocation for seabird population studies

  • P.S. Corn et al.

    Survey and assessment of amphibian populations in Rocky Mountain National Park

    Northwest. Nat.

    (1997)
  • J.S. Denton et al.

    A recovery program for the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) in Britain

    Cons. Biol.

    (1997)
  • A. Deredec et al.

    Importance of the Allee effect for reintroductions

    Ecoscience

    (2007)
  • C.K. Dodd

    Amphibian conservation and population manipulation

  • C.K. Dodd

    Conservation and management

  • C.K. Dodd et al.

    Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: are they conservation strategies that work?

    Herpetologica

    (1991)
  • J.W. Dole

    Dispersal of recently metamorphosed leopard frogs, Rana pipiens

    Copeia

    (1971)
  • D. Fanelli

    Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries

    Scientometrics

    (2012)
  • G.M. Fellers et al.

    Demise of repatriated populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs (Rana muscsosa) in the Sierra Nevada of California

    Herpetol. Cons. Biol.

    (2007)
  • S.A. Field et al.

    Making monitoring meaningful

    Aust. Ecol.

    (2007)
  • M.C. Fisher et al.

    Global emergence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and amphibian chytridiomycosis in space, time and host

    Ann. Rev. Microbiol.

    (2009)
  • J.M. Germano et al.

    Suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation

    Cons. Biol.

    (2008)
  • S. Gervasi et al.

    Host identity matters in the amphibian-Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis system: fine-scale patterns of variation in responses to a multi-host pathogen

    PLoS One

    (2013)
  • Giese, C.A., 2013. Dying for Protection: The 10 Most Vulnerable, Least Protected Amphibians and Reptiles in the United...
  • Goebel, A.M., 2000. Genetic Analyses of the Southern Rocky Mountain Group of Bufo boreas based on Mitochondrial DNA...
  • A.M. Goebel et al.

    Mitochondrial DNA evolution in the Anaxyrus boreas species group

    Mol. Phylogen. Evol.

    (2008)
  • K.L. Gosner

    A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae

    Herpetologica

    (1960)
  • D.E. Green et al.

    Health evaluation of amphibians in and near Rocky Mountain National Park (Colorado, USA)

    Alytes

    (2004)
  • Greenwald, D.N., Adkins Giese, C.L., Mueller, M., Molvar, E., 2011. Petition to list a distinct population segment of...
  • R.A. Griffiths et al.

    Captive breeding, reintroduction and the conservation of amphibians

    Cons. Biol.

    (2008)
  • R.A. Griffiths et al.

    Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy

    Science

    (1989)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text