Plan
Comptes Rendus

Reintroducing antelopes into arid areas: lessons learnt from the oryx in Saudi Arabia
[Réintroduire les antilopes en milieu aride : enseignements de l'oryx en Arabie Saoudite]
Comptes Rendus. Biologies, Volume 326 (2003) no. S1, pp. 158-165.

Résumés

We focus on constraints faced by antelopes reintroductions in arid environments, and propose keys to enhance their success, using the oryx project in Saudi Arabia as example:

  • (1) Monitoring and management of reintroduced populations appear more important than the number of released animals;
  • (2) Because of the low accuracy of population size estimators, we recommend to implement a continuous monitoring and to use several estimators to assess the reintroduced population size;
  • (3) Reintroduction schedule should take into account the unpredictability of food resources in arid environments;
  • (4) The re-establishment of desert antelopes depends as a priority on the enforcement of regulations to avoid poaching.

Nous présentons les difficultés inhérentes aux réintroductions d'antilopes en milieu aride, et proposons quelques clés pour améliorer leur succès, en s'appuyant sur la réintroduction de l'oryx (Oryx leucoryx) en Arabie Saoudite :

  • (1) Le suivi et la gestion des populations réintroduites apparaissent plus importants que le nombre d'individus relâchés ;
  • (2) La difficulté d'évaluer la taille des populations réintroduites peut être compensée par un suivi continu et l'exploitation de plusieurs estimateurs ;
  • (3) La flexibilité du calendrier des réintroductions est rendue primordiale par l'imprévisibilité des ressources alimentaires en milieu désertique ;
  • (4) Le rétablissement de populations d'antilopes désertiques dépend prioritairement de l'application de mesures anti-braconnage.

Métadonnées
Publié le :
DOI : 10.1016/S1631-0691(03)00053-2
Keywords: Arabian oryx, antelopes, desert, Oryx leucoryx, reintroduction success
Mot clés : antilopes, désert, oryx d'Arabie, Oryx leucoryx, succès de réintroduction

Pascal Mésochina 1 ; Eric Bedin 1 ; Stéphane Ostrowski 1

1 N.W.R.C/N.C.W.C.D, P.O. Box 1086, Taif, Saudi Arabia
@article{CRBIOL_2003__326_S1_158_0,
     author = {Pascal M\'esochina and Eric Bedin and St\'ephane Ostrowski},
     title = {Reintroducing antelopes into arid areas: lessons learnt from the oryx in {Saudi} {Arabia}},
     journal = {Comptes Rendus. Biologies},
     pages = {158--165},
     publisher = {Elsevier},
     volume = {326},
     number = {S1},
     year = {2003},
     doi = {10.1016/S1631-0691(03)00053-2},
     language = {en},
}
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Pascal Mésochina
AU  - Eric Bedin
AU  - Stéphane Ostrowski
TI  - Reintroducing antelopes into arid areas: lessons learnt from the oryx in Saudi Arabia
JO  - Comptes Rendus. Biologies
PY  - 2003
SP  - 158
EP  - 165
VL  - 326
IS  - S1
PB  - Elsevier
DO  - 10.1016/S1631-0691(03)00053-2
LA  - en
ID  - CRBIOL_2003__326_S1_158_0
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A Pascal Mésochina
%A Eric Bedin
%A Stéphane Ostrowski
%T Reintroducing antelopes into arid areas: lessons learnt from the oryx in Saudi Arabia
%J Comptes Rendus. Biologies
%D 2003
%P 158-165
%V 326
%N S1
%I Elsevier
%R 10.1016/S1631-0691(03)00053-2
%G en
%F CRBIOL_2003__326_S1_158_0
Pascal Mésochina; Eric Bedin; Stéphane Ostrowski. Reintroducing antelopes into arid areas: lessons learnt from the oryx in Saudi Arabia. Comptes Rendus. Biologies, Volume 326 (2003) no. S1, pp. 158-165. doi : 10.1016/S1631-0691(03)00053-2. https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/biologies/articles/10.1016/S1631-0691(03)00053-2/

Version originale du texte intégral

1 Introduction

Nearly half of the antelope species (46%) are included by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in the Red List of threatened species [1]. Among the species that occur in arid environments, this ratio increases to around 65%, and reaches 92% among the 13 species surviving in the harsh conditions of Sahara and Arabian deserts (Table 1).

Table 1

IUCN conservation status of wild antelope species that occur in the Sahara and Arabian deserts [1,43]. nt=near threatened; cd=conservation dependent

Species IUCN Status 1996 IUCN Status 2000
Gazella dama, dama gazelle Endangered Endangered
Gazella leptoceros, slender-horned gazelle Endangered Endangered
Gazella cuvieri, Cuvier's gazelle Endangered Endangered
Gazella dorcas, dorcas gazelle Lower Risk – nt Vulnerable
Gazella subgutturosa marica, Arabian goitered gazelle Lower Risk – nt Vulnerable
Gazella gazella cora, Arabian mountain gazelle Lower Risk – cd Lower Risk – cd
Gazella rufifrons, red-fronted gazelle Vulnerable Vulnerable
Oryx leucoryx, Arabian oryx Endangered Endangered
Oryx dammah, scimitar-horned oryx Critically Endangered Extinct in the Wild
Addax nasomaculatus, addax Endangered Critically Endangered
Hemitragus jayakari, Arabian Tahr Endangered Endangered
Capra nubiana, Nubian Ibex Endangered Endangered
Ammotragus lervia, Barbary sheep Vulnerable Vulnerable

Among the numerous tools used in conservation to re-establish endangered species (creation of protected areas, captive-breeding, ...), reintroduction is a commonly used, popular and suitable conservation procedure for vertebrates [2] which becomes a necessity once the species has been extirpated from the wild [3].

Many studies have emphasized the importance of maintaining genetic diversity in the reintroduced populations (e.g. [4–6]). After presenting some conservation genetic aspects of the Arabian oryx reintroduction, we focus on three factors recognized as determinant to increase the probability of success of vertebrate reintroductions [2,4,7,8], and evaluate how they apply to the case of the Arabian oryx reintroduction in Saudi Arabia:

  • (1) The number of reintroduced animals;
  • (2) The post-release monitoring of reintroduced populations;
  • (3) The quality of recipient areas in term of coverage of vital requirements of the species.

2 The case of the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx)

The Arabian oryx which formerly occurred throughout Arabian peninsula deserts was extirpated from the wild by hunting in the early 1970s [9]. The species was first reintroduced in Oman in 1982 [10]. In Saudi Arabia, the Arabian oryx was first released in 1990 into Mahazat as-Sayd [11], a fenced steppe desert protected area in west-central Saudi Arabia (2244 km2). Since 1995, Arabian oryx have also been reintroduced into ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid, a sand dune protected area (12 500 km2) which lies in the western Rub-al Khali, one of the driest regions in the world [12].

The Arabian oryx is a social, large, white and desert antelope (80–100 kg), which survives indefinitely without access to drinking water in arid habitats [13,14]. Classified as a mixed-feeder but predominantly grazer [15,16], it can survive on poor quality forage [17], and decides of its range use according to the biomass and quality of forage available [16], and its seasonal food requirements [13]. Presumably because of the low food resources available in deserts, the Arabian oryx lives at low densities (around 0.016 oryx/km2 in Oman in 1996 [10] and in ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid in 2001 [18]).

The climate of Saudi Arabia is characterized by hot summers and mild winters. Air temperatures in summer often exceed 45 °C [18,19]. The main characteristic of climate is that rainfall is unpredictable both spatially and temporally (i.e. precipitation at Mahazat as-Sayd ranges from 38 mm in 1999 to 253 mm in 1995).

3 Lessons from the reintroduction of Arabian oryx

Reintroduction is defined as an attempt to establish a species in an area which was once part of its historical range, but from which it has been extirpated or became extinct [3]. Three main factors increase the probability of success of vertebrate reintroductions [2,4,7,8], namely:

  • – The number of reintroduced animals;
  • – The post-release monitoring of reintroduced population;
  • – The quality of recipient areas in term of coverage of vital requirements of the species.
Although not included in the analysis of Fischer and Lindenmayer [2], Griffith et al. [4], and Wolf et al. [7,8], based on mailing results or published papers surveys, genetic diversity of the reintroduced population may influence its re-establishment success (e.g. [4–6]). For this reason, we present the genetic status of the captive breeding herd hosted at the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) before developing the three salient key tenets of successful reintroduction.

3.1 Genetic management of Arabian oryx herd at the NWRC

The goal of our management has been to maintain the initial genetic diversity through careful breeding and to limit inbreeding level of animals to be reintroduced.

The degree of relatedness within the original oryx herd of the NWRC is unknown, and the Arabian oryx microsatellite loci discovered up to now are not sufficiently polymorphic to carry out a large-scale parentage inference analysis [20]. Consequently, we considered original animals with unknown parents as “founders” [21].

The policy implemented was to balance the 48 putative founder representations within each captive generation (and reintroduced populations). Ultimately, we built-up a captive oryx population recognized as the most polymorphic of all captive herds (heterozygosity varying between 0.425 and 0.785 [20]), with the class of rare alleles (frequencies 0–0.1) being the modal class (L-shaped allele frequency distribution), suggesting that no recent management-related bottleneck has occurred [20]. The NWRC herd is currently composed of more than 240 individuals (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Development of captive-bred Arabian oryx population at the NWRC. Herd growth reduction is mainly due to reintroduction effort increase since 1996.

However, recent genetic analysis have suggested that perhaps as much as 50% of the neutral genetic variation present in the pre-extinction population of Arabian oryx is absent from contemporary populations [20]. Yet, the high rate of intrinsic population growth in reintroduced populations has suggested that this “lack” of polymorphism did not constraint population establishment a least in the short term (e.g. mean intrinsic growth rate of 40 and 43% before drought period respectively in Mahazat as-Sayd and ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid; see also [22]). Indeed, a majority of the captive oryx populations in the Arabian peninsula are essentially confronted with housing saturation difficulties (Ostrowski, pers. com.) and infectious diseases [23–25], often transmitted by neighbouring livestock.

3.2 Number of reintroduced animals

According to Fischer and Lindenmayer [2], Griffith et al. [4], and Wolf et al. [7,8], vertebrate reintroductions success is increased when more than 100 individuals are released.

Between 1990 and 1993, we reintroduced 72 Arabian oryx into the fenced Mahazat as-Sayd protected area; animals derived from the captive breeding stock held at the NWRC, and from foreign private or national collections [11]. In 2001, we estimated the re-established population size at about 450 animals [26] (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Mahazat as-Sayd oryx population estimates between 1990 and 2001 using three different estimators. MPE: Minimum Population Estimation (from field workers census); Transect: Transect count using Distance; MR: Mark-re-sighting index.

Since 1995, 139 Arabian oryx issued from the NWRC have been reintroduced into the ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid protected area [27]. By 2001, the population had increased to 200–220 animals (Fig. 3). Further releases are planned to avoid bottleneck phenomena in case of prolonged demographic stagnation. It appears at present premature to deem the success of this reintroduction project.

Fig. 3

Estimated growth rates of the Arabian oryx population in ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid protected area before and during drought period (r: mean relative growth rate).

In the case of a fenced, predator-free area like Mahazat as-Sayd, or an unfenced protected area as Yalooni in Oman (40 animals released [10]), the number of animals released, lower than recommended [2,4,7,8] did not seem to limit the oryx population re-establishment.

3.3 Post-release monitoring of reintroduced population

Monitoring of reintroduced populations is a key factor to evaluate the success of reintroductions and to implement management policies.

Because in arid environments, wild antelopes usually survive at low densities, estimators of population size have a low accuracy, owing to the small number of individuals encountered during surveys. We observed such inaccuracy even in the closed and highly surveyed oryx population of Mahazat as-Sayd, where coefficient of variation of transect estimators (Distance software; [28]) often exceeded 50% [29] (Fig. 2).

We have tried two different strategies to offset this weakness:

  • – We use three different methods of population size estimation in Mahazat as-Sayd (Fig. 2): cumulated births and deaths recorded by field workers, transect counts and mark-re-sighting index [30]. This monitoring effort allows us to cross-check convergent indications, and to carry out surveys only twice a year.
  • – In ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid, we rely on an intensive post-released population monitoring (e.g. 184 cumulative days spent in the protected area by the field researcher in 2001). We also use aerial surveys (18 aerial survey sessions were carried out in 2001) to improve the monitoring efficacy for these large desert antelopes. Transect counts are not used because of the low number of oryx encountered during surveys (density of around 0.016 oryx/km2 in 2001 [18], against 0.20 oryx/km2 in Mahazat as-Sayd [26]), and hilly ground. However, because during summer, oryx aggregate (mean herd size is 4.3 during summer and 2.5 during winter) in a small part of the reserve (around 1200 km2 [18]) where trees provide them with shade, we use during this period total count method coupled to a mark-re-sighting index to estimate their number.
Monitoring also provides the basis to manage these populations. Using data-driven assumptions for birth rate, survival rate and carrying capacity, Treydte et al. [31] developed a computer model to evaluate the probability of extinction (frequency with which 100 initial populations fall to zero within 100 years) of the predator-free Mahazat as-Sayd oryx population under various management strategies. The probability of extinction was high when no management was applied to the population (probability of extinction varied between 0.3 and 0.92 according to combination of assumptions) whereas removing all oryx above 70% of carrying capacity provided the lowest probability of extinction, and the lowest population size variation whatever was the combination of assumptions. Management appears therefore as an important aspect of the long term persistence of this fenced reintroduced population.

According to Fischer and Lindenmayer [2], the probability of success of mammal reintroductions increases if supportive measures are taken. However, the supply of food and water during summer does not appear as a viable option for the closed oryx population of Mahazat as-Sayd protected area, as it would allow the population to grow when density dependence would normally be controlling numbers [31].

3.4 Quality of the reintroduction areas

It is recommended that reintroduction sites cover the vital requirements of the reintroduced species and that causes of its original decline are removed from these sites [3].

3.4.1 Coverage of vital requirements

Arabian oryx require shade to survive during summer and sufficient forage supply [32,33].

It is therefore important to select reintroduction sites that can fulfill the summer shading requirements of this species [32].

Contrary to the preconceived idea that surface water is a limiting factor of antelope populations dwelling in deserts, it seems that these species are more dependent on the preformed water in the forage than on drinking water [13,14,33]. Indeed, Arabian oryx may survive indefinitely without drinking water [13,14]. Because biomass and quality of forage available are strongly related to the occurrence of unpredictable rainfall [34–37], the long term prediction of forage availability and as a consequence of oryx release schedule are difficult (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

Illustration of the “feed-back” management process on Arabian oryx reintroduction according to biomass and quality of forage available.

The effect of rainfall on herbivore population dynamic has been well documented (e.g. [31,34,37,38]). Prolonged drought in arid habitat may lead to herbivore population collapse (e.g. [39]). In ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid protected area, a severe drought period between 1997 and 2001 [18] has decreased the intrinsic growth rate of the oryx population (Fig. 3).

3.4.2 Alleviation of causes of decline

3.4.2.1 Habitat degradation and interspecific competition.

Although habitat degradation and interspecific competition did not appear to be responsible for the oryx extirpation from the wild [40], they represent a potential threat to the successful re-establishment of wild populations.

Although lowly populated, it is likely that the habitat used by the pre-extinction populations of Arabian oryx has changed. In ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid, further habitat degradation has been minimized by controlling the number of human settlements within the reserve [11]. Tree cutting is a source of concern because oryx need the shade provided by trees to retreat from direct solar radiations in summer [32]. A ban on tree cutting inside the protected area must be enforced, despite local bedus still use wood as a source of energy. The recent development of eco-touristic activities constitutes an additional concern related to habitat degradation. The negative impact of such activities on the protected area will have to be evaluated and ultimately controlled.

Oryx compete on forage with camels. Levels of tolerance still need to be addressed scientifically. Although a certain level of competition is tolerable, we suggest that it may become threatening under the combined effect of drought conditions and oryx population increase. Level of grazing control, by limiting the number of domestic livestock permitted inside the protected area, must rely on a quantitative and scientifically-based approach.

3.4.2.2 The poaching threat.

Over hunting is the main cause of decline or extinction of desert antelopes [40]. Although living at low densities in a vast habitat, oryx are highly vulnerable to hunting. Their destruction is eased by the fact that:

  • – They are conspicuous from a long distance (up to 3 km) because of their white and highly reflective coat [33,41];
  • – They leave conspicuous tracks in the sandy areas where they dwell;
  • – They display fairly little stamina when running (presumably because of its high water and energy cost);
  • – They can be easily chased by car when in open flat areas;
  • – They have to shade under trees during summer [32], and tree locations are known from local inhabitants;
  • – They use to aggregate in areas where rainfall occurred [36], also known from local inhabitants.
Until now, we have recorded seven poached oryx in the ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid protected area. Althouth a marginal cause of death (around 15% of all known mortalities), we must remember that poaching foiled the oryx re-establishment project in Oman. After reaching a viable number of around 400 animals in 1996, the reintroduced population collapsed to less than 100 animals by early 1999 [10]. Considering the different causes of mortality in Oman, poaching has been the main cause of death and the only reason for the Arabian oryx population to collapse.

4 Perspectives

We may generalize the lessons learnt from the Arabian oryx reintroduction in Saudi Arabia to desert antelope reintroductions:

  • (1) Monitoring and management of desert antelope reintroduced populations appear more important than the number of released animals;
  • (2) Because of the low accuracy of desert antelope population size estimators, we recommend to implement an intensive monitoring and use a set of estimators to assess the reintroduced population size and growth rate;
  • (3) Timing of release must match the biomass and quality of forage available. Because this parameter is difficult to predict in an habitat where rainfall is unpredictable, reintroduction plans must be flexible;
  • (4) Long term reintroduction success of desert antelopes is highly dependent on the enforcement of regulations to avoid the hunting of these rare species [40]. With the predicted climatic aridity increase [42], this effort is of particular importance, as animals will probably leave the relative safety of their drying habitats and approach human settlements.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Dr. Joe Williams for useful comments and criticisms on the manuscript.


Bibliographie

[1] C. Hilton-Taylor (compiler), 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, England, 2000

[2] J. Fischer; D.B. Lindenmayer An assessment of the published results of animal relocations, Biological Conservation, Volume 96 (2000), pp. 1-11

[3] International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN guidelines for reintroductions, Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, England, 1998

[4] B. Griffith; J.M. Scott; J.W. Carpenter; C. Reed Translocation as a species conservation tool: Status and strategy, Science, Volume 245 (1989), pp. 477-480

[5] J.A. Jimenez; K.A. Hughes; G. Alaks; L. Graham; R.C. Lacy An experimental study of inbreeding depression in a natural habitat, Science, Volume 266 (1994), pp. 271-273

[6] R.C. Lacy Importance of genetic variation to the viability of mammalian populations, Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 78 (1997), pp. 320-335

[7] C.M. Wolf; B. Griffith; C. Reed; S.A. Temple Avian and mammalian translocations: update and reanalysis of 1987 survey data, Conservation Biology, Volume 10 (1996), pp. 1142-1154

[8] C.M. Wolf; T. Garland; B. Griffith Predictors of avian and mammalian translocation success: reanalysis with phylogenetically independent contrasts, Biological Conservation, Volume 86 (1998), pp. 243-255

[9] D.S. Henderson Were they the last Arabian oryx?, Oryx, Volume 12 (1974), pp. 347-350

[10] J.A. Spalton; M.W. Lawrence; S.A. Brend Arabian oryx reintroduction in Oman: successes and setbacks, Oryx, Volume 33 (1999), pp. 168-175

[11] S. Ostrowski; E. Bedin; D. Lenain; A.H. Abuzinada Ten years of Arabian oryx conservation breeding in Saudi Arabia – achievements and regional perspectives, Oryx, Volume 32 (1998), pp. 209-222

[12] P. Meigs World distribution of arid and semi-arid homoclimates, Arid Zone Research, Volume 1 (1952), pp. 203-210

[13] J.B. Williams; S. Ostrowski; E. Bedin; K. Ismail Seasonal variation in energy expenditure, water flux and food consumption of Arabian oryx Oryx leucoryx, Journal of Experimental Biology, Volume 204 (2001), pp. 2301-2311

[14] S. Ostrowski; J.B. Williams; E. Bedin; K. Ismail Water influx and food consumption of free-living oryxes (Oryx leucoryx) in the Arabian desert during summer, Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 83 (2002), pp. 665-673

[15] J.F. Asmodé Food choice and digging behaviour of naı̈ve Arabian oryx reintroduced in their natural environment, Revue d'Ecologie (Terre et Vie), Volume 45 (1990), pp. 295-301

[16] T.H. Tear; J.C. Mosley; E.D. Ables Landscape-scale foraging decisions by reintroduced Arabian oryx, Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 61 (1997), pp. 1142-1154

[17] J.A. Spalton The food supply of Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) in the desert of Oman, Journal of Zoology (London), Volume 248 (1999), pp. 433-441

[18] E. Bedin, Field biologist's report in ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid – Bimonthly report for July & August 2001, Unpublished report, NCWCD, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2001

[19] National Wildlife Research Center, NWRC – Annual report 2000, Unpublished report, NCWCD, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2000

[20] T.C. Marshall; P. Sunnucks; J.A. Spalton; A. Greth; J.M. Pemberton Use of genetic data for conservation management: the case of the Arabian oryx, Animal Conservation, Volume 2 (1999), pp. 269-278

[21] A. Greth; P. Sunnucks; M. Vassart; H.F. Stanley Genetic management of an Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) population without known pedigree (F. Spitz; G. Janeau; G. Gonzalez; S. Aulagnier, eds.), Ungulates ’91, SFEPM-IRGM, Toulouse, France, 1992, pp. 77-83

[22] T.C. Marshall; J.A. Spalton Simultaneous inbreeding and outbreeding depression in reintroduced Arabian oryx, Animal Conservation, Volume 3 (2000), pp. 241-248

[23] A. Greth; J.M. Gourreau; M. Vassart; B. Nguyen; M. Wyers; P.C. Lefevre Capripoxvirus disease in an Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) from Saudi Arabia, Journal of Wildlife Diseases, Volume 28 (1992), pp. 295-300

[24] A. Greth; J.R.B. Flamand; A. Delhomme An outbreak of tuberculosis in a captive herd of Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx): management, Veterinary Record, Volume 134 (1994), pp. 165-167

[25] S. Ostrowski; S. Anajariyya; E.M. Kamp; E. Bedin Isolation of Brucella melitensis from an Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), Veterinary Record, Volume 150 (2002), pp. 186-188

[26] P. Mésochina, Ungulate survey – Mahazat as-Sayd – 5 November 2001, Unpublished report, NCWCD, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2001

[27] S. Ostrowski; E. Bedin Arabian oryx reintroduction in ‘Uruq Bani Ma'arid, Saudi Arabia: summary and up-date; January 2001, Reintroduction News, Volume 20 (2001), pp. 16-17

[28] S.T. Buckland; D.R. Anderson; K.P. Burnham; J.L. Laake Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations, Chapman & Hall, London, England, 1993

[29] P.J. Seddon, K. Ismail, M. Shobrak, S. Ostrowski, Counting unicorns: estimating population size of Arabian oryx using mark-re-sighting and distance sampling methods, Oryx (in press)

[30] J.J.D. Greenwood Mark-recapture methods (W.J. Sutherland, ed.), Ecological Census Techniques, Cambridge University Press, England, 1996, pp. 17-54

[31] A.C. Treydte; J.B. Williams; E. Bedin; S. Ostrowski; P.J. Seddon; E.A. Marschall; T.A. Waite; K. Ismail In search of the optimal management strategy for Arabian oryx, Animal Conservation, Volume 4 (2001), pp. 239-249

[32] P.J. Seddon; K. Ismail Influence of ambient temperature on diurnal activity of Arabian oryx: implications for reintroduction site selection, Oryx, Volume 36 (2002), pp. 50-55

[33] M.R. Stanley-Price Animal Reintroductions: The Arabian Oryx in Oman, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1989

[34] J.A. Spalton, Effects of rainfall on the reproduction and mortality of the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx Pallas) in the Sultanate of Oman, PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen, 1995

[35] S.A. Ghazanfar The phenology of desert plants: a 3-years study in a gravel desert wadi in northern Oman, Journal of Arid Environment, Volume 35 (1997), pp. 407-417

[36] N. Corp; A. Spalton; M.L. Gorman The influence of rainfall on range in a female desert ungulate: the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) in the Sultanate of Oman, Journal of Zoology (London), Volume 246 (1998), pp. 369-377

[37] A.W. Illius; T.G. Connor On the relevance of non-equilibrium concepts to arid and semiarid grazing systems, Ecological Applications, Volume 9 (1999), pp. 798-813

[38] B.E. Saether Environmental stochasticity and population dynamic of large herbivores: a search for mechanisms, Trends in Evolution and Ecology, Volume 12 (1997), pp. 143-149

[39] N. Owen-Smith Demography of a large herbivore, the greater kudu, Tragelaphus strepsiceros, in relation to rainfall, Journal of Animal Ecology, Volume 59 (1990), pp. 893-913

[40] D.P. Mallon, S.C. Kingswood (compilers), Antelopes – Part 4: North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia-Global survey and regional action plans, SSC Antelope Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, England, 2001

[41] W. Thesiger Arabian Sands, Longmans, Green & Co, London, England, 1959

[42] H.N. Le Houérrou Climate Change, Drought and Desertification, Report to IPCC, IPCC, Washington DC, 1996

[43] World Conservation Monitoring Center 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (J. Baillie; B. Groombridge, eds.), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 1996


Commentaires - Politique