REWILDING SPECIES – AN ANALYSIS BASED ON RSG REPORTS

Difficulties faced, lessons learned and factors for successes and failures of reintroduction projects.

1.      Introduction

The success of any reintroduction projects depend on many factors like the type of species one is working with, the technical knowledge of the re-introduction team, availability of the resources including the fund, proper policies and legislations and in particular the relevancy of the projects. There is no denying that many reintroduction projects are problematic and highly expensive that requires the involvement of many stakeholders from many government and non-governmental agencies with the follow up programs lasting many years to ensure success. As such, reintroductions projects are not simple and only the best of the best zoos in terms of everything (finance, human resources, policies etcetera) can do such programs.

Devra Kleiman in the manual Wild Mammals In Captivity, Principles, and Techniques (IUCN 1987) states that “attempts to reintroduce a species, if poorly conceived or implemented, may actually obscure the conservation issues that led to the decline of the species in the first  place  and thus may detract from, rather than add to, a species chances of survival.” Therefore, difficulties in reintroducing animals or plants back to the wild from captivity or botanic gardens are obvious.

According to Mark Stanley Price, ex-chairman of the IUCN Reintroduction Specialist Group, only large species that live in groupsup with few pillagers and those that can adapt to wide range of habitats can be easily reintroduced. Factors such as the risk of spreading diseases amongst the wild population (even of different species by the captive individuals, high mortality of reintroduced individuals once in wild conditions due to behavioural changes (finding no food, shelte,r etc.), and the habitat not supporting the new individuals must be considered for reintroduction projects. Otherwise, difficulties are inevitable.

In the last few years, IUCN’s (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) Reintroduction Specialist Group (RSG), an institution tasked to combat species extinction through re-introductions projects to re-establish sustainable animal and plant populations in their natural or original habitat, has done a commendable job. Since 2008, RSG has published four reports one each in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2013 covering the reintroduction and reinforcement of many species of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mam,mals and plants (Table 1) in the wild. The reports specify and highlight the problems of reintroduction projects throughout the world and goes to the extent of rating them from being most successful to failures.

Table 1: Reintroduction projects reported by RSG 2008 to 2013

	2008	2010	2011	2013	Total
Invertebrates	4	9	3	2	18
Fish	7	6	11	4	28
Amphibians	3	5	5	1	14
Reptiles	8	7	8	3	26
Birds	17	13	5	10	45
Mammals	13	20	9	24	66
Plants	10	12	9	8	39
Total	62	72	50	52	236

Number of reintroduction projects by way of IUCN statutory 8 regions viz. North America and Caribbean, West Europe, South and East Asia, Oceania, West Asia, Africa, Meso and South America, East Europe and North and Central Asia are tabulated (Table 2) and graphically represented below (Figure 1).

Table 2. Projects by region

Statutory Regions	Number of Projects 2008-2014
North America & Caribbean	52
West Europe	44
South & East Asia	28
Oceania	46
West Asia	20
Africa	26
Meso & South America	9
East Europe and North & Central Asia	13

Most projects have been reported from NorthAmerican and Caribbean, an indication that tlots works are beingdone. The projects gets regetd towards Meso and South America for which further studies as to why species decline is not occurring in the regions or are going unreported must be ascertained.

Figure 1. Projects by region

The measure of success of all the projects as per the RSG reports are categorized as highly successful, successful, partially successful and ,failure for which a comparative analysis showed that most of the projects were successful. Therefore, there are minimum failures in reintroduction projects as visible from the consolidated success and failure table of the RSG reports (Table 3).

Table 3. Ratings for succthe ess of the project through 2008 - 2014

Ratings	2008	2010	2011	2013
Highly successful	21	12	27	19
Successful	33	46	27	42
Partially successful	43	36	43	37
Failure	3	6	2	1
Total Percent	100	100	100	100

Success by way of taxa is important and it is what the re-introducers want actually. The RSG reports suggest that in projects before 2008, only bird reintroductprojectsject failed. Other projects were either highly, successful or partially successful. However, the 2010 resuggestsggest that of the many successful projects, there were failures (apparently negligible) in reintroduction of mammals, amphibians and invertebrates. In 2011, there was a failure only in one of the amphibian projects, while a bird project apparently failed in 2013.

This report highlights the problems,and  lessons and looks at the reaforns of the success a failure of a few selected projects from the RSG publications.

2.      Difficulties, l,essons and reasons for success/failure in reintroducing animals

2.1. Invertebrates – The translocation of the red barbed ant from the Isles of Scilly to Chobham Common National Nature Reserve, Surrey, UK  (RSG 2013)

Major difficulties faced	Major llearned reasons	Reasons for success/failure:
• Bringing up large F. rufibarbis colonies from mated Queens in captivity oveperiods periods. • Competition from Lasius niger and  F. sanguinea in setting up nests in wild. • Lack of post-releafundsund for monitoring the long-term impact.	• Queen F. rufibarbis ants and workers kept successfully inex-situu conditions. But population growthis  small duesame-seasonason release schedules. • Lasius niger proved itself tothe  be greatest threat notwithstanding the fact the people believed Formica sanguinea to be the biggest threat. Because of the difficulties associated with rearing the larger F. rufibarbis translocations of whole nest may work better.	• Small colony size of the released. • Unanticipated competition/aggression from Lasius niger. • Limited funds/budget for post-release monitoring

2.2.      Fishes – Conservation of a unique bullhead population in Flanders, Belgium (RSG 2010)

Major difficulties faced major	Major lessons learned	Reasons for success/failure:
• The relict population still facing problems. Difficult to convince authorities to implement protection measures, even for species under Annex II of the Habitats Directive.  • Inadequate funding. • Locating re-introduction sites, since the ecological quality of most of the headstreams is still insufficient.	• Insufficient ecological quality of headstreaBullhead-like • Bullhead like species re-introduction feasible	• Reliable captive breeding. • The released fishes seen at the released sites with re-captured fishes showing good growth. • Natural recruitment was successful, but urgent measures may be taken to improve the habitat quality of the Dorpbronbeek for protecting and conserving the relict population

2.3.      Amphibians – Re-introduction of European tree frog in Latvia (RSG 2013)

Majfaced majorlties falearned reasons	Major lessons learned	Reasons for success/failure:
Difficulty in estimating the present sthe ize of population because of extended areis a. Information from local people minimal despite of network.	• Breeding under laboratory conditions can happen earlier than in the wild and the released froglets can have more time toa    adapt to natural conditions. Thus, much higher survival rate during the first winter can be createis d. Despite that, breeding of tree frogs enthused by hormonal injections. No growths in tadThe totalor froglet survival or growing rates.	Total area of population dispersal covered 800 - 900 km2 (Dunce & Zvirgzds, 2005) after reintroduction. Reports later showed that, it continues to expand.

2.4.      Reptiles – Translocation of giant tortoises in the Seychelles Islands (RSG 2011)

Major difficulties faced	Major lesslearned reasons	Reasons for success/ failure:
Lacks of support for tortoise conservation as development in Seychelles means conservation projects have no future security even on agreed plans. The consequences are that conservation depends on private islands, although these are also subject to management changes due to external economic factors.	• Re-introduction of tortoises practical and helpful to environmental restoration. • Need to advertise the role of tortoise in conservation to various agenciesthe Seychelles.	• Successful adaptation by adult tortoises at Grande Barbe with evidence of nesting. • Lack of support for tortoise conservation has prevented successful project implementations.

2.5.      Birds – Grey Partridge supplementations in Oxfordshire and east Gloucestershire, UK (RSG, 2010)

Major difficulties faced major	Major lessons learned	Reasons for success/failure:
• High predation rates in pairs released in spring. • The released grey partridges from release sites after covey disintegrare ation unable to monitor after December-January. • Coveys scattering exceptionally early in autumn, making monitoring difficult.	• Spring releases ineffective due to high mortality and low breeding rates. • Release is in autumn feasible but less efficient in increasing grey partridge populations locally on particular release sites because of the scattering of newly-formed pairs. • Game covers key habitats for ato utumn coveys help their initial settlement onto release sites.	• Released birds initially settled well onto the release sites but suffered from very high mortality rates (spring pairs) or dispersed in great numbers from the release sites (pairs formed when the autumn coveys broke up). • Released birds found breeding, but very small sample that could be considered for a reliable conclusion.

2.6.   Mammals – Re-introduction of Arabian Oryx into the Negev Desert, Israel (RSG 2008)

Major difficulties faced	Major lessons learned reasons	Reasons for success/failure
• Low reproduction in two of the three areas. • Military parachutes killing Oryx by entangling them.	Despite of being bulk feeders, certain important elements in the diet must have played a vital role in causing the historic range limitation of the species.	Good performance in only one of the three released populations.

3.      Difficulties, lessons, and reasons for success/failure in reintroducing plants

3.1.      Plants – Conservation introduction of Bakersfield cactus in the southern San Joaquin Valley, California, USA (RSG 2013)

Major difficulties faced	Major lessons learned reasons	Reasons for success/failure
• Agency restrictions on removthe al from source population. • Disartof iculation many padded plants on transport/planting. • Survival of transplants in summer. •Colonization of cleared bedding areas by others.	• Small plants preferred pads for transplants as pads have lower survival rates. • Pads should be allowed to develop roots pribeforet planting. • Larger, heavier pads grow faster, bettewith r survival rates. • Controlling competitors important • Watering during essential for the summer	• Being prepared to face the problems before project implementation • Succulents propagation easis ier than others woody plants.

4.      Discussions

Noting beyond what has been listed above, look at the difficulties associated with plants are the ones to do with either being attacked by wild animals or due to edaphic factors couplewithby microclimatic conditions. For example, the “Conservation and re-introduction of the tiger orchid and other native orchids of Singapore” case study (RSG, 2008) reveals the major problems to be the removal of seedlings by the animals enhanced by the micro-climatic conditions created due to the removal of the surrounding trees or branches.

Further, Madagascar’s effort to augment their threatened Aeranthes orchid population (RSG 2010) saw a very difficult situation in fixing the timing for reintroductions because the choice of sites for reintroduction became very difficult since the collaborators were located very faded which was the lack of facilities for aseptic micro-propagation at the Malagasy University, an institution tasked to conduct simultaneous studies.

In reintroducing animals, the notable project is the reintroduction of Chiricahua leopard frogs (RSG, 2011the )the in southwestern USA. It was rated highly successful because of every promising factor such as large number of released frogs in the watershed, adequate post-release monitoring, and successful reproduction and dispersal after releases. Difficulties faced the included presence and impact of non-native predators and pathogens which, could not however, destroy the population. Therefore, success was obvious.

In yet another case, a highly successful the project on Reintroduction of greater one-horned rhino (RSG, 2013) in India’s Manas National Park, needs special mention. Despite of several problems like drug procrument from abroad, unpredictable weather conditions, keeping the monitor, ng team motivated and shortage of dedicated man power, the group coordinated well to successfully establish a population.

5.      Conclusion

The success of any reintroduction project depends on several factors. If it is not the species, it is thproblemsthat gives problems to the reintroduction teams. Otherwise, it is the shortage of resources (human, infrastructure, etcetera). Whatever, the problems, it is encouex-situto see that ex situ management tool is still working well for keeping the species perpetually.

6.      References

Kleiman, D. G. (ed.) (1987). Wild Mammals In Captivity, Principles, and Techniques. University of Chicago Press. US.

Ralls, K. and Meadows, R. (2001). Captive Breeding and Reintroduction. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Volume 1. Academic Press.

Soorae, P. S. (ed.) (2013) Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2013, Further case studies from around the globe, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group and Abu Dhabi, UAE: Environment.

Soorae, P. S. (ed.) (2011) Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2013, Further case studies from around the globe, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group and Abu Dhabi, UAE: Environment.

Soorae, P. S. (ed.) (2010) Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2013, Further case studies from around the globe, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group and Abu Dhabi, UAE: Environment.
Soorae, P. S. (ed.) (2008). Global Re-introduction Perspectives: 2013, Further case studies from around the globe, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group and Abu Dhabi, UAE: Environment.