Journal Information
Vol. 16. Num. 2.April - June 2018
Pages 61-120
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
426
Vol. 16. Num. 2.April - June 2018
Pages 61-120
Essays and Perspectives
DOI: 10.1016/j.pecon.2018.03.003
Open Access
Threats for bird population restoration: A systematic review
Visits
426
Guilherme Fernando Gomes Destroa,b,
Corresponding author
gfgdestro@gmail.com

Corresponding author at: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Evolução, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Campus Samambaia, CP 131, 74001-970 Goiânia, GO, Brazil.
, Paulo De Marcoc, Levi Carina Terribiled
a Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Evolução, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Campus Samambaia, CP 131, 74001-970 Goiânia, GO, Brazil
b Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Superintendência no Estado de Goiás, Rua 229, n° 95 – Setor Universitário, 74605-090 Goiânia, GO, Brazil
c Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Campus Samambaia, CP 131, 74001-970 Goiânia, GO, Brazil
d Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Regional Jataí, 75801-615 Jataí, GO, Brazil
Highlights

  • The largest number of restoration attempts was performed in New Zealand.

  • The most frequent species were Grus americana and Notiomystis cincta.

  • Thirteen drivers were pointed out by researchers and practitioners.

  • Considering only environmental causes, predation was the most remarkable driver.

This item has received
426
Visits

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (3)
Show moreShow less
Tables (1)
Table 1. Drivers reported as relevant by researchers and practitioners in bird population restoration programs. These were grouped as: (a) environmental; (b) anthropogenic; and (c) unknown.
Abstract

Although widespread, actions aiming at the restoration of native species populations within their indigenous range still lack a clear definition of success, given the high degree of variability in species needs. In this sense, to understand and manage the mechanisms that lead to reintroduction or reinforcement failures may be a more feasible alternative to ensure conservation objectives. In this study, we aimed to systematize the main drivers that can negatively impact bird population restoration according to researchers and practitioners. Thus, a systematic review was performed in peer-reviewed journals, identifying 75 attempts, conducted from 1990 to 2016, in 30 countries involving 64 bird species and subspecies. Thirteen drivers that negatively impact reintroduction or reinforcement attempts were identified, where predation, unexpected dispersal movement and diseases were the main factors. We believe that if these drivers were prioritized during pre-release planning and post-release monitoring, restoration population programs would be more successful.

Keywords:
Avian
Predation
Reinforcement
Reintroduction
Systematic review
Threatened species
(0.08MB).
Full Text
Introduction

The IUCN Red List process has been globally applied to reveal the threat degree of species and ecosystems (Mace et al., 2008; IUCN, 2015; Rodríguez et al., 2015). To reverse or even mitigate the threat degree, different conservation strategies have been executed (Tulloch et al., 2015), and population restoration stands out as one of the most widespread (Soorae, 2013). According to the IUCN (2013), population restoration is any intentional movement (translocation) and release of a living organism to within its indigenous range. It comprises two activities: reinforcement and reintroduction, that differ in the presence or absence of conspecific populations before release, and not specifically in management techniques (IUCN, 2013; Seddon et al., 2014). Reinforcement, also known as augmentation, supplementation, re-stocking, or enhancement (plants only), is the release of an organism into an existing population of conspecifics (IUCN, 2013; Hardouin et al., 2014), aiming to enhance population viability by increasing population size, genetic diversity, or representation of specific demographic groups or stages (Bretagnolle and Inchausti, 2005; Champagnon et al., 2012; IUCN, 2013). Reintroduction, on the other hand, is the release of an organism inside the indigenous range from which it has disappeared (Armstrong and Seddon, 2007; IUCN, 2013). Its main objective is to re-establish a viable population of the focal species within its indigenous range, fulfilling a role as a keystone component of an ecosystem, and/or create the public and political support necessary to undertake habitat restoration or to put species protection measures in place (Seddon, 1999; Lipsey and Child, 2007). However, while conceptually well established, there is no consensus on how to measure the success of reintroduction or reinforcement efforts (Seddon, 1999; Haskins, 2015; Robert et al., 2015).

Several methodological proposals to evaluate population restoration are available worldwide (Soorae, 2013). As a basic metric of success, some authors consider first-year survival rates within the normal range reported for avian fledglings to be indicative of a successful release (White et al., 2005). In other studies, researchers regard survival and reproduction as the two most fundamental parameters in terms of population establishment and persistence, defining ‘success’ as those translocations in which first-year survival was >0.50 (i.e. survival>mortality) and in which released birds later bred with conspecifics, either captive-reared or wild (White et al., 2012). Moreover, other authors also believe that three objectives should be achieved in an effort to restore a population: (i) establishment: the survival of the release generation; (ii) growth: breeding by the release generation and their offspring; and, (iii) regulation: persistence of the re-established population (Seddon, 1999; Sarrazin, 2007; Miller et al., 2014). For these authors, although the establishment and growth phases are necessary for success, they do not provide accurate estimates of the long-term viability of a reintroduced population. Thus, the ultimate success criteria should focus on the regulation phase, during which population dynamics critically depend on the interactions among species and habitat characteristics, in order to draw reliable conclusions about long-term population dynamics (Armstrong and Reynolds, 2012).

To contribute to the development of the science of reintroduction biology, Robert et al. (2015) proposed a method that assesses if the viability of reintroduced populations could be evaluated using the same criteria as for remnant populations, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria. For this, two postulates were proposed: (i) that successful reintroduction programs should produce viable populations and (ii) that reliable assessments of ultimate success require that populations reach their regulation phase (Robert et al., 2015). However, Haskins (2015) point out fragilities in this methodology, since the time and resources required cannot keep pace with the ever-growing demand for conservation action, particularly under a rapidly changing climate, and the standardized definition of reintroduction success is nearly impossible to obtain, due to the high degree of variability in species needs when it comes to reintroduction success criteria.

Despite recent efforts to develop the science of reintroduction biology, many issues are still the subject of inconclusive debate (White et al., 2012; Robert et al., 2015), and thus, pointing out reintroduction failures seems to be an easier and more viable alternative to evaluate reintroduction success (Robert et al., 2015). The environmental drivers that can negatively impact population restoration programs are listed through a conceptual model presented herein (see Supplementary Material – S.1). Intrinsic factors evidence interactions among reintroduced and resident populations, and extrinsic factors are related to other species or environment. Either isolated or taken together, these drivers may harm a reintroduced population by hampering its establishment, growth or regulation, or destabilize resident populations and ecological processes. Thus, in order to better understand these failure dynamics and be able to better plan prevention and control actions, we aimed herein to systematize the main drivers that can negatively impact the bird population restoration programs according to researchers and practitioners. In addition, the conservation status of the bird species and countries with the most attempts in population restoration were listed and evaluated.

Methods

Our search was performed on the online database ISI Web of Knowledge (www.isiknowledge.com) to identify papers published from 1990 to 2016 that report bird reintroduction or reinforcement attempts. Birds were chosen because, alongside mammals, this group presents the most available data (Champagnon et al., 2012; Seddon et al., 2014), probably due to their social image (Bajomi et al., 2010) or because they are relatively easily studied and rapid results can be obtained (Armstrong and Seddon, 2011). For the literature search, the terms “reintroduction” OR “reinforcement” AND “bird” OR “avian” were used. However, to fulfill the purposes of the study and better detail the presentation of the methods, experimental design and results, paper selection was restricted. Thus, the analysis conducted herein did not consider: (i) accidental translocations or other conservation translocation initiatives, such as Conservation Introduction (Assisted Colonisation or Ecological Replacement) (see IUCN, 2013); (ii) newsletter articles, published abstracts, books, book chapters, technical reports or other gray literature; (iii) strictly theoretical studies, such as population modeling; and, (iv) studies without direct results on reintroduction/reinforcement attempts or related to other fields of science in which these terms have another meaning (e.g. molecular biology).

In the final database, population restoration attempts were individualized according to species, country and year of release. Each species was featured according to its taxonomic family and conservation status (IUCN, 2017). Studies involving more than one species in a single article were individualized and considered as a unique restoration attempt (e.g. Miskelly et al., 2009), and identical restoration efforts presented in more than one article were grouped (e.g. Bernardo et al., 2011a,b). Altogether, 75 restoration efforts were identified which, although not resulting in an exhaustive bibliographical review, since researchers are more likely to report a “success” (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2000), represent a reliable synthesis of peer-reviewed literature, less prone to bias and with quality assured information (Bajomi et al., 2010).

Each study was also categorized according to drivers that can negatively impact population restoration. These drivers were extracted from issues that researchers addressed in their research, reflecting their theoretical perspectives and problems they thought were relevant to the study. In sum, we identified: (i) environmental causes; (ii) anthropogenic causes; and (iii) unknown causes. Anthropogenic causes are those specifically related to failures during the pre and post-release management. Environmental causes are those who suffer the action of biotic components (e.g. predation, intra or interspecific competition or diseases), abiotic components (e.g. low environmental quality and extreme weather), or are the result of individual responses to release events or applied management (e.g. non-establishment of an animal in the release site, low population size, genetic vulnerability, reproductive limitation, nest abandonment or infanticide-chick cannibalism) (see Supplementary Material – S.1). The results were presented using tables and histograms that illustrate some of the most broad prevalent trends apparent in the data (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2000). Thus, the most common species in this regard and their threat degree, the countries with the most restoration attempts and the main failures drivers were identified.

Results

According to the review conducted herein, from 1990 to 2016, 64 bird species and subspecies across 33 different families were used in reintroduction/reinforcement attempts in 30 countries (see Supplementary Material – S.2). The most common species were Grus americana (5 instances) and Notiomystis cincta (3), and the most frequent families were Procellariidae (8) and Gruidae (5). Regarding conservation status, 45% of the species were classified as being of Least Concern, 16% as Vulnerable, 14% as Critically Endangered and 13% as Endangered (Fig. 1). The highest number of studies was carried out in New Zealand (22 instances), USA (16), Spain (4) and Japan (4) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.
(0.1MB).

IUCN Red List status for all the bird species worldwide (BirdLife International, 2017) and for all bird species compiled in this study. *Other categories: extinct, extinct in the wild and Data Deficient.

Fig. 2.
(0.41MB).

Bird population restoration attempts from 1990 to 2016.

Thirteen drivers that may negatively impact reintroduction or reinforcement attempts were pointed out by researchers and practitioners in their studies (Table 1). Most studies presented two or more negative drivers, although some reports did not point out any obstacle. Considering only environmental causes, predation was the greatest impact (27 instances), followed by unexpected dispersal movement (24) and diseases (12). The most important anthropogenic causes were negative human interference (13 instances) (e.g. hunting, trampling or poisoning), pre-release management (12) (e.g. unexpected death during transport or inappropriate animal handling) and failures in post-release management (8) (e.g. lack of shelter or supplementary feeding). Unknown causes of mortality were identified in 18 studies.

Table 1.

Drivers reported as relevant by researchers and practitioners in bird population restoration programs. These were grouped as: (a) environmental; (b) anthropogenic; and (c) unknown.

Causes  Specific drivers  References  Sum of instances 
Environmental  Predation  Carrlson et al. (2014), VanderWerf et al. (2014), White et al. (2005), Pérez et al. (2004), Lovegrove (1996)  27  36 
  Unexpected dispersal movement  Kesler et al. (2012), Dickens et al. (2009), Groombridge et al. (2004), Armstrong (1995)  24  32 
  Diseases  Candelora et al. (2010), Work et al. (2000)  12  16 
  Population size  Jamieson (2011), Pereira and Wajntal (1999), Clarke and Schedvin (1997)  11 
  Unexpected behavioral responses  Bennett et al. (2012), Miskelly et al. (2009) 
  Genetic vulnerability  Brekke et al. (2010), Pereira and Wajntal (1999) 
  Low environmental quality  Pérez et al. (2011), Castro et al. (2004) 
  Reproductive limitation  Deguchi et al. (2013), Moore et al. (2012) 
  Intra or interspecific competition  Hardouin et al. (2014), Bosé and Sarrazin (2007), Clarke and Schedvin (1997) 
  Extreme weather  Hardouin et al. (2014), Deguchi et al. (2012) 
Anthropogenic  Negative human interference  Rideout et al. (2012), Margalida et al. (2008), Meek et al. (2003)  13  17 
  Pre-release management  Deguchi et al. (2013), Deguchi et al. (2012), Dickens et al. (2009)  12  16 
  Post-release management  Yu et al. (2015), Miskelly et al. (2009)  11 
UnknownMeek et al. (2003), Armstrong et al. (2013), Imlay et al. (2010)  18  24 
Discussion

In our study, predation was reported as the most common cause of failure for bird restoration (e.g. Pérez et al., 2004; Carrlson et al., 2014), in the same way that it seems to be the major problem in the population restoration of other animal groups (Short et al., 1991; Moseby et al., 2011). For birds, high predation threats significantly decrease overall success rates by reducing both post-release survival and the probability of subsequent breeding by released birds (White et al., 2012). Thus, in order to minimize predation impacts, some biologists suggest anti-predator behavioral training during the pre-release phase (White et al., 2005; Sanz and Grajal, 1998), or even predator removal by culling or translocation (Smith et al., 2010). Predator impact is even more worrying on islands, such as Hawaii (VanderWerf et al., 2014), or island countries, such as New Zealand (Miskelly et al., 2009), where the return of native species to the original range is only possible after the total eradication these predators/competitors (Leech et al., 2007; Richardson et al., 2013). For example, eight Procellariidae species, the family best represented in this study, could only be reintroduced to islands in New Zealand after the complete eradication of introduced mammals, such as cats (Felis catus) and rats (Rattus exulans) (Miskelly et al., 2009).

Unexpected dispersal movement of released individuals was another important failure driver highlighted herein. This driver decreases the possibility of the population establishment post-release (Dickens et al., 2009), mainly owing to either chance fates of those individuals (demographic stochasticity) and to low reproduction or survival rates of the remaining population, due to low densities – Allee effects (Caughley, 1994; Armstrong and Wittmer, 2011). In our study, we observed one critical reintroduction attempt involving Tuamotu kingfishers (Todiramphus gambieri gertrudae), where all animals returned to the donor area (Kesler et al., 2012). However, in contrast, another study with Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus) revealed that restricted dispersal affected territory occupancy patterns (Burgess et al., 2008). For Armstrong et al. (2013), post-release dispersal is a key factor affecting the success of ecological restoration projects, and therefore, the failure risk should be potentially reduced by managing dispersal, by translocating more animals to compensate for dispersal, or by avoiding release in areas prone to dispersal.

Pathologies, also highlighted herein, have always been a great concern for professionals involved in population restoration efforts, either due the transmitted diseases among released and resident populations or to interspecific forms (Candelora et al., 2010). Aspergillosis (Castro et al., 2004), poxviruses (Krone et al., 2004), and toxoplasmosis (Work et al., 2000) were some of the most commonly mentioned diseases. However, the majority of population restoration attempts around the world have applied intense veterinary protocols during the pre-release phase (e.g. Brightsmith et al., 2005; Bernardo et al., 2011a; Keller and Hartup, 2013), thus inhibiting disease transmission risks.

The Whooping Crane (Grus americana), an endangered North American migratory bird since 1967, was the most common species used in the restoration actions summarized herein. However, despite several reintroduction activities and conservation projects, the survival of this species is still worrying, mainly due to its low reproductive success, predation, and trauma caused by firearms or collisions (Cole et al., 2009; Converse et al., 2013). Overall, although the threat rate of the species analyzed herein was higher than the baseline rate of all known species from all threat categories (Fig. 1), most studies focused on bird species categorized as “Least Concern” (e.g. Leech et al., 2007; Dickens et al., 2009; Bennett et al., 2012). These data corroborate the study by Seddon et al. (2005), who observed that reintroduction project bias for both mammals and birds was not related to differences between orders regarding vulnerability to threat. In general, most bird species were released in areas where the original population still exists (reinforcement), usually aiming to evaluate different release methods through the surrogate species of the actual target species (Hardouin et al., 2014), or in sites where the target species had become locally extinct (e.g. Jamieson, 2011; Slater and Altman, 2011; Estrada, 2014). Moreover, in many tropical countries, such as Brazil, it is also common that trafficked animals return to capture areas after being seized by the authorities (Destro et al., 2012). Thus, the selection of candidates for reintroduction programmes does not only consider the threat degree of the species, but also national priorities, funding availability, and local community support over global conservation status (Seddon et al., 2005).

Regardless of environmental drivers that have been the main cause for reintroduction/reinforcement failures, some studies point out that direct or indirect human impact may be primarily responsible for the high mortality of released birds (Margalida et al., 2008; Rideout et al., 2012). Among the negative human impacts observed herein, the following are noteworthy: poisoning (Margalida et al., 2008; Rideout et al., 2012), hunting (Pérez et al., 2004), trauma and death caused by collision with vehicles or power infrastructures (Margalida et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2011; Keller and Hartup, 2013) and litter ingestion (Rideout et al., 2012). On the other hand, some species such Lesser Kestrels (Falco naumanni), one of the most endangered birds in Europe, may be favored by urbanization and human influence because they nest in crevices or cavities of farm buildings, old churches or castles (Pérez et al., 2011).

Although widely implemented worldwide, reintroduction or reinforcement actions carried out in island countries, such as New Zealand (Miskelly et al., 2009; Jamieson, 2011; Richardson et al., 2013) and other territories bordered by the sea, like Hawaii (Groombridge et al., 2004; VanderWerf et al., 2014), are again noteworthy, since they were the major focus of the studies analyzed herein. In these areas where natural resources are limited, certain environmental management measures are frequently performed before reintroduction efforts, such as habitat restoration and enrichment (Reynolds et al., 2008; Endo and Nagata, 2013), and control of exotic species (Groombridge et al., 2004). However, as they are considered dynamic processes modeled by intrinsic and extrinsic factors, release plans must be even more carefully planned out (Groombridge et al., 2004), requiring researchers and practitioners to recognize poor performance caused by internal weaknesses or other causes, so they can take remedial steps (Clark and Westrum, 1989). Furthermore, considering that only three of the 10 countries with the largest numbers of reintroduction/reinforcement efforts (Fig. 2) were listed among the 17 most megadiverse countries in the world (Mittermeier et al., 1997), with eight of these belonging to the list of the 15 largest economies (IMF, 2016), we can infer that population restoration efforts are concentrated in rich countries, instead of more megadiverse nations.

Population restoration is a long-standing practice (Jørgensen, 2013) and appears to be more successful when the source population is wild, when a large number of specimens is released, and when the cause of original decline was previously removed (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2000). However, its success rate is often overestimated, since successful projects are more likely to be published than failed projects or those with uncertain outcomes (Miller et al., 2014). In fact, causes for restoration failures are difficult to evaluate due to lack of monitoring (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2000), although an understanding of the frequency and causes of restoration failures is valuable for reintroduction biology and may be a singular way to understand the dynamics involved in population restoration actions (Miller et al., 2014). Herein, even though some species and restoration efforts have not been evaluated due to search criteria used, we have made an important contribution to the reintroduction biology, because we summarized the main failure drivers involved in bird population restoration attempts. Because of its generality, our review may also be applied in a wide variety of other studies, since, independent of the chosen bird species, many programmatic similarities among these animals and their conservation programs are noted (Clark and Westrum, 1989). Thus, we stimulate researchers and practitioners to predict these failure drivers during pre-release planning and, subsequently, evaluate them in the post-release monitoring stages, in order to better understand the actual problems inherent to population restoration programs.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA) for supporting our research, as well as anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions on previous versions of this manuscript. LCT and PDMJ also thank the support provided by CNPq Productivity.

Appendix A
Supplementary data

The following are the supplementary data to this article:

References
[Armstrong, 1995]
D.P. Armstrong
Effects of familiarity on the outcome of translocations, II: A test using New Zealand Robins
Biol. Conserv., 71 (1995), pp. 281-288
[Armstrong et al., 2013]
D.P. Armstrong,N. McArthur,S. Govella,K. Morgan,R. Johnston,N. Gorman,R. Pike,Y. Richard
Using radio-tracking data to predict post-release establishment in reintroductions to habitat fragments
Biol. Conserv., 168 (2013), pp. 152-160
[Armstrong and Reynolds, 2012]
D.P. Armstrong,M.H. Reynolds
Modelling reintroduced populations: the state of the art and future directions
Modelling Reintroduced Populations: The State of the Art and Future Directions, pp. 165-222
[Armstrong and Seddon, 2007]
D.P. Armstrong,P.J. Seddon
Directions in reintroduction biology
Trends Ecol. Evol., 23 (2007), pp. 20-25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.003
[Armstrong and Seddon, 2011]
D.P. Armstrong,P.J. Seddon
Making inferences from the reintroduction literature: a response to Bajomi et al.
Oryx, 45 (2011), pp. 18
[Armstrong and Wittmer, 2011]
D.P. Armstrong,H.U. Wittmer
Incorporating Allee effects into reintroduction strategies
Ecol. Res., 26 (2011), pp. 687-695
[Bajomi et al., 2010]
B. Bajomi,A.S. Pullin,G.B. Stewart,A. Takács-Sánta
Bias and dispersal in the animal reintroduction literature
Oryx, 44 (2010), pp. 358-365
[Bennett et al., 2012]
V.A. Bennett,V.A.J. Doerr,E.D. Doerr,A.D. Manning,D.B. Lindenmayer,H.-J. Yoon
Habitat selection and post-release movement of reintroduced Brown Treecreeper individuals in restored temperate woodland
[Bernardo et al., 2011a]
C.S.S. Bernardo,H. Lloyd,F. Olmos,L.F. Cancian,M. Galetti
Using post-release monitoring data to optimize avian reintroduction programs: a 2-year case study from the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest
Anim. Conserv., 14 (2011), pp. 676-686
[Bernardo et al., 2011b]
C.S.S. Bernardo,H. Lloyd,N. Bayly,M. Galetti
Modelling post-release survival of reintroduced Red-billed Curassows Crax blumenbachii
Ibis, 153 (2011), pp. 562-572
[BirdLife International, 2017]
BirdLife International
One in Eight of all Bird Species is Threatened with Global Extinction
[Bosé and Sarrazin, 2007]
M. Bosé,F. Sarrazin
Competitive behaviour and feeding rate in a reintroduced population of Griffon Vultures Gyps fulvus
Ibis, 149 (2007), pp. 490-501
[Brekke et al., 2010]
P. Brekke,P.M. Bennett,J. Wang,N. Pettorelli,J.G. Ewen
Sensitive males: inbreeding depression in an endangered bird
Proc. R. Soc. B, 277 (2010), pp. 3677-3684 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1144
[Bretagnolle and Inchausti, 2005]
V. Bretagnolle,P. Inchausti
Modelling population reinforcement at a large spatial scale as a conservation strategy for the declining little bustard (Tetrax tetrax) in agricultural habitats
Anim. Conserv., 8 (2005), pp. 59-68
[Brightsmith et al., 2005]
D. Brightsmith,J.H.A. del Campo,J. Boyd,M. Frisius,R. Frisius,D. Janik,F. Guillen
The use of hand-raised psittacines for reintroduction: a case study of scarlet macaws (Ara macao) in Peru and Costa Rica
Biol. Conserv., 121 (2005), pp. 465-472
[Burgess et al., 2008]
M.D. Burgess,M.A.C. Nicoll,C.G. Jones,K. Norris
Restricted dispersal reduces the strength of spatial density dependence in a tropical bird population
Proc. R. Soc. B, 275 (2008), pp. 1209-1216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1751
[Candelora et al., 2010]
K.L. Candelora,M.G. Spalding,H.S. Sellers
Survey for antibodies to infectious bursal disease virus serotype 2 in wild turkeys and Sandhill Cranes of Florida, USA
J. Wildl. Dis., 46 (2010), pp. 742-752 http://dx.doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-46.3.742
[Carrlson et al., 2014]
K.M. Carrlson,D.C. Kesler,T.R. Thompson
Survival and habitat use in translocated and resident greater prairie-chickens
J. Nat. Conserv., 22 (2014), pp. 405-412
[Castro et al., 2004]
I. Castro,K. Mason,D. Armstrong,D. Lambert
Effect of extra-pair paternity on effective population size in a reintroduced population of the endangered hihi, and potential for behavioural management
Conserv. Genet., 5 (2004), pp. 381-393
[Caughley, 1994]
G. Caughley
Directions in conservation biology
J. Anim. Ecol., 63 (1994), pp. 215-244
[Champagnon et al., 2012]
J. Champagnon,J. Elmbergd,M. Guillemaina,M. Gauthier-Clercb,J.-D. Lebretonc
Conspecifics can be aliens too: a review of effects of restocking practices in vertebrates
J. Nat. Conserv., 20 (2012), pp. 231-241
[Clarke and Schedvin, 1997]
M.F. Clarke,N. Schedvin
An experimental study of the translocation of Noisy Miners Manorina melanocephala and difficulties associated with dispersal
Biol. Conserv., 80 (1997), pp. 161-167
[Clark and Westrum, 1989]
T.W. Clark,R. Westrum
High-performance teams in wildlife conservation: a species reintroduction and recovery example
Environ. Manag., 13 (1989), pp. 663-670
[Cole et al., 2009]
G.A. Cole,N.J. Thomas,M. Spalding,R. Stroud,R.P. Urbanek,B.K. Hartup
Postmortem evaluation of reintroduced migratory whooping cranes in eastern North America
J. Wildl. Dis., 45 (2009), pp. 29-40 http://dx.doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-45.1.29
[Converse et al., 2013]
S.J. Converse,J.A. Royle,P.H. Adler,R.P. Urbanek,J.A. Barzen
A hierarchical nest survival model integrating incomplete temporally varying covariates
Ecol. Evol., 3 (2013), pp. 4439-4447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.822
[Deguchi et al., 2012]
T. Deguchi,J. Jacobs,T. Harada,L. Perriman,Y. Watanabe,F. Sato,N. Nakamura,K. Ozaki,G. Balogh
Translocation and hand-rearing techniques for establishing a colony of threatened albatross
Bird Conserv. Int., 22 (2012), pp. 66-81
[Deguchi et al., 2013]
T. Deguchi,R.M. Suryan,K. Ozaki,J.F. Jacobs,F. Sato,N. Nakamura,G.R. Balogh
Translocation and hand-rearing of the short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus: early indicators of success for species conservation and island restoration
Oryx, 48 (2013), pp. 195-203
[Destro et al., 2012]
G.F.G. Destro,T.L. Pimentel,R.M. Sabaini,R.C. Borges,R. Barreto
Efforts to combat wild animals trafficking in Brazil
[Dickens et al., 2009]
M.J. Dickens,D.J. Delehanty,J.M. Reed,L.M. Romero
What happens to translocated game birds that ‘disappear’?
Anim. Conserv., 12 (2009), pp. 418-425
[Endo and Nagata, 2013]
C. Endo,H. Nagata
Seasonal changes of foraging habitats and prey species in the Japanese crested ibis Nipponia nippon reintroduced on Sado Island, Japan
Bird Conserv. Int., 23 (2013), pp. 445-453
[Estrada, 2014]
A. Estrada
Reintroduction of the scarlet macaw (Ara macao cyanoptera) in the tropical rainforests of Palenque, Mexico: project design and first year progress
Tropical Conserv. Sci., 7 (2014), pp. 342-364
[Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2000]
J. Fischer,D.B. Lindenmayer
An assessment of the published results of animal relocations
Biol. Conserv., 96 (2000), pp. 1-11
[Groombridge et al., 2004]
J.J. Groombridge,J.G. Massey,J.C. Bruch,T. Malcolm,C.N. Brosius,M.M. Okada,B. Sparklin,J.S. Fretz,E.A. VanderWerf
An attempt to recover the Po’ouli by translocation and an appraisal of recovery strategy for bird species of extreme rarity
Biol. Conserv., 118 (2004), pp. 365-375
[Hardouin et al., 2014]
L.A. Hardouin,A. Robert,M. Nevoux,O. Gimenez,F. Lacroix,Y. Hingrat
Meteorological conditions influence short-term survival and dispersal in a reinforced bird population
J. Appl. Ecol., 51 (2014), pp. 1494-1503
[Haskins, 2015]
K.E. Haskins
Alternative perspectives on reintroduction success
Anim. Conserv., 18 (2015), pp. 409-410
[IMF, 2016]
IMF
International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook Database
(2016)
http://www.imf.org/ (accessed 13.06.17)
[Imlay et al., 2010]
T.I. Imlay,J.F. Crowley,A.M. Argue,J.C. Steiner,D.R. Norris,B.J.M. Stutchbury
Survival, dispersal and early migration movements of captive-bred juvenile eastern loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus migrans)
Biol. Conserv., 143 (2010), pp. 2578-2582
[IUCN, 2013]
IUCN
Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0
[IUCN, 2015]
IUCN
Guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 1.0,
[IUCN, 2017]
IUCN
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017.1
(2017)
http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed 17.01.17)
[Jamieson, 2011]
I.G. Jamieson
Founder effects, inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity in four avian reintroduction programs
Conserv. Biol., 25 (2011), pp. 115-123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01574.x
[Jørgensen, 2013]
D. Jørgensen
Reintroduction and de-extinction
BioScience, 63 (2013), pp. 719-720
[Keller and Hartup, 2013]
D.L. Keller,B.K. Hartup
Reintroduction medicine: whooping cranes in Wisconsin
Zoo Biol., 32 (2013), pp. 600-607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21097
[Kesler et al., 2012]
D.C. Kesler,A.S. Cox,G. Albar,A. Gouni,J. Mejeur,C. Plassé
Translocation of Tuamotu kingfishers, postrelease exploratory behavior, and harvest effects on the donor population
Pac. Sci., 66 (2012), pp. 467-480
[Krone et al., 2004]
O. Krone,S. Essbauer,G. Wibbelt,G. Isa,M. Rudolph,R.E. Gough
Avipoxvirus infection in peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) from a reintroduction programme in Germany
Vet. Rec., 154 (2004), pp. 110-113
[Leech et al., 2007]
T.J. Leech,E. Craig,B. Beaven,D.K. Mitchell,P.J. Seddon
Reintroduction of rifleman Acanthisitta chloris to Ulva Island, New Zealand: evaluation of techniques and population persistence
Oryx, 41 (2007), pp. 369-375
[Lipsey and Child, 2007]
M.K. Lipsey,M.F. Child
Combining the fields of reintroduction biology and restoration ecology
Conserv. Biol., 21 (2007), pp. 1387-1388 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00806.x
[Lovegrove, 1996]
T.G. Lovegrove
Island releases of Saddlebacks Philesturnus carunculatus in New Zealand
Biol. Conserv., 77 (1996), pp. 151-157
[Mace et al., 2008]
G.M. Mace,N.J. Collar,K.J. Gaston,C. Hilton-Taylor,H.R. Akçakaya,N. Leader-Williams,E.J. Milner-Gulland,S.N. Stuart
Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species
Conserv. Biol., 22 (2008), pp. 1424-1442 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x
[Margalida et al., 2008]
A. Margalida,R. Heredia,M. Razin,M. Hernandez
Sources of variation in mortality of the bearded vulture Gypaetus barbatus in Europe
Bird Conserv. Int., 18 (2008), pp. 1-10
[Meek et al., 2003]
W.R. Meek,P.J. Burman,M. Nowakowskic,T.H. Sparks,N.J. Burman
Barn owl release in lowland southern England: a twenty-one year study
Biol. Conserv., 109 (2003), pp. 271-282
[Miller et al., 2014]
K.A. Miller,T.P. Bell,J.M. Germano
Understanding publication bias in reintroduction biology by assessing translocations of New Zealand's herpetofauna
Conserv. Biol., 28 (2014), pp. 1045-1056 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12254
[Miskelly et al., 2009]
C.M. Miskelly,G.A. Taylor,H. Gummer,R. Williams
Translocations of eight species of burrow-nesting seabirds (genera Pterodroma, Pelecanoides, Pachyptila and Puffinus: Family Procellariidae)
Biol. Conserv., 142 (2009), pp. 1965-1980
[Mitchell et al., 2011]
A.M. Mitchell,T.I. Wellicome,D. Brodie,K.M. Cheng
Captive-reared burrowing owls show higher site-affinity, survival, and reproductive performance when reintroduced using a soft-release
Biol. Conserv., 144 (2011), pp. 1382-1391
[Mittermeier et al., 1997]
Megadiversity. Earth's Biologically Wealthiest Nations,
[Moore et al., 2012]
C.T. Moore,S.J. Converse,M.J. Folk,M.C. Runge,S.A. Nesbitt
Evaluating release alternatives for a long-lived bird species under uncertainty about long-term demographic rates
J. Ornithol., 152 (2012), pp. S339-S353
[Moseby et al., 2011]
K.E. Moseby,J.L. Read,D.C. Paton,P. Copley,B.M. Hill,H.A. Crisp
Predation determines the outcome of 10 reintroduction attempts in arid South Australia
Biol. Conserv., 144 (2011), pp. 2863-2872
[Pereira and Wajntal, 1999]
S.L. Pereira,A. Wajntal
Reintroduction of guans of the genus Penelope (Cracidae, Aves) in reforested areas in Brazil: assessment by DNA fingerprinting
Biol. Conserv., 87 (1999), pp. 31-38
[Pérez et al., 2004]
J.A. Pérez,M.E. Alonso,V.R. Gaudioso,J.A. Olmedo,C. Díez,D. Bartolomé
Use of radiotracking techniques to study a summer repopulation with red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa) chicks
Poult. Sci., 83 (2004), pp. 882-888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.6.882
[Pérez et al., 2011]
I. Pérez,J.C. Nogueira,E. Mínguez
Is there enough habitat for reintroduced populations of the Lesser Kestrel? A case study in eastern Spain
Bird Conserv. Int., 21 (2011), pp. 228-239
[Reynolds et al., 2008]
M.H. Reynolds,N.E. Seavy,M.S. Vekasy,J.L. Klavitter,L.P. Laniawe
Translocation and early post-release demography of endangered Laysan teal
Anim. Conserv., 11 (2008), pp. 160-168
[Richardson et al., 2013]
K. Richardson,I.C. Castro,D.H. Brunton,D.P. Armstrong
Not so soft? Delayed release reduces long-term survival in a passerine reintroduction
Oryx, 49 (2013), pp. 535-541
[Rideout et al., 2012]
B.A. Rideout,I. Stalis,R. Papendick,A. Pessier,B. Puschner,M.E. Finkelstein,D.R. Smith,M. Johnson,M. Mace,R. Stroud,J. Brandt,J. Burnett,C. Parish,J. Petterson,C. Witte,C. Stringfield,K. Orr,J. Zuba,M. Wallace,J. Grantham
Patterns of mortality in free-ranging California condors (Gymnogyps californianus)
J. Wildl. Dis., 48 (2012), pp. 95-112 http://dx.doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-48.1.95
[Robert et al., 2015]
A. Robert,B. Colas,I. Guigon,C. Kerbiriou,J.-B. Mihoub,M. Saint-Jalme1,F. Sarrazin
Defining reintroduction success using IUCN criteria for threatened species: a demographic assessment
Anim. Conserv., 18 (2015), pp. 397-406
[Rodríguez et al., 2015]
J.P. Rodríguez,D.A. Keith,K.M. Rodríguez-Clark,N.J. Murray,E. Nicholson,T.J. Regan,R.M. Miller,E.G. Barrow,L.M. Bland,K. Boe,T.M. Brooks,M.A. Oliveira-Miranda,M. Spalding,P. Wit
A practical guide to the application of the IUCN Red List of ecosystems criteria
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 370 (2015), pp. 20140003
[Sanz and Grajal, 1998]
V. Sanz,A. Grajal
Successful reintroduction of captive-raised yellow-shouldered Amazon parrots on Margarita Island, Venezuela
Conserv. Biol., 12 (1998), pp. 430-441
[Sarrazin, 2007]
F. Sarrazin
Introductory remarks: a demographic frame for reintroduction
Ecoscience, 14 (2007), pp. iii-v
[Seddon, 1999]
P.J. Seddon
Persistence without intervention: assessing success in wildlife reintroductions
Trends Ecol. Evol., 14 (1999), pp. 503
[Seddon et al., 2005]
P.J. Seddon,P.S. Soorae,F. Launay
Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects
Anim. Conserv., 8 (2005), pp. 51-58
[Seddon et al., 2014]
P.J. Seddon,C.J. Griffiths,P.S. Soorae,D.P. Armstrong
Reversing defaunation: restoring species in a changing world
Science, 345 (2014), pp. 406-412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1251818
[Short et al., 1991]
J. Short,S.D. Bradshaw,J. Giles,R.I.T. Prince,G.R. Wilson
Reintroduction of macropods (Marsupialia: Macropodoidea) in Australia: a review
Biol. Conserv., 62 (1991), pp. 189-204
[Slater and Altman, 2011]
G.L. Slater,B. Altman
Avian restoration in the prairie-oak ecosystem: a reintroduction case study of western bluebirds to San Juan Island, Washington
Northwest Sci., 85 (2011), pp. 223-232
[Smith et al., 2010]
R.K. Smith,A.S. Pullin,G.B. Stewart,W.J. Sutherland
Effectiveness of predator removal for enhancing bird populations
Conserv. Biol., 24 (2010), pp. 820-829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01421.x
[Soorae, 2013]
Global Re-Introduction Perspectives: Further Case Studies From Around the Globe,
[Tulloch et al., 2015]
A.I. Tulloch,A. Mortelliti,G.M. Kay,D. Florance,D. Lindenmayer
Using empirical models of species colonization under multiple threatening processes to identify complementary threat-mitigation strategies
Conserv. Biol., 30 (2015), pp. 867-882 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12672
[VanderWerf et al., 2014]
E. VanderWerf,L.H. Crampton,J. Diegmann,C.T. Atkinson,D.L. Leonard
Survival estimates of wild and captive-bred released Puaiohi, an endangered Hawaiian thrush
Condor, 116 (2014), pp. 609-618
[White et al., 2005]
T.H. White Jr.,J.A. Collazo,F.J. Vilella
Survival of captive-reared Puerto Rican parrots released in the Caribbean National Forest
Condor, 107 (2005), pp. 424-432
[White et al., 2012]
T.H. White Jr.,N.J. Collar,R.J. Moorhouse,V. Sanz,E.D. Stolen,D.J. Brightsmith
Psittacine reintroductions: common denominators of success
Biol. Conserv., 148 (2012), pp. 106-115
[Work et al., 2000]
T.M. Work,J.G. Massey,B.A. Rideout,C.H. Gardiner,D.B. Ledig,O.C. Kwok,J.P. Dubey
Fatal toxoplasmosis in free-ranging endangered ‘Alala from Hawaii
J. Wildl. Dis., 36 (2000), pp. 205-212 http://dx.doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-36.2.205
[Yu et al., 2015]
X. Yu,X. Li,Z. Huo
Breeding ecology and success of a reintroduced population of the endangered crested ibis Nipponia nippon
Bird Conserv. Int., 25 (2015), pp. 207-219
Copyright © 2018. Associação Brasileira de Ciência Ecológica e Conservação
Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Article options
Tools
Supplemental materials
Cookies policy
To improve our services and products, we use cookies (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.