Материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления пользователям Интернета и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав.
© 2018 - 2025
Journal of Zoological Research Volume 2, Issue 1, 2018, PP 29-46 ISSN 2637-5575
^RYAHWA
PUBLICATIONS
Amphibian Keeper Conservation Breeding Programs
R. K. Browne1, P. Janzen2, M. F. Bagaturov3, D. K. van Houte4
1 Sustainability America. Belize, Corozal District, Sarteneja.
2Zoodirektoren. Germany, 47119 Duisburg, Landwehrstr, 32.
3IUCN/SSC/ Athens Institute for Education and Research/ Zoological Institute RAS, St.Petersburg.
Russia, 199034 St. Petersburg, Universitetskaja emb., 1.
4Umea University. Sweden, 90736 Umeå, SE-901 87.
*Corresponding Author: R. K. Browne, Sustainability America. Belize, Corozal District, Sarteneja. robert.browne@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Nearly 200 amphibian species are in immediate need of conservation breeding programs (CBPs) to prevent their extinction, with up to another 950 species in need in the foreseeable future. In general official amphibian CBPs exclude private keepers from participating with their collections because an assumed inability for keepers to provide sufficient quarantine. Official amphibian CBPs must also have an exit strategy of eventual release thus neglecting the many species that suffer from irretrievable habitat loss. Because of their high cost and other restraints, official amphibian CBPs are mainly supported by zoos, aquaria, and other conservation institutions, and can only currently provide for about 50 species. Private KCBPs could fill the widening gap between the number of currently official CBPs and the number of species critically in need. To elucidate the potential of KCBPs we conducted a global internet survey with responses compared between nations, regions, and these pooled between western and other polities. Keepers showed the expertise and commitment needed to conduct CBPs and overwhelmingly supported KCBPs responsibly managed through their societies. Respondents overall wanted official recognition of KCBPs, and their inclusion in policy development, with a particularly strong feeling of dis-empowerment in other polities. There were also demographic differences in the age of first interest in amphibians, social interactions, information sources, and academic activities. A canvassing of keepers collections in western polities showed that they currently keep and breed a wide range of exotic species. We could find no conclusive evidence that keepers CBPs were more a quarantine security risk than many official CBPs. Therefore, KCBPs can provide a haven for the many species that are neglected by official CBPs, and where official CBPs could focus on their regional species, or in range institutional facilities for exotic species. All CBPs should provide high levels of public engagement.
Keywords: amphibian, threatened species, conservation breeding programs, policy, polities
Introduction
The search for solutions to the amphibian
conservation crisis is far from over with 30% of
species threatened. More than ~200 species are
in immediate need of conservation breeding
programs (CBPs) to prevent their extinction and
to provide for potential translocation,
supplementation, head-starting and re-habitation projects (Johnson, 2016). Besides species in immediate need of CBPs there more than 750 species that may requiring CBPs in the foreseeable future (Ark, 2017a; IUCN, 2017; Zippel et al., 2011). Thirty percent of anurans (frogs and toads), 50% of caudata (salamanders and newts), and 3% of caecilians are listed as threatened (IUCN, 2017). However, the conservation status of many amphibian species, and particularly caecilians (Gower et al., 2013),
cannot be ascertained due to a lack of data (IUCN, 2017). Hundreds of described species, and never described species may already be extinct ().
The Amphibian Ark (AArk, 2017b) was formed
to implement official amphibian CBPs as
defined by the Amphibian Conservation Action
Plan (ACAP; Gascon et al., 2007) and detailed
in Mendelson et al. (2007), and then presented
as a revised web based document (Wren, 2015).
Unfortunately, official CBPs only serve a few
species in need (Bishop et al., 2012; Stuart et
al., 2012). In 2017 there were only 122 species
in official CBPs (AArk, 2017c). Few of these
satisfied AArk mandates regarding founder
numbers, studbook management, captive
population size, reliable reproduction, or an exit strategy (AArk, 2017d). Between 2007 and
Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 • 2018
29
Methods
An Internet based survey of the potential of amphibian KCBPs was conducted through email networks, in English between January and October 2013, and between February and June 2013 using Survey Monkey™. Survey design conformed to Survey Monkey™ best practices (Survey Monkey, 2014) and questions included multiple choices, rating scales, Likert scales and demographic information, which were randomized in order to reduce bias.
Questions investigated the participant’s interest in their societies managing CBPs, and keepers’ facilities, current collections, and success in breeding amphibians. Social and cultural questions included nationality, age, age of first interest in amphibians, information sources, publications, and social networking. Management questions included the need for recognition as official CBPs, participation in policy making, and attitudes toward amphibian harvest, trade, and the sale of surplus amphibians from CBPs (Tabs. 1-11). The order of questions and the order of responses within questions were randomized to minimize bias.
Survey responses were categorized into polities as nations, regions, and pools of western versus
other polities. Western polities were defined by a long history of industrialization, Greco-Roman philosophical traditions, and Judaeo-Christian theological backgrounds. Other polities included all other nations or regions. To provide a perspective of the current capacity of keepers’ collections we canvassed experts, long familiar with keeper collections mainly in western polities and excluding Japan, and tabled the species in keepers collections, their numbers, and those successfully bred. We discuss survey results in respect to politics, policy and management, quarantine, release, harvest from nature, CITES regulations, and studbook management.
Use of statistics
High respondent numbers provide statistical confidence in our survey results (Survey Monkey, 2014). Survey results were analyzed from two perspectives; general questions were by comparison within the total percentage of respondents, and in facilities and husbandry questions by comparison to the total numbers of amphibian keepers. Individual responses were averaged for national or regional polities, and these averages were the primary data for comparison between western and other polities. For the tables a two-sided difference between proportions tests, realized in STATISTICA (Statsoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA).
A difference of 5% between comparisons of general questions in Tables 1-5, 9, 10 and 11 provides a significant statistical difference (P < 0.05). Because of the lower number of keepers than respondents a difference of 10% between comparisons of keeper questions in Tables 6, 7 and 8, provides a significant statistical difference (P < 0.05). For readability in the text we have generally rounded percentages off to five in the tables and text.
Results
There were 350 responses in total with 296 in English and 54 in German. Responses that did not specify nationality and those that only answered the first few questions were excluded. The final analysis consisted of 313 survey responses with 230 from western and 83 from other polities. Half of all respondents were amphibian keepers, however, the percentage was much higher in western polities (61%) than other polities (18%; Tab. 1).
30
Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 •2018
Age of First Interest
Minutes per Day
| making was of lower priority in western (65%) than in other (80%) polities. Of nations, Germany and Russia are the highest (> 80%) priorities, with Australia, UK, and the USA - the lowest (<40%). Receiving financial support for KCBPs was less important to western (55%) than other polities (65%, Tab. 9). |
The provision of internet portals was of higher priority to western (75%) than to other polities (65%). Desire by keepers for official recognition of their CBPs was higher in western (75%) than in other polities (65%). It was lowest in Australia (60%), UK (50%), and Latin America (60%), and highest in Germany (95%) and Russia (>80%). Being included in policy decision
Table9. The percentage of keepers, from western (WP) or other (OP) polities, that considered that keepers CBPs would benefit by the provision of: Internet Portals and Financial Support, and the recognition of keepers CBPs as an “Official” Programs and a role in global decision making concerning amphibian CBPs.
| Polity | Internet Portal | Financial Support | Official Programs | Decision Making |
| WP Mean | 72 | 54 | 75 | 63 |
| WP Range | 40-80 | 30-86 | 50-95 | 35-82 |
| OP Mean | 64 | 66 | 65 | 78 |
| OP Range | 64-65 | 61-73 | 59-86 | 64-86 |
| Overall Mean | 70 | 57 | 72 | 67 |
Respondents from western and other polities would chose species for their CBPs mainly through the managing organization and through
personal contacts, with the species location being of particular importance to other polities (Tab. 10).
Table10. The importance of influences on respondents choice of a target species for their CBP as Other People, Managing Organization, Location, Documentaries-News, Species, News/Reports, and Newsletters. Metrics were very high, high, moderate and low. The percentage of very high plus high responses is shown as a percentage of the number of respondents.
| Polity | Other People | Managing Organization | Location | Documentaries-News | Species | News/ Reports | Newsletters |
| WP Mean | 62 | 62 | 55 | 37 | 45 | 33 | 32 |
| OP Mean | 62 | 63 | 71 | 59 | 36 | 60 | 52 |
| Overall Mean | 62 | 62 | 59 | 43 | 43 | 41 | 37 |
Respondents support for the sale of surplus amphibians from CBPs was much higher in western (70%) than in other polities (30%). Germany (95%) and Russia (100%) most favored sale of surplus amphibians, with Australia (30%) the least in favor. The legal harvest of amphibians was equally favored (65%) between western and other polities, however, was widely variable within western
polities with a range from 40-90%. Participants in Germany (90%) and the UK (80%) were the most supportive and Australia the least (40%). Legal trade was supported more in western (80%) than in other polities (55%), with a high variability of responses in western polities from 30-95%, with Germany (95%) and Russia (90%) most supportive, and with Europe (40%) and Australia (30%) the least supportive (Tab. 11).
34
Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 • 2018
Discussion
Confidence in our survey results is provided through the high number of respondents and through their global representation. Private amphibian keepers were shown to have the expertise, willingness, and facilities to conduct CBPs responsibly managed by their societies. Respondents overall showed a high commitment to amphibian conservation through professional work, volunteering, and donations. Our limited canvassing of species currently in keeper collections showed that keepers globally maintain and breed a wide range of species, and that some Critically Endangered species are already kept and bred in large numbers by private keepers.
Approximately half of amphibian CBPs are supported by zoos and aquaria with the rest mostly in specialist facilities run by governmental or nongovernmental agencies. Institutions in western polities generally prioritise for regional species and can only support a limited number of international CBPs (Harding et al., 2015; Conde et al., 2013). Zoo and aquarium based CBPs for endemic species provide high levels of public engagement, publicity, and co-operative research. Nevertheless, CBPs based in western polities for non-endemic species have also achieved remarkable success in co-operative research, public engagement, publicity, and breeding (Gibson & Buley, 2004; Lentini, 2007; CBSG, 2006; Edmonds et al., 2015). With zoos and aquaria focusing on regional species and supporting international projects, KCBPs in western polities could target the neglected
species mostly from the highly biodiverse regions of other polities, Asia, Africa, and Central and South America.
Official policy excludes KCBPs because of keepers assumed inability to provide sufficient quarantine (AArk, 2017e). However, we found that KCBPs appear to have similar quarantine potential as institutional CBPs, and that quarantine risks exist in some institutional CBPs that are unlikely in KCBPs and vice versa. For example, institutions often house a number of species that could host amphibian pathogens, and rely on husbandry by different keepers, trainees and interns. In contrast, KCBPs can easily provide highly isolated housing and have the devoted care of one keeper thus providing excellent quarantine.
Quarantine considerations also include the possibility of disease transmission between keepers CBPs and other amphibian populations through amphibian transfers, releases, or discharge of waste. In all CBPs amphibians should undergo full pathogen screening, along with appropriate treatment, when first taken into captivity and before transfer from the facility. The discharge of waste from keepers CBPs would normally be into domestic sewerage systems where pathogens would be eliminated. Amphibian pathogens can be also be naturally transmitted through aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, water, and birds (Fisher et al., 2012; Garmyn et al., 2012; McMahon et al., 2013; Patricia et al., 2017). Therefore, the balance between saving of hundreds of species against that of species loss due to highly questionable quarantine issues favors the official endorsement and support of KCBPs. About half of all keepers kept fish which may provide high a quarantine risk; however, terrestrial animals provide no known transmission risk of virulent amphibian pathogens.
Recent publications reflecting official policy have considered that amphibian CBPs should not be undertaken for species where an exit strategy of re-habitation, translocation, or supplementation cannot be anticipated (Bishop et al., 2012; Carrillo et al., 2015; Tapley et al.,
Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 • 2018
35
Conclusion
A global network of KCBPs, managed by their societies could economically save many hundreds of amphibian species from extinction and reduce harvesting pressures on natural populations. Social networks of keepers along with public engagement will help address the declining public interest in conservation and environmental issues and provide a wide range of expertise for policy development. The facilitation of KCBPs must be included into CITES regulations to enable the transport and exchange of listed amphibians. Policies and management plans for KCBPs should be canvassed through the amphibian conservation community for discussion and review to encourage innovative and entrepreneurial approaches to amphibian conservation.
Acknowledgment
We appreciate the contribution of our survey respondents, and the dedication, expertise, time and money put in by amphibian keepers to conserve amphibian species and to build our
37
References
[I] AFA. American Federation of Aviculture. 2015
Available at: http://www.afabirds.org/coopera
tive_breeding.shtml (Accessed August 2018).
[2] AArk. Amphibian Ark. 2017a. Available at: http://www.amphibianark.org/resources/asses sment-results/ (Accessed January 2017).
[3] AArk. Amphibian Ark . Home page. 2017b.
Available at: http://www.amphibianark.org
(Accessed January 2017).
[4] AArk. Amphibian Ark. Progress of programs. 2017c. Available at: http://progress.amphibiana rk.org/progress-of-programs (Accessed January 2017).
[5] AArk. Amphibian Ark. Model programs. 2017d. Available at: http://progress.amphibianark.org /model-programs (Accessed January 2017).
[6] AArk. Amphibian Ark. How You Can Help. 2017e. Available at: http://www.amphibiana rk.org/the-crisis/what-can-i-do-to-help/ (Accessed September 2018).
[7] Amphibia Web. Worldwide Amphibian Declines: How big is the problem, what are the causes and what can be done? 2017. Available at: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/declines. html (Accessed May 2016).
[8] Bagaturov M., Bagaturova A., Berdiev R.
Conservation and captive management of
amphibians and a case study on rhacophorid tree
frogs Rhacophorus orlovi Ziegler & Kohler, 2001
(Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae:
Rhacophorinae): a new approach of keeping “cave dwelling” tree frogs. Terraria, 2014, vol. 51. Amphibienkrise January/February.
[9] Beetz J. L. Role of private owners in the conservation of exotic species. Honors Theses. 2005. Available at: http://digitalcommons.colby .edu/honorstheses/26 (Accessed January 2017).
[10] Bishop P. J., Angulo A., Lewis J. P. , Moore R. D., Rabb G. B., Moreno J. G. The Amphibian Extinction Crisis - what will it take to put the action into the Amphibian Conservation Action Plan? UCN Commissions, 2012, vol. 5, no. 2.
[II] Browne R. K., Li H., Robinson H., Uteshev V.
K., Shishova N. R., McGinnity D., Nofs S.,
Figiel C. R., Mansour N., Lloyd R., Agnew D.,
Carleton C., Gakhova E.N. Reptile and
amphibian conservation through gene banking
and other reproduction technologies. Russian
Journal of Herpetology, 2011, vol. 18, no. 3. pp.
165-174.
38
[12] Cafaro P. , Primack R. Species extinction is a great moral wrong. Biological Conservation, 2013, vol. 170, pp. 1-2.
[13] Campbell L. M. Seeing Red: Inside the science and politics of the IUCN Red List. Conservation and Society, 2012, vol. 10, no 4. pp. 367-380.
[14] Carrillo L., Johnson K., Mendelson III J. R. Principles of program development and management for amphibian conservation captive breeding programs. International Zoo News, 2015, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 96-107.
[15] Carpenter A. I., Dublin H., Lau M., Syed G.,
McKay J. E., Moore R. D. Over-harvesting. In:
Gascon, C. et al. (eds). Amphibian
Conservation Action Plan. Gland/Cambridge: IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, 2007, pp. 26-31.
[16] CBSG. Population and Habitat Viability Analysis for the Puerto Rican Crested Toad FINAL REPORT. 2006. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN.
[17] Clulow J., Clulow S. Cryopreservation and other assisted reproductive technologies for the conservation of threatened amphibians and reptiles: bringing the ARTs up to speed. Reproduction, Fertility and Development. 2016. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RD15466 (Accessed February 2018)
[18] Conde D. A., Colchero F., Gusset M., Pearce-Kelly P. , Byers O., Flesness N., Browne R. K., Jones O. R. Zoos through the lens of the IUCN Red List: A global metapopulation approach to support conservation breeding programs. PLoS ONE, 2013. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1 371/journal.pone.0080311 (Accessed February 2018)
[19] Cooper C.B. Media literacy as a key strategy toward improving public acceptance of climate change science. BioScience, 2011, vol. 61, pp. 231–237.
[20] Dalisay F., Hmielowski J. D., Kushin M. J., Yamamoto M. Social capital and the spiral of silence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2012, vol. 3, pp. 325–345.
[21] Dodd C.K., Seigel R.A. Relocation,
repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: are they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica, 1991, vol. 47, pp. 336–350.
[22] Dicks L. V. , Hodge I., Randall N. P., Scharlemann J. P. W., Siriwardena G. M., Smith H. G., Smith R. K., Sutherland W. J. A Transparent Process for “Evidence-Informed” Policy Making. Conservation Letters, 2014, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 119–125.
[23] Edmonds D., Rakotoarisoa J. C., Rasoanantenaina S., Sam S. S., Soamiarimampionona J., Youssouf E. T., Dolch R., Rabemananjara F., Rabibisoa N., Robsomanitrandrasana E. Captive husbandry,
Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 •2018
Critically Endangered
40
Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 •2018
Endangered
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 • 2018 41
Vulnerable
Calyptocephalella gayi 50+ (1000+) Y N Privates
Oophaga granulifera ? Y N Privates
*Mertensiella
N N
42 Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 •2018
Near Threatened
*Tylototriton 20+
Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 • 2018 43
Least Concern
Agalychnis callidryas
Agalychnis (Pachymedusa) dacnicolor
Cruziohyla calcarifer
Cruziohyla craspedopus
Cochranella granulosa
Hypsiboas picturatus
Adelphobates galactonotus
Ameerega hahneli
Ameerega trivittata
Dendrobates auratus
Dendrobates tinctorius
Dendrobates truncatus
Dendrobates leucomelas
Oophaga pumilio
Oophaga histrionica II 100+
44 Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 •2018
Not Assessed
100+
Citation: R. K. Browne, P. Janzen, M. F. Bagaturov, D. K. van Houte (2018). “Amphibian Keeper Conservation Breeding Programs”. Journal of Zoological Research, 2(1), pp.29-46
Copyright: © 2018 R. K. Browne, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
46 Journal of Zoological Research V2 • I1 •2018
Journal of Zoological Research Volume 2, Issue 1, 2018, PP 29-46 ISSN 2637-5575
^RYAHWA
PUBLICATIONS
Дата: 2019-03-05, просмотров: 288.