Animals that need a captive population

With the failed attempts of establishing a healthy, breeding, population of Sumatran rhinos, I started thinking of animals that desperately need a captive breeding population. What are some animals that need a captive breeding population? I personally think of the walia ibex since there are around 300 left in the wild.

 

Pygmy hog, Ethiopian wolf, wild bactrian camel and saiga to name a few.

 

That just reminded me of this article from the winter edition of the BIAZA magazine - Marc Enderby (a hoofstock keeper from Highland Wildlife Park) writing about the captive care of saiga and the breeding centres for them he visited in Russia and Kazakhstan. He thinks that now is as good a time as any to try and re-establish saiga in Western zoos. I sincerely hope the idea comes to pass.

BIAZA Newsletter | Winter 2018 | Issue 17

 

Countless amphibian species could really benefit from captive populations to prevent total extinction. The same goes for helmeted hornbill, and various neotropical primates.

 

The Vaquita needs one badly. So a lot of island endemic birds.

 

The problem with island endemic birds is that attempts to establish them usually fail - Gough Island Moorhen, Rodrigues Fody, Mauritius Kestrel. There are of course successes, Bali Starling, Hawaiian Goose. The small, obscure and less showy species are unlikely to be established in captivity because they do not make good exhibits.

 

some european rodents like the european hamster there are places in holland that bred these animals to go back in the wild diergaarde blijdorp in rotterdam other species that needs more protection the european harverst mice not on every place butt normaly local common and that begin more less than before butt they are easy to keep and bred much easer than the european hamster

 

I think one of the main groups of animals that would benefit most from captive breeding are small freshwater fishes - obviously programmes have already been set up for several of the extremely range-restricted livebearers and pupfish from Mesoamerica (species like the Potosi pupfish and tequila and butterfly splitfins).

There are a large number of highly-threatened killifishes found in very small ranges threatened by plantations and deforestation in Africa from the genera Aphyosemion, Fundulopanchax and Scriptaphyosemion that would be especially good for captive husbandry on a larger, more organised scale.

As for species that actually need a captive-breeding programme to survive (very different from one that would benefit from one) I would say the Greek ninespine stickleback Pungitius hellenicus is a good candidate. It is Critically Endangered, inhabits an total area of about 24 square kilometres (split between five sites), is threatened by its tiny ranges being used for human domestic water supplying, pollution from roads and drought and also is a very similar species to other sticklebacks that are routinely bred in captivity.

 

There are already good programmes for some pupfishes and goodeid species (splitfins), so the top priority is maintaining healthy populations of those species. I don't disagree about the African killifishes, although there are a multitude of species and races - many of which are staggeringly beautiful. I hadn't heard of your Greek stickleback, but it sounds like a prime candidate. There are also many species of small killifishes from the Mediterranean area and the Middle East, of genera such as Aphanius, which have very restricted ranges: ZSL is working with one or two species, but there could potentially be many more. Another group of fishes with very restricted ranges are the various cave fishes, which could be vulnerable to pollution incidents and changes in river levels. Of course this is also true for cave invertebrates and other creatures, so it is interesting to see the progress being made towards captive breeding of the olm.

 

I guess the kestrel is not such a good example. The captive breeding of this species resulted in a succesfull reintroduction in the wild, so I don't consider it failed. Same for another handfull of species like the pink pigeon.

Furthermore, I don't think island endemics have a higher risk of failure than continental species. As you said, less attractive species often don't establish as well as flashy ones like the bali starling, but I think this has little to do with the taxon at hand being an island endemic. All things considered island endemics might even have a bigger chance of establishing, as they are generally less prone to inbreeding.

 

The wild Mauritius kestrel population is now in decline once more, at least partially due to the detrimental effects of inbreeding following a severe population bottleneck, so it seems to be a fairly good example, all things considered.

Unusual statement about island species being less prone to inbreeding; do you have a source for that, or are you just using the kestrel, pink pigeon and Chatham island black robin etc. to imply that this is true for all island species?

 

It

It can be argued that island species have some resistance to inbreeding, as they are likely to have passed through a genetic bottle neck and out the other side. Island species that could not cope with this process will already have gone extinct.

 

The Mauritius Kestrel has a declining population in the Black River Gorges, south-west of Mauritius, although the reintroduced population in the Eastern Mountains is stable and healthy. Although one can identify probable impacts of inbreeding it is not affecting the species at a population level. The reason for the decline within the south-western population is related to the availability of high quality nest-sites, a problem that is being rectified. It is hoped that this population can be recovered.

The kestrel and Pink Pigeon were recovered by captive breeding on Mauritius and the contributions of collections away from Mauritius has been limited. The zoo population of kestrels died out in part due to a loss of interest in the species, and just not enough investment of effort by the zoo community, and the population of Pink Pigeons has faltered for similar reasons. While zoos can, and will, maintain high profile species (Javan Green Magpie?) there is just not enough capacity for large numbers of species, and the less spectacular are unlikely to command the necessary attention to enable flourishing captive populations to be established long-term. What is the future for captive populations of Meller's Duck and Madagascar Teal.?

 

Attitude of field people responsible for a given species or a reserve means much. Some are quite enthusiastic about making an insurance population. Many are unhappy to the point of letting a species go extinct.

There is nothing about island species which would make them less vulnerable to inbreeding. Few inbred populations become very healthy (while most die out) and this is suspected to be because of purging deleterious alleles. But this applies for mainland species at least as well.

About species, I would suggest West and Central African lions, western giant eland, Javan leopard, western tragopan and several island pigeons. For these at least there are more-the-less guaranteed places in zoos and their husbandry should be very similar to common zoo animals.

 

What zoo enthusiasts want to see in zoos and what the general public want are often very different. It is a priority to learn how to keep and display the less charismatic species. How does the zoo community make, Solenodons, Tooth-billed Pigeons, small skinks, nocturnal frogs and hutias exciting to the man in the street. Until we learn how to do this zoos are always going to concentrate on "spectacular" species.

 

What about Hirola?

 

And the saiga is a unique and weird-looking enough animal that I think a captive population would be really beneficial for awareness and education.

I feel the same way about pangolins. Right now there's an effort to establish a breeding population in US zoos, I really hope it works out. Not just for conservation breeding but because I think captive pangolins would get a lot of attention and interest from visitors. Sandshrew is real, everyone!

 

No, it's actually Sandslash that is based on a pangolin, not Sandshrew. Sandshrew is an armadillo.

 

I tried to argue some of this last night and I think some zoos are lazy about the way they fail to promote lesser known species. When I first visited Chester Zoo in 1980, it had a stall with postcards representing many species. I asked for a postcard of the tuatara. There wasn't one, even though Chester was the only zoo on the British mainland that had tuataras; it still is. I find it strange that zoos don't encourage visitors to see their more unusual species. I was pleased on my last visit to Prague Zoo when there were several signposts pointing towards the gharials. I wonder how many people were encouraged to see 'Cuba's largest land mammal' when this description existed in Colchester Zoo - I hope the Cuban hutia wasn't an anti-climax.
I think one way to interest people in lesser known animals is via films or television programmes. I remember when meerkats were obscure mongooses and I was impressed when a student admitted keeping pet meerkats in Germany. Programmes such as 'Meerkats United' changed all that and it now seems strange to find a zoo that hasn't got meerkats. I wasn't happy to find out how many Australian zoos keep meerkats and how few keep numbats. If meerkats managed to escape from zoos, they could devastate native species.
I doubt if zoos could keep a barrel-eye or spookfish, which was my 'stand out species in Blue Planet 2': blue planet 2 deep sea fish - Google Search. It is an animal that should attract visitors.
There are various ways to promote animals. In 1982, the Komodo dragon enclosure was at the end of a dark corridor, which was a good way to promote it. The solenodon could be promoted by advertising its venomous bite and the tooth-billed pigeon due to its close relationship to the dodo. That wouldn't be difficult to do for zoo staff - a quick Google search should be able to provide interesting information about many species or their relatives. It is up to zoos to promote their species and to encourage people to look at lesser known species, rather than filling up enclosures with ABC animals.

 

This, I believe, is the clincher; if zoos are truly as educational as they claim to be, getting the general public to be interested in and care about species in greatest need of support should be well within their remit and ability.