Good Candidates for New Ex Situ Programs?

[Coelacanth18]

The last sentence of the paper says: ''We took this approach as some extant populations contain a mixture of members of different mtDNA haplogroups and nDNA populations'' - isn't this a suggestion that the populations are admixture and that the few specific haplogroups in some populations are not enough for defining a particular subspecies?

The ''Eastern'' black rhinoceros genetics were more diverse, and diversity decreasing toward endpoints (south-west, south, central, Africa) of distributions of the extant populations in Africa.

That's why I said it would be interesting; I don't know whether the genetic differences are strong enough to warrant separating them as subspecies. As far as I know, there is no baseline standard for delineating subspecies (but if there is, I'd be interested in knowing). I suppose if there isn't, then there would be no need to maintain the current subspecies divisions either.

I don't think the fact that there was admixture is enough on its own to say they are not genetically distinct. For one thing, they say in the paper that park and population management by humans has been the result of some of that mixing. Some is also through "separate" populations being linked together via intermediate populations, creating more of a spectrum than distinct units, but this is also common and doesn't necessarily mean they aren't distinct.

 

[JVM]

One of the key problems is in many cases, the AZA seems intent on focusing on only one or maybe two members of a given group - so as long as there is a Western lowland gorilla SSP, I highly doubt much exploration will go into bringing in other species of gorilla, as some members have brought up. Not that I would be opposed to such a venture!

I recall a Persian leopard (labeled 'Afghanistan leopard') at Lincoln Park Zoo some years ago, but it has been gone for some years. It seems with the focus on Amur and snow leopards there just isn't as much interest in the more distant species.

I know the EZA has an Asiatic lion breeding program and I really think the AZA should re-adopt the species for a new SSP

 

[Zoovolunteer]

For the last few years Bristol has been running a National Collection for various species of Calendula (an annual flower), which has been very successful, and involves coordinating cooperation across the city with various groups from schools to old peoples homes among others, as well as private individuals. It seems to me that the same sort of process might be capable for adaptation to at least some ex-situ programmes for some animals, especially fish, herps, or invertebrates. I believe that this may have been tried in a few cases but I am not sure if there are any active at present.

 

[DesertRhino150]

Some interesting notes from the IUCN Captive Breeding Recommendations:

- A lot of coral species listed on there. This makes sense, because you could hypothetically grow countless colonies in tanks and then transplant them back into their marine environment (assuming of course that ocean acidification and rising sea temperatures are reversed, which is unlikely to happen in the near future).

I know there are projects in both Australia and Hawaii intending to selectively breed corals that are resistant to ocean acidification and warming; certainly in the Australian case they are hopeful to reintroduce these captive-bred corals to bleached areas of the Great Barrier Reef in the next five years.

- There is a suspicious paucity of reptile species, especially considering the high proportion of Asian chelonians that are facing extinction. Ex situ conservation actually seems to work pretty well for turtles and tortoises, since they produce large numbers of offspring, don't take up much space individually, mix well with other species, and individuals can live for very long periods of time.

It does seem that some specialist groups and entire groups of animals have been left out somewhat from this list - certainly the Asian chelonians were recommended by the IUCN for keeping in captivity and also there is a document available from the Small Carnivore Specialist Group that recommends captive propagation for species such as otter civets, aquatic genets and large-spotted civets that aren't mentioned on this list. Cartilaginous fishes also do not get a look in at all.

- No insects on this list at all

There are insects on the list, but only six species that are all either grasshoppers or crickets.

 

[Zoovolunteer]

Considering the number of butterfly houses there are around the world, there is a ready-made potential resource for holders for invertebrate ex-situ programmes.

 

[Jurek7]

Candidates?
Orange-bellied parrot from Tasmania. Just now MRJ on another thread says that Australian project lacks space.

 

[elefante]

One of the key problems is in many cases, the AZA seems intent on focusing on only one or maybe two members of a given group - so as long as there is a Western lowland gorilla SSP, I highly doubt much exploration will go into bringing in other species of gorilla, as some members have brought up. Not that I would be opposed to such a venture!

I recall a Persian leopard (labeled 'Afghanistan leopard') at Lincoln Park Zoo some years ago, but it has been gone for some years. It seems with the focus on Amur and snow leopards there just isn't as much interest in the more distant species.

I know the EZA has an Asiatic lion breeding program and I really think the AZA should re-adopt the species for a new SSP

Is it mostly an issue with space for not keeping these subspecies?

 

[Coelacanth18]

Is it mostly an issue with space for not keeping these subspecies?

To some extent, yes. Europe has a lot more space than the AZA, so they can normally hold more species/subspecies than we can. However, with species like gorillas and lions, the AZA populations are large enough with high enough gene diversity that we could likely accommodate 2 subspecies. So part of the issue is also that zoos aren't interested enough or don't have the resources to take the initiative.

 

[temp]

Comments to some of the fish species mentioned in earlier posts:

1. The European eel was already bred in captivity more than a decade ago by scientists at DTU (Denmark) and is now bred regularly. The problem remains getting the larvae to feed as they have highly specialized and still not fully understood food requirements in the early stages. DTU continues to have the record, which has been pushed repeatedly in the last 10 years, but in general the larvae only survive less than a month after hatching and we're some way from completing the life-cycle. They also initiated and heads the PRO-EEL project, which involves institutes in several countries, including Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Norway and Tunisia. In 2016 DTU opened a major new research institute EEL-HATCH, right next door to Nordsøen Oceanarium in Hirtshals (the two work together), and hopefully this will allow them to complete the life-cycle.

2. Several of the Mekong giants, including the giant pagasius, giant Mekong catfish and giant carp are already bred in captivity in farm-like conditions in their native range (same as e.g., Asian arowana, as well as arapaima in South America). Among semi-famous Mekong species, the most likely extinction is probably the much smaller Siamese tigerfish, which is popularly both in the aquarium trade and as a food fish. Despite a project, this rare species has still not been bred in captive conditions and the future looks bleak.

3. Some of the Southeast Asian peat labyrinth fish (e.g., Betta, Parasphromenus) are already part of projects, but these are largely restricted to private aquarists. This seriously limits their viability and a stronger leadership is likely necessary. Bolton Aquarium (UK) has done a bit of work with Southeast Asian peat species.

There are two other groups that I've mentioned repeatedly before: The first are the Chinese cavefish, which (among cavefish) are both the most diverse and overall the most threatened. The second group are the many rheophilic (living in fast current) species that often are restrictec to a single waterfall or group of waterfalls. Among fish the cichlids and catfish are particularly diverse in this habitat, but there are others, including various inverts (snails, etc). The amount of completed, soon-to-be-completed or planned dams in especially South America, but also Asia and Africa's Congo basin, is astonishing. Combined, we're talking many hundred probable extinctions. As far as I know, the only group that currently has a project (low-level, but still better than nothing) are the Congo basin rheophilic cichlids. The problem with such projects is that they may be never-ending if the only habitat is gone because of a dam. Should we attempt to "save" species that are unlikely to ever be reintroduced back into the wild?

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

To some extent, yes. Europe has a lot more space than the AZA, so they can normally hold more species/subspecies than we can. However, with species like gorillas and lions, the AZA populations are large enough with high enough gene diversity that we could likely accommodate 2 subspecies. So part of the issue is also that zoos aren't interested enough or don't have the resources to take the initiative.

Part of the issue too is that nowadays zoo's don't hire people anymore who go into the jungle to catch a founder population of some gorilla, tiger or elephant (sub)species...

 

[JVM]

Is it mostly an issue with space for not keeping these subspecies?

Space is definitely a consideration, especially with megafauna, but my interpretation has also been that the AZA feels that the time and money dedicated to a species is better spent trying to find captivity-friendly but unique species, rather than introducing subspecies. I know, for example, they have encouraged zoos to phase-out Brazilian/Lowland tapirs and Mountain tapirs, so they could instead focus resources on the Malayan and Baird's tapirs instead. The latter species hasn't bred well in captivity despite being highly endangered, whereas the former isn't considered very threatened at all.

I have mixed thoughts on this as limited resources is always something to keep in mind, but it's widely resulting in most AZA facilities being reduced to the same species. I also think that it can sometimes discourage innovating and preserving species already in captivity.

 

[elefante]

Space is definitely a consideration, especially with megafauna, but my interpretation has also been that the AZA feels that the time and money dedicated to a species is better spent trying to find captivity-friendly but unique species, rather than introducing subspecies. I know, for example, they have encouraged zoos to phase-out Brazilian/Lowland tapirs and Mountain tapirs, so they could instead focus resources on the Malayan and Baird's tapirs instead. The latter species hasn't bred well in captivity despite being highly endangered, whereas the former isn't considered very threatened at all.

I have mixed thoughts on this as limited resources is always something to keep in mind, but it's widely resulting in most AZA facilities being reduced to the same species. I also think that it can sometimes discourage innovating and preserving species already in captivity.

I've said this before, but I think it would be nice if the AZA could invest in more large properties like drive through parks in order to house more of the larger social animals. Maybe less species would have to be phased out.

 

[jibster]

I've said this before, but I think it would be nice if the AZA could invest in more large properties like drive through parks in order to house more of the larger social animals. Maybe less species would have to be phased out.

By AZA, do you really mean individual members of the AZA? The Association itself is not in the position to invest in drive-through parks (or indeed any other form of zoological institution). Some members of the AZA have established drive-through or other types of safari parks, but in many cases, these institutions may not be financially feasible - at least that's how I interpret the large number of private breeding facilities owned or managed by AZA institutions which are open to the public only through limited special tours (if at all). Furthermore, while a proliferation of safari-style parks might allow the keeping of more ungulates, many other species (including many of the most popular zoo species) are not well-suited to such institutions.

As to JVM's argument that the AZA feels it is better to focus on captive-friendly but unique species to the exclusion of subspecies, I would agree to a point - take a look at the TAG-produced documents, especially RCPs, and there are many criteria which are evaluated in determining how to recommend (or discourage) the phasing in (or out) of species or subspecies. Some of these criteria include the success of institutions in the past in keeping and breeding the species, the desirability of the species to AZA institutions (both present and in the future), the efficacy/presence of in situ conservation programs, the presence/absence of the taxon in other managed breeding programs (such as EEPs), and the availability of additional founders to allow for sufficient genetic diversity in the resultant population. In the end though, it is mostly two of these criteria that necessarily result in the reduction of species represented in AZA institutions - available space (which incorporates institutional interest) and the need for a self-sustaining populations. There is simply not enough room, availability, or interest among AZA institutions to allow or justify the establishment of (for one example) SSP programs for leopard subspecies beyond the Amur leopard (although there are other subspecies that could not doubt be successfully managed in captivity). For tapirs, it makes sense that, given the available space for tapirs in AZA collections, the AZA would recommend zoos focus on Malayan and Baird's tapirs - the mountain tapir has not fared as well in captivity, resulting in a population that is too small to be sustainable without the import of a large number of new founder individuals, while the lowland tapir is of lower conservation value and is adequately represented in European collections. Of course, ultimately the AZA and its TAGs only offer recommendations, so no institution is bound to them (hence, the recent news that Brookfield zoo will again exhibit lowland tapir).

I will say that I, too, was at one point dismayed by the seemingly ever-shrinking number of species and subspecies maintained in captivity, but as I've read more and considered it, I no longer disagree with the direction in which the AZA is progressing. Of course, there is a part of me that wishes, for example, that one could still see Persian, Indian, Sri Lankan, North Chinese and Javanese leopards American zoos, I realize the limitations and practicalities that have led to a focus on the Amur (and a small number of African) subspecies.

 

[Dassie rat]

I've said this before, but I think it would be nice if the AZA could invest in more large properties like drive through parks in order to house more of the larger social animals. Maybe less species would have to be phased out.

I agree with this. It would be better to keep large animals in larger enclosures and to keep smaller animals in small zoos where there are problems with space. There should also be restrictions on keeping the same species in collections that are very close to each other. This could help more species being conserved, rather than relatively common species being represented by thousands of individuals.

 

[elefante]

I agree with this. It would be better to keep large animals in larger enclosures and to keep smaller animals in small zoos where there are problems with space. There should also be restrictions on keeping the same species in collections that are very close to each other. This could help more species being conserved, rather than relatively common species being represented by thousands of individuals.

Agreed!

 

[jibster]

I agree with this. It would be better to keep large animals in larger enclosures and to keep smaller animals in small zoos where there are problems with space. There should also be restrictions on keeping the same species in collections that are very close to each other. This could help more species being conserved, rather than relatively common species being represented by thousands of individuals.

From the perspective of someone who wants to see the most possible species maintained in captivity, such restrictions could work. But this ignores animal popularity and the need for relatively large numbers of individuals of many species of conservation interest in order to maintain genetic diversity over the long term (I'm speaking mostly of the United States, which I'm most familiar with, though the principles would hold true in many other places). As a general rule, zoos that lack charismatic megafauna would probably suffer from lower attendance and less financial support. Also, many of the most space-challenged zoological institutions are located in urban areas, closer to many more people - the result of such a policy would be to relegate many of the most popular zoo animals to zoos that are less accessible to population as a whole - not a particularly good result.

 

[Dassie rat]

From the perspective of someone who wants to see the most possible species maintained in captivity, such restrictions could work. But this ignores animal popularity and the need for relatively large numbers of individuals of many species of conservation interest in order to maintain genetic diversity over the long term (I'm speaking mostly of the United States, which I'm most familiar with, though the principles would hold true in many other places). As a general rule, zoos that lack charismatic megafauna would probably suffer from lower attendance and less financial support. Also, many of the most space-challenged zoological institutions are located in urban areas, closer to many more people - the result of such a policy would be to relegate many of the most popular zoo animals to zoos that are less accessible to population as a whole - not a particularly good result.

I think that zoos rely too much on 'animal popularity' as an excuse to reduce the number of species kept in a collection. In my earlier comment, I said that large animals would be kept in larger parks, which would have room for appropriate social groups, rather than keeping single examples of social species. Some animals have become 'charismatic' due to films and TV programmes - I remember when a meerkat was an obscure mongoose and few people were interested in clownfish. I agree that my proposal would mean that some people would have to travel outside their nearest town or city to see some species, but I feel this is better than the idea of each zoo having the same ABC species and these species having increasingly larger enclosures at the expense of more endangered species. One of the commonest questions I have had as a London Zoo volunteer is "Where are the elephants?" Most of the visitors who have asked this question are content that the elephants are far better off at Whipsnade. I expect that Jibster would be against the idea of there being no elephants in London, whereas I am more concerned that some animals I saw at London Zoo years ago are no longer exhibited in Europe. It is important to realise that zoos should be helping to conserve unpopular animals as well as popular ones and that many 'charismatic species' have been saved from extinction and occur in numbers that exceed the level required to maintain genetic diversity; many are not part of any scheme to introduce any of them into wild habitats, even if there are viable areas where they can live.

 

[jibster]

I think that zoos rely too much on 'animal popularity' as an excuse to reduce the number of species kept in a collection. In my earlier comment, I said that large animals would be kept in larger parks, which would have room for appropriate social groups, rather than keeping single examples of social species. Some animals have become 'charismatic' due to films and TV programmes - I remember when a meerkat was an obscure mongoose and few people were interested in clownfish. I agree that my proposal would mean that some people would have to travel outside their nearest town or city to see some species, but I feel this is better than the idea of each zoo having the same ABC species and these species having increasingly larger enclosures at the expense of more endangered species. One of the commonest questions I have had as a London Zoo volunteer is "Where are the elephants?" Most of the visitors who have asked this question are content that the elephants are far better off at Whipsnade. I expect that Jibster would be against the idea of there being no elephants in London, whereas I am more concerned that some animals I saw at London Zoo years ago are no longer exhibited in Europe. It is important to realise that zoos should be helping to conserve unpopular animals as well as popular ones and that many 'charismatic species' have been saved from extinction and occur in numbers that exceed the level required to maintain genetic diversity; many are not part of any scheme to introduce any of them into wild habitats, even if there are viable areas where they can live.

I'm not against London's decision to move its elephants to Whipsnade - far from it. I'm merely stating that for most zoos, the kind of strict reorganization you support (roughly, small species at smaller zoos, larger social species at larger safari parks) may not be financially feasible for zoos in the short or the long term. Imagine that London had not only gotten rid of its elephants, but also giraffes and all of its hoofstock, lions and all other larger social carnivores, larger social primates, etc. - I'd imagine in this type of a situation, many members of the zoo-going public would be less understanding. Again, this has nothing to do with my own personal preference (as I love to see larger social species of mammals kept in the more "natural" settings of safari parks - but I can't imagine a decision to no longer keep any giraffes, zebras, white rhinos, river hippos, or others in smaller zoological institutions would be viewed favorably by many or would, in the long term, lead to the preservation of more species through captive breeding.

As to the need for helping to conserve unpopular as well as popular species, I agree in principle, but think that the keeping of popular ABC species helps fund and allow the conservation of less popular species. I don't think zoos have any obligation to exhibit all of the species they hold, and the benefits of off-exhibit husbandry for conservation breeding of many species in some cases necessitate this. Some of these nonpopular species may just not exhibit well or the costs of developing modern-style zoo exhibits may not be warranted for all such species. Furthermore, in developing collection plans, people explicitly consider conservation needs as a large criterion in determining what species to keep. Phase out species are often species with no particular need for ex situ conservation or species for which a sustainable ex situ population is not possible at present. With the exception of some species for which regional associations have decided to phase out because of stable representation in other such associations (e.g., the AZA's decision to phase out blesbok because of its representation in European collections), how many species for whom ex situ conservation is both feasible and "necessary" have actually been phased out?

 

[Dassie rat]

I'm not against London's decision to move its elephants to Whipsnade - far from it. I'm merely stating that for most zoos, the kind of strict reorganization you support (roughly, small species at smaller zoos, larger social species at larger safari parks) may not be financially feasible for zoos in the short or the long term. Imagine that London had not only gotten rid of its elephants, but also giraffes and all of its hoofstock, lions and all other larger social carnivores, larger social primates, etc. - I'd imagine in this type of a situation, many members of the zoo-going public would be less understanding. Again, this has nothing to do with my own personal preference (as I love to see larger social species of mammals kept in the more "natural" settings of safari parks - but I can't imagine a decision to no longer keep any giraffes, zebras, white rhinos, river hippos, or others in smaller zoological institutions would be viewed favorably by many or would, in the long term, lead to the preservation of more species through captive breeding.

As to the need for helping to conserve unpopular as well as popular species, I agree in principle, but think that the keeping of popular ABC species helps fund and allow the conservation of less popular species. I don't think zoos have any obligation to exhibit all of the species they hold, and the benefits of off-exhibit husbandry for conservation breeding of many species in some cases necessitate this. Some of these nonpopular species may just not exhibit well or the costs of developing modern-style zoo exhibits may not be warranted for all such species. Furthermore, in developing collection plans, people explicitly consider conservation needs as a large criterion in determining what species to keep. Phase out species are often species with no particular need for ex situ conservation or species for which a sustainable ex situ population is not possible at present. With the exception of some species for which regional associations have decided to phase out because of stable representation in other such associations (e.g., the AZA's decision to phase out blesbok because of its representation in European collections), how many species for whom ex situ conservation is both feasible and "necessary" have actually been phased out?

I am not suggesting that there should be no large species at small zoos, but that it is better to keep them in parks with more space. I still feel that if there is limited space at a small zoo, it is better to use it to display and breed several species of small animals rather than one species of large animal, especially if that species is kept in several large zoos.

I expect that the average Zoochatter knows more about conservation and has knowledge about a greater range of species than the average zoo visitor. There are many endangered small animals that are not part of any ex situ conservation programme, even though they could be kept in relatively small enclosures. Some zoos include exhibits of small species in buildings housing large species, so this could be used in more zoo exhibits and aid conservation. This could lead to fewer large species in small zoos, but encourage people to look at a greater variety of species and perhaps take more interest in them.

I think the best zoo to include ABC large animals and obscure small animals is Plzen, which has bucked the trend and increased the number of species it keeps over the last few years. Many other zoos are tending to cut the number of species, usually reducing unusual species and leading to the situation in several UK towns and cities where there is little difference in shops than those of other towns and cities. It is better to have variety and make better use of space so that zoos conserve more species.

I can understand why zoos concentrate on some species, but they should realise that reducing the number of species in captivity can lead to the extinction of unpopular species. Many conservation programmes are geared towards popular species with few directly helping unpopular species. If zoos aren't bothered about smaller animals and conservationists show little concern, many species face a bleak future.

Is it really worthwhile for a small zoo to spend millions of pounds on a large enclosure for an ABC species with a large captive population when a few pounds could be spent on a simple enclosure for a small species? House mice were displayed in a loaf of bread at Best Zoo - a cheap source of food for a common species that many zoo visitors would not normally be interested in, but an indication that after the original enclosure is built, some animals can be kept cheaply and still interest visitors.

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

I've personally always wondered if animals like elephants or hippos are (financially) worth keeping. I mean, the daily costs are huge. For the same money a zoo could maintain a large collection of smaller or medium sized animals. And what about the costs of building a brand new elephant paddock, or even renovating an enclosure. What about staff time, and don't get me started on space. Is one elephant enclosure worth more than half a zoo filled with smaller animals, even for joe public?