Abstract
Species conservation activities are gaining more attention in the context of environmental degradation. This article proposes to tackle different semiotic aspects of reintroduction as one possible way of furthering species conservation. More specifically, we aim to bring forth the strength of ecosemiotic perspective when dealing with such a complex matter with many different human and non-human subjects. We concentrate on animal agency, search and function tone, semiotic fitting and changes in umwelten when analysing the reintroduction process from the perspective of the animal. When considering the locals’ perspective, we take into account the appeal and cultural placement of the species, as well as human and non-human umwelt overlap when it comes to resources. As our case study we use the European mink (Mustela lutreola) and its reintroduction to the island of Hiiumaa and planned reintroduction to the island of Saaremaa in Estonia. By employing semiotic analysis, we discover that reintroduced animals need to exhibit innovation and plasticity to establish novel semiotic relations but also restore relations characteristic to the historical environments of the species. We argue that human views and expectations towards the species and (re)introduction efforts account for animals’ appearance and agency. Additionally, contrast with other wild species, the perceived overlap of human and non-human umwelten, and broader conservation discourse are decisive for the formation of interspecific relations in situ. Thus, ecosemiotcs proves to be a valuable research platform for an analysis of conservation practices that targets both, sociocultural context and animal umwelten.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a more detailed timeline overview see Mäekivi et al. 2021: 7.
According to a review of captive-born reintroductions, 3% of mammal reintroduction programs involved pre-release training and 1% post-release training (Beck et al., 1994).
It is prohibited to kill, disturb, catch, etc., the mink, it is prohibited to destroy the animal’s habitat, and the water protection zone is 50 m (instead of the usual 10 m) by the permanent habitat of the mink (Maran & Põdra, 2009).
References
Auster, R. E., Barr, S. W., & Brazier, R. E. (2020). Wildlife tourism in reintroduction projects: Exploring social and economic benefits of beaver in local settings. Journal for Nature Conservation, 58, 125920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125920
Auster, R. E., Barr, S. W., & Brazier, R. E. (2021). Improving engagement in managing reintroduction conflicts: Learning from beaver reintroduction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(10), 1713–1734. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1837089
Bath, A. J., Engel, M. T., van der Marel, R. C., Kuhn, T. S., & Jung, T. S. (2022). Comparative views of the public, hunters, and wildlife managers on the management of reintroduced bison (Bison bison). Global Ecology and Conservation, 34, e02015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02015
Beck, B. B., Rapaport, L. G., Price, M. R. S., & Wilson, A. C. (1994). Reintroduction of captive-born animals. P. J. S. Olney, C. M. Mace, & A. T. C. Feistner (Eds.), Creative conservation: Interactive management of wild and captive animals (pp. 265– 286). Chapman & Hall. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0721-1
Brambilla, M., Gustin, M., & Celada, C. (2013). Species appeal predicts conservation status. Biological Conservation, 160, 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.006
Breitenmoser, U. (1998). Large predators in the Alps: The fall and rise of man’s competitors. Biological Conservation, 83(3), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00084-0
Carthey, A. J. R., & Banks, P. B. (2014). Naïveté in novel ecological interactions: Lessons from theory and experimental evidence. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 89(4), 932–949. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12087
Caruso, F., & Pérez, I. J. (2013). Tourism, local pride, and attitudes towards the reintroduction of a large predator, the jaguar Panthera onca in Corrientes, Argentina. Endangered Species Research, 21(3), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00519
Conway, W. (1969). Zoos: Their changing roles. Science, 163(3862), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.163.3862.48
Cox, J. G., & Lima, S. L. (2006). Naiveté and aquatic-terrestrial dichotomy in the effects of introduced predators. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.07.011
Coz, D. M., & Young, J. C. (2020). Conflicts over wildlife conservation: Learning from the reintroduction of beavers in Scotland. People and Nature, 2(2), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10076
de Waal, F. (2016). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? W. W. Norton & Company.
Delibes-Mateos, M., Glikman, J. A., Lafuente, R., Villafuerte, R., & Garrido, F. E. (2022). Support to Iberian lynx reintroduction and perceived impacts: Assessments before and after reintroduction. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(2), 4e605. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.605
Dressel, S., Sandström, C., & Ericsson, G. (2014). A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. Conservation Biology, 29(2), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12420
Dydynski, J., & Mäekivi, N. (2018). Multisensory perception of cuteness in mascots and zoo animals. International Journal of Marketing Semiotics, 6, 1–25.
Edelblutte, É., Krithivasan, R., & Hayek, M. N. (2021). Animal agency in Conservation and Wildlife Management. Conservation Biology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13853
European Commission (2015). EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/EU_Zoos_Directive_Good_Practices.pdf
Farina, A. (2012). A biosemiotic perspective of the resource criterion: Toward a general theory of resources. Biosemiotics, 5, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9119-z
Ferguson, A. H. (2021). Reanimating and reanimalizing wildlife conservation landscapes. In A. Hovorka, S. McCubbin, & L. Patter (Eds.), A Research Agenda for Animal Geographies (pp. 69–86). Edward Elgard Publishing.
Garibaldi, A., & Turner, N. (2004). Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society, 9(3). 1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/. Accessed: 20 Feb2023
Garin, I., Aihartza, J., Zuberogoitia, I., & Zabala, J. (2002a). Activity pattern of european mink (Mustela lutreola) in Southwestern Europe. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft, 48, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02193548
Garin, I., Zuberogoitia, I., Zabala, J., Aihartza, J., Clevenger, A., & Rallo, A. (2002b). Home ranges of european mink Mustela lutreola in southwestern Europe. Acta Theriologica, 47(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03193566
Gosling, E., Bojarska, K., Gula, R., & Kuehn, R. (2019). Recent arrivals or established tenants? History of wolf presence influences attitudes toward the carnivore. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 43(4), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1027
Griffin, A. S. (2004). Social learning about predators: A review and prospectus. Animal Learning & Behavior, 32, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196014
Griffin, A. S., Evans, C. S., & Blumstein, D. T. (2002). Selective learning in a marsupial. Ethology, 108, 1103e1114. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00840.x
Haage, M., Maran, T., Bergvall, U., Elmhagen, B., & Angerbjörn, A. (2017). The influence of spatiotemporal conditions and personality on survival in reintroductions – evolutionary implications. Oecologia, 183, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3740-0
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). The semiotic niche. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology, 9, 5–30.
IUCN/SSC (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0 IUCN Species Survival Commission. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2013-009.pdf
Jiang, Z., Yu, C., Feng, Z., Zhang, L., Xia, J., Ding, Y., & Lindsay, N. (2000). Reintroduction and recovery of Père David’s deer in China. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(3), 681–687.
Jule, K. A., Leaver, L. A., & Lea, S. E. G. (2008). The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis. Biological Conservation, 141(2), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.11.007
Kelley, G. M. (1977). Fisher (Martes pennanti) biology in the White Mountain National Forest and adjacent areas. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Kiik, L. (2018). Wild-ing the ethnography of conservation: Writing nature’s value and agency in. Anthropological Forum, 28(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00664677.2018.1476222
Kull, K. (2020). Semiotic fitting and the nativeness of community. Biosemiotics, 13, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09375-y
Linask, L., Magnus, R., & Kull, K. (2015). Applying Jakob von Uexküll’s concept of umwelt to human experience and development. In G. Mey, & H. Günther (Eds.), The Life Space of the Urban child: Perspectives on Martha Muchow’s Classic Study (pp. 177–194). Routledge.
Lopes-Fernandes, M., & Frazão-Moreira, A. (2016). The (in) visibility of the Iberian lynx: From vermin to conservation emblem. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 25(2), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.3167/ajec.2016.250202
Lorenz, K. (1981). The foundations of ethology. Springer.
Mäekivi, N. (2021). Organism kui agent zoosemiootilises perspektiivis: Omailma tagasipöördumine. [Organism as an agent from the perspective of zoosemiotics: Umwelt reversion]. Acta Semiotica Estica, XVIII, 33–51.
Mäekivi, N., Kiisel, M., & Magnus, R. (2021). Euroopa naaritsa taasasustamise õppetunnid [Lessons from Reintroducing the European mink]. Retrieved December 28, 2022, from https://www.serake.ut.ee/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/naaritsa_taasasustamise_uuring.pdf
Maran, Tiit, & Põdra, M. (2009). Euroopa naaritsa Mustela lutreola tegevuskava (2010–2014) [Action Plan for the European mink Mustela lutreola (2010–2014)]. Retrieved December 28, 2022, from https://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/elfinder/article_files/euroopanaarits_kava_uus.pdf
Maran, T. (2020). Ecosemiotics. The study of Signs in changing Ecologies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108942850
Maran, T., Kruuk, H., Macdonald, D., & Põlma, M. (1998). Diet of two species of mink in Estonia: Displacement of Mustela lutreola by M. vison Communications from the Mammal Society, 76, 218–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00093.x
Maran, T., Põdra, M., Harrington, L., & Macdonald, D. W. (2017). European mink: Restoration attempts for a species on the brink of extinction. In D. W. Macdonald, C. Newman, & L. Harrington (Eds.), Biology and Conservation of Musteloids (pp. 370–388). Oxford Scholarship Online.
Maran, T., Põdra, M., Põlma, M., & Macdonald, D. W. (2009). The survival of captive-born animals in restoration programmes – case study of the endangered european mink Mustela lutreola Biological Conservation, 142, 1685–1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.003
Marcus, A., Kurosu, M., Xiaojuan, M., & Ayako, H. (2017). Cuteness engineering: Designing adorable products and services. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61961-3
O’Connor, T. (2013). Animals as neighbors: The past and present of commensal species. Michigan State University Press.
O’Rourke, E. (2014). The reintroduction of the white-tailed sea eagle to Ireland: People and wildlife. Land Use Policy, 38, 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.10.020
Ogden, L. A., Hall, B., & Tanita, K. (2013). Animals, plants, people, and things: A review of multispecies ethnography. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 4(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2013.040102
Ortiz-Jiménez, L., Iglesias–Merchan, C., & Barja, I. (2021). Behavioral responses of the european mink in the face of different threats: Conspecific competitors, predators, and anthropic disturbances. Scientific Reports, 11(8266), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87905-5
Põdra, M., Maran, T., Sidorovich, V., Johnson, P., & Macdonald, D. W. (2013). Restoration programmes and the development of a natural diet: A case study of captive-bred european mink. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 59, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-012-0653-z
Price, M. R. S., & Fa, J. E. (2007). Reintroductions from zoos: A conservation guiding light or a shooting star? In A. Zimmermann, M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, & C. West (Eds.), Catalysts for conservation: A direction for zoos in the 21st Century (pp. 155–177). Cambridge University Press.
Resende, P. S., Viana–Junior, A. B., Young, R. J., & de Azevedo, C. S. (2020). A global review of animal translocation programs. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 43(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2020.43.0221
Robinson, N. M., Dexter, N., Brewster, R., Maple, D., MacGregor, C., Rose, K., Hall, J., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2019). Be nimble with threat mitigation: Lessons learned from the reintroduction of an endangered species. Restoration Ecology, 28(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13028
Sidorovich, V., Polozov, A., & Zalewski, A. (2010). Food niche variation of european and american mink during the american mink invasion in north-eastern Belarus. Biological Invasions, 12, 2207–2217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9631-0
Stamps, J. A., & Swaisgood, R. R. (2007). Someplace like home: Experience, habitat selection and conservation biology. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(3–4), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.038
Steen, H. (1994). Low survival of long distance dispersers of the root vole (Microtus oeconomus). Annales Zoologici Fennici, 31, 271–274.
Sutton, A. E., & Lopez, R. (2014). Findings from a survey of wildlife reintroduction practitioners. F1000Research, 3(29). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research
Swaisgood, R. R. (2010). The conservation-welfare nexus in reintroduction programmes: A role for sensory ecology. Animal Welfare, 19(2), 125–137.
Tarrikas, S. (2022). Modelling animal creativity from Uexküllian approach — attention, search image and search tone. Biosemiotics, 15(3), 531–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09498-4
Tetzlaff, S., Sperry, J. H., & DeGregorio, B. A. (2019). Effects of antipredator training, environmental enrichment, and soft release on wildlife translocations: A review and meta-analysis. Biological Conservation, 236, 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.054
Tønnessen, M. (2009). Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics, 2, 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9036-y
Tønnessen, M. (2015). Introduction: The relevance of Uexküll’s umwelt theory today. In C. Brentari (Ed.), Jakob von Uexküll: The discovery of the Umwelt between biosemiotics and theoretical biology (pp. 1–20). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9688-0_1
Tønnessen, M. (2018). The search image as link between sensation, perception and action. Bio Systems, 164, 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.016
Uexküll, J. (1982[1940). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1982.42.1.25
Uexküll, J. (1992). [1934]). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica, 89(4), 319–391. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1992.89.4.319
Uljas, J., & Ruttas-Küttim, R. (2004). Naarits: sotsioloogiline uurimus [The mink: Sociological study] (Unpublished study).
Zhang, Y., Bai, J., Zhu, A., Chen, R., Xue, D., Zhong, Z., & Cheng, Z. (2021). Reversing extinction in China’s Père David’s deer. Science, 371(6530), 685. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg6237
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Maie Kiisel, Meriliis Kasemets and Meri Külm for conducting the fieldwork with us in Hiiumaa and Saaremaa and Maie Kiisel for co-authoring the report. We also thank all our informants for their time and willingness to share their experiences. This research was supported by the Estonian Research Council Grants ‘Semiotic Fitting as a Mechanism of Biocultural Diversity: Instability and Sustainability in Novel Environments’ (PRG314) and “Meanings of endangered species in culture: ecology, semiotic modelling and reception” (PRG1504).
Funding
This research was funded by the Estonian Research Council Grants ‘Semiotic Fitting as a Mechanism of Biocultural Diversity: Instability and Sustainability in Novel Environments’ (PRG314) and “Meanings of endangered species in culture: ecology, semiotic modelling and reception” (PRG1504). Conducting the survey that serves as a case-study for this article was financed by the Environmental Investment Centre project no. 16003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Authors are employees of University of Tartu, department of semiotics. Both authors contributed to the design of the article, drafted the article, and approved of the version submitted.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
We declare that the authors have no competing interests or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and discussion reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Magnus, R., Mäekivi, N. Ecosemiotic Analysis of Species Reintroduction: the Case of European Mink (Mustela lutreola) in Estonia. Biosemiotics 16, 239–258 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-023-09530-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-023-09530-1