Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 152, Supplement 2, pp 339–353

Evaluating release alternatives for a long-lived bird species under uncertainty about long-term demographic rates

  • Clinton T. Moore
  • Sarah J. Converse
  • Martin J. Folk
  • Michael C. Runge
  • Stephen A. Nesbitt
EURING Proceedings

Abstract

The release of animals to reestablish an extirpated population is a decision problem that is often attended by considerable uncertainty about the probability of success. Annual releases of captive-reared juvenile Whooping Cranes (Grus americana) were begun in 1993 in central Florida, USA, to establish a breeding, non-migratory population. Over a 12-year period, 286 birds were released, but by 2004, the introduced flock had produced only four wild-fledged birds. Consequently, releases were halted over managers’ concerns about the performance of the released flock and uncertainty about the efficacy of further releases. We used data on marked, released birds to develop predictive models for addressing whether releases should be resumed, and if so, under what schedule. To examine the outcome of different release scenarios, we simulated the survival and productivity of individual female birds under a baseline model that recognized age and breeding-class structure and which incorporated empirically estimated stochastic elements. As data on wild-fledged birds from captive-reared parents were sparse, a key uncertainty that confronts release decision-making is whether captive-reared birds and their offspring share the same vital rates. Therefore, we used data on the only population of wild Whooping Cranes in existence to construct two alternatives to the baseline model. The probability of population persistence was highly sensitive to the choice of these three models. Under the baseline model, extirpation of the population was nearly certain under any scenario of resumed releases. In contrast, the model based on estimates from wild birds projected a high probability of persistence under any release scenario, including cessation of releases. Therefore, belief in either of these models suggests that further releases are an ineffective use of resources. In the third model, which simulated a population Allee effect, population persistence was sensitive to the release decision: high persistence probability was achieved only through the release of more birds, whereas extirpation was highly probable with cessation of releases. Despite substantial investment of time and effort in the release program, evidence collected to date does not favor one model over another; therefore, any decision about further releases must be made under considerable biological uncertainty. However, given an assignment of credibility weight to each model, a best, informed decision about releases can be made under uncertainty. Furthermore, if managers can periodically revisit the release decision and collect monitoring data to further inform the models, then managers have a basis for confronting uncertainty and adaptively managing releases through time.

Keywords

Decision-making Endangered species Florida Grus americana Population reintroduction Population viability analysis Uncertainty Whooping Crane 

References

  1. Akçakaya HR, Sjögren-Gulve P (2000) Population viability analyses in conservation planning: an overview. Ecol Bull 48:9–21Google Scholar
  2. Akçakaya HR, McCarthy MA, Pearce JL (1995) Linking landscape data with population viability analysis: management options for the helmeted honeyeater (Lichenostomus melanopsis cassidix). Biol Conserv 73:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong DP, Ewen JG (2001) Assessing the value of follow-up translocations: a case study using New Zealand robins. Biol Conserv 101:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beissinger SR, Westphal MI (1998) On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. J Wildl Manag 62:821–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell TJ, Bowles ML, McEachern AK (2003) Projecting the success of plant population restoration with viability analysis. In: Brigham CA, Schwartz MW (eds) Population viability in plants: conservation, management, and modeling of rare plants. Springer, Berlin, pp 313–348Google Scholar
  6. Binkley CS, Miller RS (1980) Survivorship of the Whooping Crane, Grus americana. Ecology 61:434–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buner F, Schaub M (2008) How do different releasing techniques affect the survival of reintroduced grey partidges Perdix perdix? Wildl Biol 14:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark JS, Bjørnstad ON (2004) Population time series: process variability, observation errors, missing values, lags, and hidden states. Ecology 85:3140–3150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courchamp F, Clutton-Brock T, Grenfell B (1999) Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends Ecol Evol 14:405–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deredec A, Courchamp F (2007) Importance of the Allee effect for reintroductions. Ecoscience 14:440–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ewen JG, Armstrong DP (2007) Strategic monitoring of reintroductions in ecological restoration programmes. Ecoscience 14:401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falk DA (1992) From conservation biology to conservation practice: strategies for protecting plant diversity. In: Fiedler PL, Jain SK (eds) Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation, preservation, and management. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 398–431Google Scholar
  13. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2000) An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol Conserv 96:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Folk MJ, Nesbitt SA, Parker JM, Spalding MG, Baynes SB, Candelora KL (2008) Current status of nonmigratory whooping cranes in Florida. Proc N Am Crane Workshop 10:7–12Google Scholar
  15. Gilks WR, Thomas A, Spiegelhalter DJ (1994) A language and program for complex Bayesian modelling. Stat 43:169–177Google Scholar
  16. Gilpin ME, Soulé ME (1986) Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  17. Heath SR, Kershner EL, Cooper DM, Lynn S, Turner JM, Warnock N, Farabaugh S, Brock K, Garcelon DK (2008) Rodent control and food supplementation increase productivity of endangered San Clemente Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi). Biol Conserv 141:2506–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kleiman DV (1989) Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation. Bioscience 39:152–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Gouar P, Robert A, Choisy JP, Henriquet S, Lecuyer P, Tessier C, Sarrazin F (2008) Roles of survival and dispersal in reintroduction success of Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus). Ecol Appl 18:859–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Link WA, Royle JA, Hatfield JS (2003) Demographic analysis from summaries of an age-structured population. Biometrics 59:778–785Google Scholar
  21. McCarthy MA, Andelman SJ, Possingham HP (2003) Reliability of relative predictions in population viability analysis. Conserv Biol 17:982–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Melbourne BA, Hastings A (2008) Extinction risk depends strongly on factors contributing to stochasticity. Nature 454:100–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Menges ES (1991) The application of minimum viable population theory to plants. In: Falk DA, Holsinger KE (eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 45–61Google Scholar
  24. Menges ES (1992) Stochastic modeling of extinction in plant populations. In: Fiedler PL, Jain SK (eds) Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation, preservation, and management. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 253–275Google Scholar
  25. Palmer MA, Falk DA, Zedler JB (2006) Ecological theory and restoration ecology. In: Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler JB (eds) Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington D.C., pp 1–10Google Scholar
  26. Pascual MA, Kareiva P, Hilborn R (1997) The influence of model structure on conclusions about the viability and harvesting of Serengeti wildebeest. Conserv Biol 11:966–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pavlik BM (1994) Demographic monitoring and the recovery of endangered plants. In: Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning, and implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 322–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Regan HM, Colyvan M, Burgman MA (2002) A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecol Appl 12:618–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roche EA, Cuthbert FJ, Arnold TW (2008) Relative fitness of wild and captive-reared piping plovers: does egg salvage contribute to recovery of the endangered Great Lakes population? Biol Conserv 141:3079–3088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Runge MC, Johnson FA (2002) The importance of functional form in optimal control solutions of problems in population dynamics. Ecology 83:1357–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sarrazin F, Barbault R (1996) Reintroduction: challenges and lessons for basic ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:474–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sarrazin F, Legendre S (2000) Demographic approach to releasing adults versus young in reintroductions. Conserv Biol 14:488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SAS Institute Inc (2004) SAS/IML 9.1 user’s guide. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  34. Schaub M, Zink R, Beissmann H, Sarrazin F, Arlettaz R (2009) When to end releases in reintroduction programmes: demographic rates and population viability analysis of bearded vultures in the Alps. J Appl Ecol 46:92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slotta-Bachmayr L, Boegel R, Kaczsensky P, Stauffer C, Walzer C (2004) Use of population viability analysis to identify management priorities and success in reintroducing Przewalski’s horses to southwestern Mongolia. J Wildl Manag 68:790–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stephens PA, Sutherland WJ (1999) Consequences of the Allee effect for behaviour, ecology and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 14:401–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stephens PA, Sutherland WJ, Freckleton RP (1999) What is the Allee effect? Oikos 87:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor BL, Wade PR, Ramakrishnan U, Gilpin M, Akçakaya HR (2002) Incorporating uncertainty in population viability analyses for the purpose of classifying species by risk. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 239–252Google Scholar
  39. Wade PR (2002) Bayesian population viability analysis. In: Beissinger SR, McCullough DR (eds) Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 213–238Google Scholar
  40. Wakamiya SM, Roy CL (2009) Use of monitoring data and population viability analysis to inform reintroduction decisions: peregrine falcons in the Midwestern United States. Biol Conserv 142:1767–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson AC, Stanley Price MR (1994) Reintroduction as a reason for captive breeding. In: Olney PJS, Mace GM, Feistner ATC (eds) Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 243–264Google Scholar
  43. Wolf CM, Griffith B, Reed C, Temple SA (1996) Avian and mammalian translocations: update and reanalysis of 1987 survey data. Conserv Biol 10:1142–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. (outside the USA) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clinton T. Moore
    • 1
  • Sarah J. Converse
    • 2
  • Martin J. Folk
    • 3
  • Michael C. Runge
    • 2
  • Stephen A. Nesbitt
    • 4
  1. 1.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterLaurelUSA
  3. 3.Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionKissimmeeUSA
  4. 4.Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations