European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 473–482 | Cite as

Method of releasing and number of animals are determinants for the success of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) reintroductions

  • Jan MatějůEmail author
  • Štěpánka Říčanová
  • Simona Poláková
  • Michal Ambros
  • Borys Kala
  • Kristýna Matějů
  • Lukáš Kratochvíl
Original Paper


Reintroductions are considered an important part of the action plans and recovery strategies of endangered ground squirrel species, but so far little is known about their proper methodology. We collected primary data on 12 European ground squirrel reintroduction projects carried out at 14 localities in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland since 1989. We focused on seven methodological aspects of each reintroduction: selection of release site, method of releasing, date of releasing, origin of released animals, total number of released animals, mean number of released animals per season and reintroduction site management. The method of releasing was found to be the key factor in determining the settlement of animals at the target locality. Only soft releasing methods, i.e. the use of enclosures and/or artificial burrows, ensure that animals remain at the target locality. The other factors significantly determining reintroduction success are the number of released animals per season (at least 23 animals required) and the total number of released animals (a minimum of 60 individuals). Long-term management of the site and regular monitoring of the newly established population are necessary. Our recommendations, based on experience with the successes and failures of previous reintroductions, could largely improve the efficiency of future reintroductions of highly endangered species.


Translocation Endangered species Rodentia 



We are much obliged to Vladimir Vohralik (Charles University, Prague) and two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript and David Hardekopf (University of California, San Diego, CA, USA) for linguistic revisions. This study was supported by the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic (grant no. SP/2d4/61/08) and Grant Agency of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic (grant no. KJB601410816).


  1. Aaltonen K, Bryant AA, Hostetler JA, Oli MK (2009) Reintroducing endangered Vancouver Island marmots: survival and cause-specific mortality rates of captive-born versus wild-born individuals. Biol Conserv 142:2181–2190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2007) Conservation and the genetics of populations. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambros M (2008) Stav poznania rozšírenia sysľa pasienkového (Spermophilus citellus) na Slovensku v rokoch 1996 až 2008 [Current knowledge on the distribution of the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Slovakia in 1996–2008]. Lynx 39:219–233, in Slovak, with a summary in EnglishGoogle Scholar
  4. Baláž I, Jančová A, Ambros M (2008) Reštitucia sysla pasienkového (Spermophilus citellus) na Slovensku [Restitution of the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Slovakia]. Lynx 39:235–240, in Slovak, with a summary in EnglishGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck BB, Rapaport LG, Stanley Price MR, Wilson AC (1994) Reintroduction of captive-born animals. In: Olney PJS, Mace GM, Feistner ATC (eds) Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 265–286Google Scholar
  6. Biedrzycka A, Konopiński MK (2008) Genetic variability and the effect of habitat fragmentation in spotted suslik Spermophilus suslicus populations from two different regions. Conserv Genet 9:1211–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, MontereyGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown DE, Todd RL, Levy SH (1974) Proposal for the reintroduction of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog into Arizona. Arizona Small Game Investigations 1972–1973–1974, p. 5Google Scholar
  9. Budayová J (1995) Skúsenosti z repatriácie sysľa obyčajného (Citellus citellus L. 1758) v Košickej kotline [Experiences with repatriation of the European souslik in Košická basin]. In: Urban P, Baláž D (eds) Výskum a ochrana cicavcov na Slovensku II [Mammal Research and Conservation in Slovakia II]. Štátna ochrana prírody SR, Banská Bystrica, pp 103–107, in Slovak, with a summary in EnglishGoogle Scholar
  10. Cepáková E, Hulová Š (2002) Current distribution of the European souslik (Spermophilus citellus) in the Czech Republic. Lynx 33:89–103Google Scholar
  11. Dullum JAL, Foresman K, Matchett MR (2005) Efficacy of translocations for restoring populations of Black-tailed prairie dogs. Wildl Soc Bull 33:842–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enzinger K, Holzer T, Walder C (2008) Management of European ground squirrel habitats in Lower Austria—origin, options and objectives. Lynx 39:345Google Scholar
  13. Feiler A (1988) Über das ehemalige Zieselvorkommen in der DDR (Rodentia, Sciuridae, Spermophilus citellus L. 1766). Rudolfstädter Naturhistor Schr 1:115–118Google Scholar
  14. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2000) An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol Conserv 96:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gedeon CI, Vászi O, Koósz B, Altbäcker V (2011) Morning release into artificial burrows with retention caps facilitates success of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) translocations. Eur J Wildl Res. doi: 10.1007/s10344-011-0504-3
  16. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C (1989) Translocation as species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grulich I (1960) Sysel obecný Citellus citellus L. v ČSSR. [European Ground Squirrel Citellus citellus L. in Czechoslovakia]. Práce Brněnské Zákl Českosl Akad Věd 32(11):473–563, in Czech, with a summary in EnglishGoogle Scholar
  18. Hafner DJ, Yensen E, Kirkland GL Jr (eds) (1998) North American rodents. Status, survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  19. Hapl E, Ambros M, Olekšák M, Adamec M (2006) Reštitucia sysla pasienkového (Spermophilus citellus) v podmienkách Slovenska [Restitution of the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) under conditions of Slovakia]. Metodická príručka. Štátná ochrana prírody SR, Banska Bystrica, in SlovakGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoogland JL (2007) Conservation of prairie dogs. In: Wolff JO, Sherman PW (eds) Rodent Societes: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Hulová Š (2005) Hodnocení realizovaných a probíhajících projektů aktivní ochrany sysla obecného (Spermophilus citellus) v České republice [Evaluation of effected and ongoing active measures of European ground squirrel protection in the Czech Republic]. In: Kumstátová T, Nová P, Marhoul P (eds) Hodnocení projektů aktivní podpory ohrožených živočichů v České republice [Evaluation of active protection measures of endangered animals in the Czech Republic]. AOPK ČR, Praha, pp 397–405 (in Czech)Google Scholar
  22. Hulová Š, Sedláček F (2008) Population genetic structure of the European ground squirrel in the Czech Republic. Conserv Genet 9:615–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IUCN (1998) Guidelines for re-introductions: prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  24. IUCN (2011) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. Available at Accessed 07 May 2011
  25. Jacobi A (1902) Der Ziesel in Deutschland. Arbeiten Biol. Abt. Land- und Forstwirtschaft Kaiser. Gesundheitsamte 2(4):506–511Google Scholar
  26. Jansová A (1992) Projekt na záchranu sysla v Českém krasu [The project for saving of European Souslik in Český kras]. In: Anonymous (eds) Metody a výsledky studia drobných savců [Methods and results of the small mammals studies]. Nasavrky 30.3.-2.4.1992, Chrudim, pp. 31–34 (in Czech, with a summary in English)Google Scholar
  27. Kala B, Kepel A (2006) Reintroduction programme of Spermophilus citellus in Poland. In: Anonymous (eds) First European Ground Squirrel Meeting. Book of Programme and Abstracts. 20–24. Oct. 2006, Felsőtárkány, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  28. Koshev YS (2008) Method of releasing and number of animals are determinants for the success of European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) reintroductions. Lynx 39:251–261Google Scholar
  29. Letty J, Aubineau S, Clobert J (2003) Effect of translocation on survival in wild rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Mamm Biol 68:250–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lockhart JM (2009) Reintroduction of the Black-footed ferret to the Great plains of North America: Do we really have the capabilities, resources and socio/political will to recover critically endangered species in the United States? An opinion. In: Vargas A, Breitenmoser C, Breitenmoser U (eds) Iberian Lynx ex situ conservation: An interdisciplinary approach. Fundación Biodiversidad, Madrid, Spain, pp 478–488Google Scholar
  31. Lockhart JM, Thorne ET, Gober DR (2006) A historical perspective on recovery of the black-footed ferret and the biological and political challenges affecting its future. In: Roelle JE, Miller BJ, Godbey JL, Biggins DE (eds) Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret: Progress and Continuing Challenges. U.S. Geological Survey, pp 6–19Google Scholar
  32. Long RA, Martin TJ, Barnes BM (2005) Body temperature and activity patterns in free-living Arctic ground squirrels. J Mammal 86:314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. MacNab J (1983) Wildlife management as scientific experimentation. Wildl Soc Bull 11(4):397–401Google Scholar
  35. Matějů J, Nová P, Uhlíková J, Hulová Š, Cepáková E (2008) Distribution of the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in the Czech Republic in 2002–2008. Lynx 39:277–294Google Scholar
  36. Matějů J, Hulová Š, Nová P, Cepáková E, Marhoul P, Uhlíková J (2010a) Action plan for the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in the Czech Republic. Univerzita Karlova v Praze & AOPK ČR, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  37. Matějů J, Říčanová Š, Ambros M, Kala B, Hapl E, Matějů K (2010b) Reintroductions of the European ground squirrel (Spermophilus citellus) in Central Europe (Rodentia: Sciuridae). Lynx 41:175–191Google Scholar
  38. McPhee ME (2003) Effects of captivity on response to a novel environment in the Oldfield mouse (Peromyscus polionotus subgriseus). Int J Comp Psychol 16:85–94Google Scholar
  39. Meczynski S (1985) Czy susel moregowany, Spermophilus citellus Linnaeus, 1766, wystepuje jeszcze w Polsce [Does the European ground squirrel, Spermophilus citellus Linnaeus, 1766, still occur in Poland?]. Przeglad zool 29:521–526, in Polish, with a summary in EnglishGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitchell-Jones AJ, Amori G, Bogdanowicz W, Kryštufek B, Reijnders PJH, Spitzenberger F, Stubbe M, Thissen JBM, Vohralík V, Zima J (1999) The atlas of European mammals. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Panzer R, Schipp M (1986) Franklin's ground squirrel translocated to an Illinois prairie preserve. Restor Manag Notes 4:27Google Scholar
  42. Robinette KW, Andelt WF, Burnham KP (1995) Effect of group size on survival of relocated prairie dogs. J Wildl Manag 59:867–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roe KA, Roe CM (2003) Habitat selection guidelines for black-tailed prairie dog relocations. Wildl Soc Bull 31:1246–1253Google Scholar
  44. Short J, Bradshaw SD, Giles J, Prince RIT, Wilson GR (1992) Reintroduction of macropods (Marsupialia: Macropodoidea) in Australia—a review. Biol Conserv 62:189–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spitzenberger F (2001) Die Säugetierfauna Österreichs. Bundesministerium für Land- und Fortswirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, GrazGoogle Scholar
  46. Teixeira CP, Schetini De Azebedo C, Mendl M, Cipreste CF, Young RJ (2007) Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress. Anim Behav 73:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Truett JC, Dullum JLD, Matchett MR, Owens E, Seery D (2001) Translocating prairie dogs: a review. Wildl Soc Bull 29:863–872Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) Recovery plan for the Northern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Horne B (2007) Conservation of Ground Squirrels. In: Wolff JO, Sherman PW (eds) Rodent societes: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 463–471Google Scholar
  50. Van Vuren D, Kuenzi AJ, Loredo I, Leider AL, Morrison ML (1997) Translocation as a nonlethal alternative for managing California ground squirrels. J Wildl Manag 61:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Team (2008) Recovery strategy for the Vancouver Island marmot (Marmota vancouverensis) in British Columbia. B.C Ministry of Environment, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  52. Werth E (1936) Zur Verbreitung und Geschichte des Ziesels. Arbeiten Biol Reichsanstalt Land- und Forstwirtschaft 21:255–267, 637Google Scholar
  53. Wilson DE, Reeder DE (eds) (2005) Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and geographic reference, 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Matějů
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Štěpánka Říčanová
    • 3
    • 4
  • Simona Poláková
    • 3
    • 5
  • Michal Ambros
    • 6
  • Borys Kala
    • 7
  • Kristýna Matějů
    • 8
  • Lukáš Kratochvíl
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrahaCzech Republic
  2. 2.Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the CRKarlovy VaryCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Zoology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Population BiologyInstitute of Vertebrate Biology Academy of Science of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  5. 5.DAPHNE CR—Institute of applied ecologyČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  6. 6.State Nature Conservation of Slovakia, Regional Centre of Nature Conservation in NitraAdministration of Ponitrie Protected Landscape AreaNitraSlovakia
  7. 7.Polish Society for Nature Conservation “Salamandra”PoznańPoland
  8. 8.Karlovy Vary MuseumKarlovy VaryCzech Republic
  9. 9.Department of Ecology, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrahaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations