Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Increasing zoo’s conservation potential through understanding barriers to holding globally threatened amphibians

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The global amphibian crisis and current un-mitigatable threats make ex situ programmes a crucial complementary action for the conservation of many amphibians. Zoos and aquariums are some of the most important and influential groups of institutions to undertake this yet the proportion of globally threatened amphibians in zoos is just 23.9% compared to over 40% in the wild. To identify key barriers to holding globally threatened amphibian species in ex situ collections, as well as potential strategies to mitigate such barriers, we surveyed amphibian curators across 107 institutions worldwide. A lack of resources (including budget, staffing and space) was perceived as the most significant barrier (87% of respondents) and the barrier most frequently identified (119 responses), followed by disease/biosecurity concerns (31 responses), and a lack of staff expertise/knowledge (30 responses). Difficulty displaying amphibians due to cryptic behaviour or colouration (65% or respondents) and difficulty attracting visitor interest (60% of respondents) were seen as insignificant barriers. Nine key priority action areas were identified, with increasing interest from zoo leadership and budget allocation identified as the most important (49% of suggested solutions). Increasing visitor interest in amphibians to encourage increased investment and engaging with range country facilities were highlighted as two ways to address barriers. Careful collection planning considering both the need and suitability of a species for captive breeding is also key, whilst critically assessing the role each species will play in a collection will enable a better assessment of the collection’s conservation value rather than using global threat status alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amphibian Ark (2015) About Us. http://www.amphibianark.org/about-us/. Accessed 09 Aug 2015

  • Angulo E, Courchamp F (2009) Rare species are valued big time. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • AZA (2012) Denver Zoo’s Toyota elephant passage offers unparalleled views of Asian species with a focus on conservation & animal care. https://www.aza.org/Membership/detail.aspx?id=26514. Accessed 30 Aug 2015

  • AZA (2015) Amphibian Conservation. https://www.aza.org/amphibian-conservation/. Accessed 9 Aug 2015

  • Balmford A, Leader-Williams N, Green MJB (1995) Parks or arks: where to conserve threatened mammals? Biodivers Conserv 4:595–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks CB, Lau MWN, Dudgeon D (2008) Captive Management and breeding of Romer’s tree frog Chirixalux romeri. Int Zoo Yearb 42(1):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GOU, Swartz B, Quental TB, Marshall C, McGuire JL, Lindsey EL, Maguire KC, Mersey B, Ferrer EA (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471(7336):51–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barongi R, Fiskin FA, Parker M, Gusset M (2015) Committing to conservation: the world zoo and aquarium conservation strategy. WAZA Executive Office, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowkett AE (2014) Ex-situ conservation planning is more complicated than prioritizing the keeping of threatened species in zoos. Anim Conserv 17:101–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr N, Cohen S (2011) The Public Face of Zoos: Images of Entertainment, Education and Conservation. Anthrozoös 24(2):175–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassey P, Hogg C (2014) Escaping captivity: the biological invasion risk from vertebrate species in zoos. Biol Cons 181:18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cikanek SJ, Nockold S, Brown JL, Carpenter JW, Estrada A, Guerrel J, Hope K, Ibáñez R, Putman SB, Gratwicke B (2014) Evaluating group housing strategies for the ex situ conservation of harlequin frogs (Atelopus spp) using behavioural and physiological indicators. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090218

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Conde DA, Colchero F, Gusset M, Pearce-Kelly P, Byers O, Flesness N, Browne RK, Jones OR (2013) Zoos through the Lens of the IUCN Red List: a Global Metapopulation Approach to Support Conservation Breeding Programs. PLoS ONE 8(12):e80311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson J, Patel F, Griffiths RA, Young RP (2016) Assessing the global zoo response to the amphibian crisis through 20 year trends in captive collections. Conserv Biol 30:82–91. doi:10.1111/cobi.12563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Estrada A, Gratwicke B, Benedetti A, DellaTogna G, Garelle D, Griffith E, Ibanez R, Ryan S, Miller PS (2014) The Golden Frogs of Panama (Atelopus zeteki, A. varius): A Conservation Planning Workshop, Final Report. http://www.cbsg.org/sites/cbsg.org/files/documents/PGF_workshopFinalReport_22July2014.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2015

  • Fa JE, Gusset M, Flesness N, Conde DA (2014) Zoos have yet to unveil their full conservation potential. Anim Conserv 17:97–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field AP (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Frynta D, Lišková S, Bültmann S, Burda H (2010) Being attractive brings advantages: the case of parrot species in captivity. PLoS ONE 5(9):e12568

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Frynta D, Šimková O, Lišková S, Landová E (2013) Mammalian collection on Noah’s Ark: the effects of beauty, brain and body size. PLoS ONE 8(5):e63110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Garnett S, Crowley G, Balmford A (2003) The costs and effectiveness of funding the conservation of Australian threatened birds. Bioscience 53:658–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie G, Traher R, Banks C (2007) ARAZPA Amphibian Action Plan. http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/ARAZPA-Amphibian-Action-Plan-June-2007.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2015

  • Ginsberg JR (1993) Can we build an ark? TREE 8(1):4–6

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gratwicke B, Crump P, Baitchman E, Evans M, Garelle D, Hoffmann C, Ibáñez R, Renick-Mayer L, Ross H (2012) Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project, Panama. FrogLog 102:17–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm P (2010) Social Desirability Bias. Wiley Int Encycl Mark. doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding G, Griffiths RA, Pavajeau L (2016) Developments in amphibian captive breeding and reintroduction programs. Conserv Biol 30(2):340–349. doi:10.1111/cobi.12612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heerwegh D (2007) Personalizing e-mail contacts: its influence on web survey response rate and social desirability response bias. Int J Public Opin Res 19(2):258–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2015) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2015-3. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 9 Sept 2015

  • Johnson K, Zippel K, Gagliardo R, Townsend E (2012) Amphibian Ark: Five Years Since the Launch. Amphibian Ark. http://www.amphibianark.org/pdf/AArk-5-year-report.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015

  • Kao LS, Green CE (2008) Analysis of variance: is there a difference in means and what does it mean? J Surg Res 144(1):158–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Berent MK, Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Mitchell RC, Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK, Moody WR, Green MC, Conaway M (2002) The impact of “no opinion” response options on data quality. Public Opin Quart 66:371–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantellato L, Gaikhorst G, Kruger R, Vitali S, Robertson H (2013) Growth and development of captive Geocrinia rosea (Myobatrachidae): a rare species analogue. Zoo Biol 32(4):374–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TE, Lurbiecki H, Joy JB, Mooers AO (2014a) Mammal and bird species held in zoos are less endemic and less threatened than their close relatives not held in zoos. Anim Conserv 18:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TE, Lurbiecki H, Mooers AO (2014b) The economic geography of ex situ conservation. Anim Conserv 17:104–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLellan R, Iyengar L, Jeffires B, Oerlemans N (eds) (2014) Living Planet Report 2014: species and spaces, people and places. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss A, Esson M (2010) Visitor interest in zoo animals and the implications for collection planning and zoo education programmes. Zoo Biol 29:715–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • New TR (1994) Butterfly ranching: sustainable use of insects and sustainable benefit to habitats. Oryx 28(3):169–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowlis SM, Kahn BE, Dhar R (2002) Coping with ambivalence: the effect of removing a neutral option on consumer attitude and preference judgements. J Consum Res 29(3):319–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pessier AP (2008) Management of disease as a threat to amphibian conservation. Int Zoo Yearb 42(1):30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price MRS (2005) Zoos as a force for conservation: a simple ambition—but how? Oryx 39(2):109–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard DJ, Fa JE, Oldfield S, Harrop SR (2011) Bringing the captive closer to the wild: redefining the role of ex situ conservation. Oryx 46:18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racca L (2003) Conservation of the agile frog—the rarest amphibian in the British Isles? In: Anananjeva N, Tsinenko O (eds) Herpetologica Petropolitana Proceedings of the 12th Ordinary General Meeting Society of the European Herpetology. St Petersburg, Russia, pp 205–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheele BC, Hunter DA, Grogan LF, Berger L, Kolby JE, McFadden MS, Marantelli G, Skerrat LF, Driscoll DA (2014) Interventions for reducing extinction risk in chytridiomycosis-threatened amphibians. Conserv Biol 28(5):1195–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw A (2011) Public Perception of Conservation work by UK zoos. Dissertation, Imperial College London

  • Stuart SN, Hoffmann M, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Berridge RJ, Ramani P, Young BE (2008) Threatened Amphibians of the World, IUCN Gland, Switzerland. Lynx Edicions, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapley B, Bradfield KS, Michaels C, Bungard M (2015) Amphibians and conservation breeding programmes: do all threatened amphibians belong on the ark? Biodivers Conserv 24(11):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tellis GJ, Chandrasekaran D (2010) Extent and impact of response biases in cross-national survey research. Int J Res Mark 27(4):329–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward PI, Mosberger N, Kistler C, Fischer O (1998) The relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conserv Biol 12(6):1408–1411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters B, Cabooter E, Schillewaert N (2010) The effect of rating scale format on response styles: the number of response categories and response category labels. Int J Res Mark 27(3):246–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhams DC, Bosch J, Briggs CJ, Cashins S, Davis LR, Lauer A, Muths E, Puschendorf R, Schmidt BR, Sheafor B, Voyles J (2011) Mitigating amphibian disease: strategies to maintain wild populations and control chytridiomycosis. Front Zool 8:8. doi:10.1186/1742-9994-8-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wren S, Angulo A, Meredith H, Kielgast J, Dos Santos M, Bishop P (eds) (2015) Amphibian Conservation Action Plan April 2015. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. http://www.amphibians.org/acap/. Accessed 15 Jan 2017.

  • Yajima M (1991) The insect ecological land at Tama Zoo. Int Zoo Yearb 30:7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zippell K, Lacy R, Byers O (eds) (2006) CBSG/WAZA amphibian ex situ conservation planning workshop final report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, USA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank everyone who responded to the questionnaire or took the time to take part in follow-up interviews. Further thanks to Kevin Johnson, Dianne Barber and Amy Hall for assistance with identifying contacts and to Benjamin Tapley for pre-submission feedback and comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeff Dawson.

Additional information

Communicated by Dirk Sven Schmeller.

This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Ex-situ conservation.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 182 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brady, L., Young, R.P., Goetz, M. et al. Increasing zoo’s conservation potential through understanding barriers to holding globally threatened amphibians. Biodivers Conserv 26, 2735–2749 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1384-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1384-y

Keywords

Navigation