Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Towards more individual-based and fitness-oriented captive mammal population management


Affiliations
1 LTM Research and Conservation, 37130 Gleichen, Germany
2 Biopsychology Laboratory and Institute of Excellence, University of Mysore, Mysuru 570 006, India and Evolutionary and Organismal Biology Unit, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bengaluru, India
 

Many captive populations of birds and mammals are not likely to reach sustainability due mostly to breeding problems. Identifying the conditions under which breeding problems and poor population growth are likely to occur and establishing more appropriate conditions, therefore, will be a necessary prerequisite for future successful conservation breeding and the long-term survival of captive populations. This article analyses the basic approaches and concepts of management programmes for captive mammals. It discusses and propagates an approach which might help increase the productivity of the populations and decrease the risk of viability problems. Evolutionary biology, ecology and conservation biology provide concepts that propose a critical role of the individual phenotype in the context of evolutionary processes, population development and conservation practice. It is assumed that this is not yet sufficiently reflected in the management of captive mammals and possibly other populations, thus contributing to fitness problems. A more individual-based population management that intends to focus on the ‘quality’ of the individuals and the individual phenotype therefore is proposed. Individuals have to be managed such that they are phenotypically represented in future generations.

Keywords

Adaptive phenotypes, breeding problems, captive mammal populations, units of selection
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Conway, W. G., Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo Biol., 2011, 30, 1–8.

  • Lacy, R. C., Achieving true sustainability of zoo populations. Zoo Biol., 2013, 32, 19–26.

  • Lees, C. and Wilken, J., Sustaining the Ark: the challenges faced byzoos in maintaining viable populations. Int. Zoo Yrbk., 2009, 43, 6–18.

  • Leus, K., Trayler-Holzer, K. and Lacy, R. C., Genetic and demographic populationmanagement in zoos and aquariums: recent developments andfuture challenges and opportunities for scientific research. Int. Zoo Yrbk., 2011, 45, 213–225.

  • Lynch, C. and Snyder, T., Sustainable population management of birds: current challenges exemplified. Int. Zoo Yrbk., 2014, 48,156–165.

  • Kaumanns, W., Schwitzer, C., Klumpe, C. and Schmid, P., How areprimate breeding programs doing? An overview and preliminary analysis. In EEP Yearbook 1998/99 (ed. Rietkerk, F.), EAZA ExecutiveOffice, Amsterdam, 2000, pp. 448–460.

  • Kaumanns, W., Singh, M. and Schwitzer, C., Primate populations inzoos: a case of fragmentation. Primate Rep., 2008, 76, 41–54.

  • Conde, D. A. et al., Zoos through the lens of the IUCN Red List: a globalmetapopulation approach to support conservation breeding programs. PLoS ONE, 2013, 8, 1–10.

  • Byers, O., Lees, C., Wilcken, J. and Schwitzer, C., The one plan approach: the philosophy and implementation of CBSG’s approachto integrated species conservation planning. WAZA Mag., 2013, 14, 2–5.

  • Penfold, L. M., Powell, D., Trayler-Holzer, K. and Asa, C. S., ‘Use it or lose’: characterization, implications, and mitigation of femaleinfertility in captive wildlife. Zoo Biol., 2014, 33, 20–28.

  • Walters, C. and Hilborn, R., Ecological optimization and adaptive management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 1978, 9, 157–188.

  • Kaumanns, W., Singh, M. and Sliwa, A., Captive propagation of threatenedprimates – the example of the lion-tailed macaque Macacasilenus. J. Threaten. Taxa, 2013, 14, 4825–4839.

  • Kaumanns, W., The ‘quality’ of captive primate populations. Primate Rep., 1994, 39, 127–132.

  • Brook, B. W., Demographics versus genetics in conservation biology. InConservation Biology – Evolution in Action (eds Carroll, S. P. andFox, C.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, pp. 35–49.

  • McPhee, M. E., Generations in captivity increase behavioural variance: considerations for captive breeding and reintroduction programs. Biol. Conserv., 2003, 115, 71–77.

  • Watters, J. V., Lema, S. C. and Nevitt, G. A., Phenotype management: anew approach to habitat restoration. Biol. Conserv., 2003, 112, 435–445.

  • Ballou, J. D. et al., Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. In Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniquesfor Zoo Management (eds Kleiman, D. G., Thompson, K. V. and Baer, C. K.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago,2010, pp. 219–252.

  • De Boer, L. E. M., Founder representation: how to deal with it? In EEP-Coordinators Manual, National Foundation for Research in ZoologicalGardens, Amsterdam, 1989, p. 90.

  • Schreiber, A., Kolter, L. and Kaumanns, W., Conserving patterns ofgenetic diversity in endangered animals by captive breeding. ActaTheriol., 1993, 38, 71–88.

  • McPhee, M. E. and Carlstead, K., The importance of maintaining naturalbehaviours in captive mammals. In Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principlesand Techniques for Zoo Management (eds Kleiman, D. G., Thompson, K. V. and Baer, C. K.), University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, 2010, pp. 303–313.

  • Gold, K. C. and Maple, T. L., Personality assessment in the gorillaand its utility as a management tool. Zoo Biol., 1994, 13,509–522.

  • Carlstead, K., Mellen, J. and Kleiman, D. G., Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in U. S. zoos: I. Individual behaviour profiles andtheir relationship to breeding success. Zoo Biol., 1999, 18, 17–34.

  • Smith, B. R. and Blumstein, D. T., Fitness consequences of personality: ameta-analysis. Behav. Ecol., 2008, 19, 448–455.

  • Watters, J. V. and Powell, D. M., Measuring animal personality foruse in population management in zoos: suggested methods and rationale. Zoo Biol., 2011, 29, 1–22.

  • Tetley, C. L. and O’Hara, S. J., Ratings of animal personality as a toolfor improving the breeding, management and welfare of zoo mammals. Anim. Welfare, 2012, 21, 463–476.

  • Frankham, F. and Ballou, J. D., Introduction to Conservation Genetics, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 2010.

  • Ashley, M. V., Wilson, M. F., Pergams, O. R., O’Dowd, D. J., Gende, S. M. and Brown, J. S., Evolutionary enlightened management. Biol. Conserv., 2003, 111, 115–123.

  • Gusset, M., The evolution–conservation interface. Endangered SpeciesUpdate, 2007, 24, 117–118.

  • Bateson, P. and Gluckman, P., Plasticity, Robustness, Development andEvolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011.

  • Lomnicki, A., Individual heterogeneity and population regulation. InCurrent Problems in Sociobiology (eds Kings College Sociobiology Group), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982, pp. 153–167.

  • Ricklefs, R. E., Structures and transformations of life histories. Funct. Ecol., 1991, 5, 174–183.

  • Sibley, R. and Smith, R. H., Behavioural Ecology, Ecological Consequencesof Adaptive Behaviour, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1985.

  • Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O. and Weissing, F. J., Life historytrade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities. Nature, 2007, 447, 581–584.

  • Stearns, S. C., Life history evolution: success, limitations, and prospects. Naturwissenschaften, 2000, 87, 476–486.

  • Anthony, L. L. and Blumstein, D. T., Integrating behaviour into wildlifeconservation: the multiple ways behaviour can reduce Ne. Biol. Conserv., 2000, 95, 303–315.

  • Coté, I. M., Knowledge of reproductive behavior contributes to conservationprograms. In Animal Behaviour and Wildlife Conservation (eds Festa-Biachet, M. and Apollonio, M.), Island Press, WashingtonDC, 2004, pp. 77–92.

  • Smith, R. H. and Sibly, R., Behavioural ecology and population dynamics: towards a synthesis. In Behavioural Ecology, Ecological Consequencesof Adaptive Behaviour (eds Sibly, R. and Smith,R. H.), Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1985, pp. 577–592.

  • Carroll, S. P. and Watters, J. V., Managing phenotypic variability withgenetic and environmental heterogeneity: adaptation as a first principleof conservation practise. In Conservation Biology – Evolution inAction (eds Carroll, S. P. and Fox, C.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, pp. 181–198.

  • Gosling, L. M., Adaptive behavior and population viability. In AnimalBehaviour and Wildlife Conservation (eds Festa-Biachet, M. and Apollonio, M.), Island Press, Washington DC, 2003, pp.13–32.

  • Arcese, P., Individual quality, environment, and conservation. In AnimalBehaviour and Wildlife Conservation (eds Festa-Biachet, M. and Apollonio, M.), Island Press, Washington DC, 2003, pp. 271–296.

  • Lomnicki, A., Regulation of population density due to individual differencesand patchy environment. Oikos, 1980, 35, 185–193.

  • East, M. L. and Hofer, H., Social environments, social tactics and theirfitness consequences in complex mammalian societies. In SocialBehaviour, Genes, Ecology and Evolution (eds Székely, T., Moore, A. J. and Komdeur, J.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, p. 360.

  • Somers, M. J. and Gusset, M., The role of social behaviour in carnivore reintroductions. In Reintroduction of Top-Order Predators (eds Hayward, M. and Somers, M.), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2009, pp. 270–281.

  • Stillman, R. A., Railsback, S. F., Giske, J., Berger, U. and Grimm, V., Making predictions in a changing world: the benefits of individual basedecology. BioScience, 2015, 65, 140–150.

  • Grimm, V. and Railsback, S. F., Individual-Based Modelling and Ecology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005.

  • Gusset, M., Jakoby, O., Müller, M. S., Somers, M. J., Slotow, R., andGrimm, V., Dogs on the catwalk: modelling re-introduction andtranslocation of endangered wild dogs in South Africa. Biol. Conserv., 2009, 142, 2774–2781.

  • Snyder, N. F. R., Derrickson, S. R., Beissinger, S. R., Wiley, J. W., Smith, T. B., Toone, W. D. and Miller, B., Limits of captive breeding inendangered species recovery. Conserv. Biol., 1996, 10, 338–348.

  • Caro, T., Behavioural Ecology and Conservation Biology, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, 1998.

  • Festa-Biachet, M. and Apollonio, M., Animal Behaviour and Wildlife Conservation, Island Press, Washington DC, 2003.

  • Gosling, L. M. and Sutherland, W. J., Behaviour and Conservation, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 2000.

  • Marsh L. K., Primates in Fragments: Ecology and Conservation, KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2003.

  • Carroll, S. P. and Fox, C., Conservation Biology – Evolution in Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.

  • Allee, W. C., Animal Aggregations: A Study in General Sociology, Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago, 1931.

  • Courchamp, F., Berec, L. and Gascoigne, J., Allee effects in ecology andconservation. Environ. Conserv., 2008, 36, 80–85.

  • Swaisgood, R. R. and Schulte, B. A., Applying knowledge of mammaliansocial organization, mating systems and communication tomanagement. In Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles andTechniques for Zoo Management (eds Kleiman, D. G., Thompson, K. V. and Baer, C. K.), University of Chicago Press,Chicago, 2010, pp. 329–343.

  • Somers, M. J., Graf, J. A., Szykman, M., Slotow, R. and Gusset, M., Older bull elephants control young males. Oecologia, 2008, 158, 239–247.

  • Buss, D. M. and Greiling, H., Adaptive individual differences. J. Person., 1999, 67, 209–243.

  • Watters, J. V. and Meehan, C. L., Different strokes: can managing behaviouraltypes increase post-release success? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 2007, 102, 364–379.

  • Zinner, D., Hindahl, J. and Kaumanns, W., Experimental group encountersin lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus). Primate Rep., 2001, 59, 77–92.

  • Stearns, S. C., Life-history tactics: a review of the ideas. Q. Rev. Biol., 1976, 51, 3–47.

  • Nunney, I., The limits to knowledge in conservation genetics: the valueof effective population size. Evol. Biol., 2000, 31, 179–194.

  • Sambatti, J. B., Stahl, E. and Harrison, S., Metapopulation structure andthe conservation consequences of population fragmentation. InConservation Biology – Evolution in Action (eds Carroll, S. P. and Fox, C.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, pp. 50–67.

  • Rockwood, L. L., Introduction to Population Ecology, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 2006.

  • Blumstein, D. T., Social behaviour in conservation. In Social Behaviour Genes, Ecology and Evolution (eds Székely, T., Moore, A. J. and Komdeur, J.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, pp. 654–672.

  • Deans, D. R. et al., Finding our way through phenotypes. PLoS Biol., 2015, 13, 1–9.

  • Dawkins, M. S., From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behav. Brain Sci., 1990, 13, 1–9.

  • Alroy, J., Limits to captive breeding of mammals in zoos. Conserv. Biol., 2015, 29, 926–931.

  • Schulte-Hostedde, A. I. and Mastromonaco, G. F., Integrating evolution inthe management of captive zoo populations. Evol. Appl.,2015, 8, 413–422.


Abstract Views: 340

PDF Views: 145




  • Towards more individual-based and fitness-oriented captive mammal population management

Abstract Views: 340  |  PDF Views: 145

Authors

Werner Kaumanns
LTM Research and Conservation, 37130 Gleichen, Germany
Mewa Singh
Biopsychology Laboratory and Institute of Excellence, University of Mysore, Mysuru 570 006, India and Evolutionary and Organismal Biology Unit, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bengaluru, India

Abstract


Many captive populations of birds and mammals are not likely to reach sustainability due mostly to breeding problems. Identifying the conditions under which breeding problems and poor population growth are likely to occur and establishing more appropriate conditions, therefore, will be a necessary prerequisite for future successful conservation breeding and the long-term survival of captive populations. This article analyses the basic approaches and concepts of management programmes for captive mammals. It discusses and propagates an approach which might help increase the productivity of the populations and decrease the risk of viability problems. Evolutionary biology, ecology and conservation biology provide concepts that propose a critical role of the individual phenotype in the context of evolutionary processes, population development and conservation practice. It is assumed that this is not yet sufficiently reflected in the management of captive mammals and possibly other populations, thus contributing to fitness problems. A more individual-based population management that intends to focus on the ‘quality’ of the individuals and the individual phenotype therefore is proposed. Individuals have to be managed such that they are phenotypically represented in future generations.

Keywords


Adaptive phenotypes, breeding problems, captive mammal populations, units of selection

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv109%2Fi6%2F1121-1129