A LITTLE over a year ago, a group of conservation biologists flew into
Bogor, in Indonesia. They had gone to work out a plan to save the rarest
of the world’s rhinoceroses – the Javan and Sumatran rhinos. The biologists
were armed, not with guns and razor wire, but with a personal computer and
programs designed to work out what the chances of survival were for small
populations.
The team fed information about the age, sex and distribution of rhinos
into the computer, which then produced estimates of the rhino’s chances
under various conditions. From these estimates, the biologists designed
a survival plan: the rhinos, they decided, should be reorganised into new
populations, some in captivity and some in the wild, and the animals should
be managed as a whole – as a ‘megazoo’.
Managing animals in the wild as closely as captive populations is a
controversial strategy. But as Peter Bennett, a conservation coordinator
for the British Zoo Federation, points out: ‘The term ‘megazoo’ may have
connotations of Victorian animal houses, but you can’t avoid the fact that
in 100 years’ time it is likely that no animal will be able to survive in
the wild without close management, because there will be no wild left.’
Advertisement
The World Conservation Union (the IUCN) has a group of captive breeding
specialists advising conservationists on issues related to captive breeding
as part of the Species Survival Commission. The group coordinates international
breeding programmes and provides zoos, wildlife parks and other organisations
with technical assistance for managing small populations, both captive and
wild. ‘We are moving towards the situation where there is no distinction
between captive and wild,’ says Tom Foose, a member of the group. ‘Unless
we exercise close management in the wild, the smaller populations are not
going to survive.’
The Javan rhino (Rhinoceros sondaicus) and the Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus
sumatrensis) are typical of small populations threatened with extinction.
There are fewer than 1000 Sumatran rhinos, and these live in small, isolated
populations. The Javan rhino is rarer still, with a single known population
of around 70 animals, based in the Ujong Kulon National Park in Java. With
poaching and the continued destruction of their habitat, these populations
are likely to dwindle still further.
Although guards and fences can help to slow the losses, a small population’s
survival does not depend entirely on the number of animals. Chance variations
in other factors can also affect it. Disease or a natural disaster such
as a hurricane can wipe out a small population. Unexpected failures in breeding,
or a bias in sex ratios, can also alter the structure of the population.
And inbreeding, or no breeding at all, accelerates the loss of genetic diversity:
a gene pool can very quickly shrink to a gene puddle.
These problems are characteristic of any small isolated population,
including animals living in zoos. ‘Zoos have been confronted with the problems
of managing small populations for many years, and have developed analytical
techniques for minimising the risks to the survival of these small populations,’
says Bennett. This has led the IUCN’s captive breeding group to the conclusion
that it is now time to start managing shrinking wild populations as if they
were in captivity. ‘In most cases this is not intervention, it is just good
management,’ says Georgina Mace, of London Zoo.
Curators at zoos and wildlife parks have taken management of their animals
more seriously over the past 20 years and are keen to play a leading part
in conservation through captive breeding (see ‘Breeding by numbers’, New
Scientist, 1 September 1988). To this end, zoos around the world are developing
captive breeding programmes. By splitting captive populations among several
zoos around the world, the zoos maintain the genetic diversity of the species
so that when surplus animals are returned to the wild, they have the wherewithal
to cope with their natural environment, and add new genes to the local gene
pool. This strategy also helps to prevent a single disaster from wiping
out a whole species.
Stud books and computer databases play a central role in animal management.
One of the most widely used databases is the Animal Record Keeping System
(Arks), developed at Minnesota Zoo in the US, and now used by more than
300 zoos around the world. The central database holds information on the
pedigrees of more than 100 000 animals in 32 countries, allowing curators
to identify suitable mates for animals in their collections.
In theory, a database such as Arks should make it easy to prevent inbreeding.
In practice, it is more difficult. For many species, all the zoo animals
are descended from just a few animals introduced from the wild. And there
is sometimes no record of the relationship between present populations and
their founding fathers and mothers.
The problem of incomplete records has prompted several groups to develop
programs that analyse the genetic make-up of populations and their demographic
structures. These include ‘Sparks’, the Single Population Analysis and Record
Keeping System, devised by the group at Minnesota Zoo, and Gene Drop programs,
which estimate the loss of genes down through the generations and calculate
the ideal distribution of those genes. Zoos and parks can then set up breeding
programmes to achieve that ideal distribution.
New techniques in biochemistry and genetics are beginning to fill in
some of the missing information. Genetic fingerprinting, for instance, can
identify an animal’s parentage and the degree of genetic diversity in a
particular population. Improvements in DNA analysis should lead to more
accurate information.
Zoos are using these techniques to gather information on the genetics
of small captive populations. London Zoo has just fingerprinted the scimitar-horned
oryx at London and Amsterdam Zoos. The tests showed that the animals in
Amsterdam had a greater variety of genes than those in London. This allows
the zoos to improve their breeding programme for oryx to increase the diversity
of the London population.
Biologists working in the field can apply the same techniques to wild
animals to work out their pedigrees. Refinements to DNA analysis mean that
it is now possible to obtain a genetic fingerprint from the tiny amount
of DNA in a single hair, or from the cells in urine.
In the early 1980s, conservationists and zoo biologists started to build
computer models that predicted the survival of populations, based on genetic
and demographic analyses. One of the first studies took place in 1983 in
Yellowstone National Park in the US. Mark Schaffer, a biologist with the
US Fish and Wildlife Service, calculated that the park had to have at least
50 female grizzly bears for the population to have a 95 per cent chance
of survival. He called this the ‘minimum viable population’. This method
of calculation has limitations. Schaffer’s model considered only the reproductive
capacity of the population based on the ages of the animals. In reality,
many other factors affect the viability of a group of animals.
This led Mike Gilpin and Michael Soule, of the University of California,
San Diego, to suggest adding all the other interacting factors, such as
variations in the environment, catastrophes and genetics, into the computer
models to produce more accurate simulations. They called their technique
‘Population Viability Analysis’.
Gilpin and Soule first tried their technique in 1986 on the endangered
Concho water snake in Central Texas. Since then, other researchers have
applied variations of the technique to other species, including the black,
Sumatran and Javan rhinos, the red wolf, the Californian condor, the Florida
panther and the Puerto Rican parrot .
Over the past 18 months, the IUCN’s captive breeding group has held
a number of workshops based on population viability analysis. Field biologists
provide the data for the analyses from their observations of real populations
of animals. The conservationists then use the results of the analyses to
design ‘Species Survival Plans’.
Collecting the essential information to produce an accurate analysis
is often tricky. In the case of the Javan rhino, gathering the data to set
up the computer model was particularly difficult. There are none of these
rhinos in captivity and they are especially difficult to observe in the
wild. Information on the age and number of animals of each sex, for example,
came from measurements of footprints. (Adults leave bigger prints, and if
small prints accompanied the larger ones, then that adult was likely to
be female.) After a workshop on the Javan rhino, attended by the captive
breeding group, members of the Indonesian Conservation Department and field
workers, the group made a series of recommendations based on the results
of the population viability analysis. In particular, the group recommended
that both wild and captive animals should be managed as a single population.
It also emphasised the need to transfer techniques developed in captivity
to animals in the wild. ‘While it is necessary, it is no longer sufficient
merely to protect endangered species in situ. They must be managed,’ said
Foose.
The workshop stressed the need to continue to protect the rhinos at
Ujung Kulon and for a field programme to gather more information by tagging
them with radio devices. There were also some more controversial suggestions.
One was to set up at least two populations in captivity. A second was to
move some of the animals from Ujung Kulon to other reserves in areas where
the rhino used to live. When necessary, animals would be moved between the
groups to ensure that genetic material mixed and that genetic diversity
was preserved.
The idea is ambitious and will not be easy to follow through. In a zoo
it is relatively simple to observe animals and even to take blood samples.
For the programme to work, the same sort of information on the biology and
pedigrees of the wild animals is needed. But these animals live in dense
tropical forest and are difficult to find, let alone recognise as particular
individuals.
Artificial insemination and embryo transfer are almost routine procedures
in zoos today (see ‘Sperm you can count on’, New Scientist, 10 June 1989).
In the wild, these techniques could invigorate dwindling gene pools without
the problems of moving animals. But they are practically impossible to carry
out outside a zoo. As Bill Holt, of London Zoo, points out, the techniques
rely on the female being in oestrus, and complicated hormone assays are
needed to check that the animal is ready. These tests can be done only in
a well-equipped laboratory – and once the results are known speed is of
the essence. Simple logistics rule out any attempt at these procedures in
the field.
Gilpin also points out that the techniques of zoo management are an
expensive way to guarantee the survival of wild populations. But he admits
that for very small populations it is not practical just to leave the wild
animals to their own devices. Ideally, he would like to see some of the
legwork – such as population viability analysis – done before a species
becomes an emergency case. At that stage it should still be possible to
protect the animals in other ways, by improving the habitat they live in
and protecting them from disease.
Many animal rights groups and conservationists worry about the ethics
of interfering with animals in the wild. The proposed management plan for
the wild Javan rhinos has met opposition, both from conservationists involved
in last year’s workshop and others. The main concern was about the number
of animals that could safely be taken from the wild.
In the US, the Fish and Wildlife Service has run into a similar problem
in its efforts to manage the Florida panther. Plans for a captive breeding
programme, devised at another IUCN workshop and based on population viability
analysis, have been held up because of protests from pressure groups.
The workshop, held last November, included members of the captive breeding
group, representatives from Florida zoos and other interested agencies under
the umbrella of the Florida Panther Interagency Committee. They recommended
an immediate programme of captive breeding and more management of the animals
in the wild. They also suggested expanding the scheme to reintroduce the
animal to the wild, while at the same time increasing efforts at conserving
the panther’s habitat. The captive breeding programme would involve the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, a private captive breeding facility and
zoos.
The plan was to take four wild adults and six kittens in 1990, and then
one pair of adults and six kittens a year for the next two years – but not
a single panther has been taken from the wild so far. Trapping should have
begun last spring in the Everglades National Park, but there was an outcry
from the public.
Jasper Carlton, coordinator of the pressure group Earth First!, is not
convinced that the Fish and Wildlife Service can successfully breed and
release Florida panthers into the wild. Carlton’s movement and others urged
the Fish and Wildlife Service to change its programme, taking only kittens,
and only on an experimental basis. They reason that every adult taken from
the wild population reduces the species’ chance of survival in its natural
habitat. Kittens have a low chance of survival in the wild and stand a better
chance in captivity. Carlton calls for a greater commitment to restore and
enhance the panthers’ habitat. Captive breeding programmes have an unhappy
history in the US: Carlton points to the demise of the Californian condor
and black-footed ferret, both of which were taken into captivity in a last-ditch
attempt to save the species. ‘We doubt whether these species will ever successfully
recover in the wild,’ says Carlton.
‘If they do the same with the Florida panther there will be a fight
on a national scale,’ says Carlton. He does not object to the principle
of captive breeding programmes, but he is worried about them taking place
in commercial zoos, as will be the case with the Florida panther. ‘The Fish
and Wildlife Service have decided to put genetics ahead of habitat protection,’
he says.
Foose says that the zoos selected for the panther project are all involved
in conservation, and that a good deal of effort is going into protecting
and improving habitats suitable for both the black-footed ferret and the
Californian condor, so that captive-bred animals will have somewhere to
live when they are released into the wild.
Ulysses Seal, chairman of the captive breeding group says: ‘When a species
is endangered there are always a lot of conservation groups involved. There
are also a lot of suggestions based on science, without any science being
»å´Ç²Ô±ð.’
He supports the survival programme for the Florida panther and believes
that population viability analyses will help in getting things done quickly.
‘What we want to do is prevent the extinction of any species through neglect,’
says Seal.
Both Foose and Seal believe that in the next 50 years at least 1500
species will need a species survival plan involving captive and wild populations.
These range from the Bali starling to Sumatran tigers, Asian lions and the
African elephant. Their vision is of a world where zoo populations and wild
populations complement each other; where humans carry out migrations when
no natural corridors connect the animals – a world where good management
exists for all animals. Yet Seal stresses that close management will be
necessary only until wild populations are able to sustain themselves and
are secure.’
The first steps have already been taken. Computer databases, analysis
programs and techniques in genetics and reproductive biology have helped
zoos to breed and reintroduce endangered species such as the golden lion
tamarin and the Arabian oryx. Some of the techniques that have helped these
animals are now becoming available to field workers. But the success of
species survival plans depends on acceptance by other conservationists,
many of whom have different views on the best way to stop extinction.
* * *
Out of the zoo and into the rainforest
IT DIDN’T take a computer to work out that the Puerto Rican parrot needed
better management. At a workshop run by the IUCN captive breeding group
in June last year, one of the participants watched a parrot eating paint
from the wall of the Luquillo aviary. This prompted him to recommend more
careful management at the aviary.
This simple line of reasoning contrasts with the scientific analysis
on which the participants at the workshop based the rest of their recommendations.
At the week-long workshop, members of the captive breeding group, along
with field workers and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, applied population
viability analysis programs devised by the captive breeding group to quantify
the parrot’s chances of survival. They then used the results to map out
a Species Survival Plan.
The Puerto Rican parrot, Amazona vittata, is heading for extinction.
In June last year it existed in the wild as a single population of 34 birds
in the Luquillo Forest, part of the Caribbean National Forest on Puerto
Rico. There was also a captive population in Luquillo and plans to establish
another at Rio Abajo with a total of 46 birds.
At one time there may have been as many as a million Puerto Rican parrots
across the island. A hurricane in 1899 may have started off the bird’s decline.
But, since then, disease, loss of habitat and poaching have led to a continuing
fall in numbers. Over the past 20 years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
made extensive efforts to protect the wild birds, guarding the nests of
each wild parrot to deter egg thieves, and transferring eggs and birds between
the wild populations and the aviaries.
Despite these measures, the viability analysis did not give very encouraging
results. It gave the birds a 66 per cent chance of survival over the next
century, unless more drastic steps are taken to help them. The biologists
at the workshop suggested a number of measures that would give the birds
a better chance. These included setting up a ‘master plan’ for the wild
and captive birds, involving the Fish and Wildlife Service. The plan involves
establishing at least five more populations in the wild and more groups
in captivity, and forming at least one population on the mainland, probably
at Houston Zoo in Texas. All these groups would be managed as a single population
to ensure genetic variety.
Field biologists were advised by those at the workshop to use techniques
such as genetic fingerprinting to identify the parentage of individual birds
– a first step to setting up a studbook for the species. For this the workshop
recommended the Arks database and the Sparks record-keeping program, both
developed at Minnesota Zoo, and Medarks, a medical database. These would
give field biologists access to some of the expertise on small populations
built up in zoos. There was also a need for practical action, including
provision of better food supplies, routine veterinary care and gathering
more information on the parrot’s behaviour.
The computer analysis which formed the basis of these recommendations
involved a simulation of the parrot population based on a computer model
developed in 1980 by James Grier, of North Dakota State University. The
model calculates the probability of extinction over a specified period,
either starting from the actual number of birds and the ratio of males to
females or from a hypothetical population.
In addition to this basic model, Bob Lacy, of the Brookfield Zoo, Chicago,
and a member of the IUCN’s captive breeding group, has added programs that
simulate the mean population growth, carrying capacities, effects of various
environmental conditions on reproduction, and the impact of catastrophes.
The basic information for the modelling came from field biologists who
had studied the Puerto Rican parrot. Their data were run through the model
thousands of times with different parameters, to calculate the probability
of the population surviving over the next 100 years. It showed that neither
the carrying capacity of the habitat nor environmental variation in the
Luquillo forest have much impact on the wild birds’ survival. The main factors
controlling the rate of extinction were disease and natural catastrophes
such as hurricanes. Lacy estimated that the wild population of parrots would
be halved if a hurricane hit Puerto Rico.
In June 1989, the chance of a hurricane hitting the island in the next
year was reckoned at one in 30. A month later, Hurricane Hugo blasted through
Puerto Rico. Just as the model predicted, half the parrots were lost. Lacy
believes that most of the birds died after their feathers were blown off
or because they were blown out to sea. The hurricane also destroyed much
of the forest, leaving the parrots vulnerable to hawks.
According to Lacy, there are around 30 wild birds left. He says things
could have been much worse but for the fact that some of the workshop’s
recommendations had already been implemented. Captive birds already had
good indoor cages, and a food store had been organised. ‘We now face a dilemma,’
says Lacy. ‘Do we take all the birds into captivity or do we carry on following
the recommendations from the population viability analysis?’ Discussions
are continuing, but the least those who attended the workshop now have confidence
in the accuracy of the computer’s predictions.
Claire Neesham is a writer on science and technology.