Show simple item record

Increased Behavioral Variation and the Calculation of Release Numbers for Reintroduction Programs

dc.contributor.authorMcPhee, M. Elsbethen_US
dc.contributor.authorSilverman, Emily D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T18:22:31Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T18:22:31Z
dc.date.issued2004-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationMcPHEE, M. ELSBETH; SILVERMAN, EMILY D. (2004). "Increased Behavioral Variation and the Calculation of Release Numbers for Reintroduction Programs." Conservation Biology 18(3): 705-715. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/71584>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0888-8892en_US
dc.identifier.issn1523-1739en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/71584
dc.description.abstractCaptive populations can exhibit more behavioral variation than their wild counterparts as a result of relaxed selective pressures in the captive environment. This increased variation can translate into decreased survivorship upon reintroduction to native habitats. Data show that captive populations of oldfield mice ( Peromyscus polionotus subgriseus ) exhibit such an increase in variation. Motivated by these results, we developed a series of calculations for a “release ratio” that can be used to determine the number of captive-bred animals needed to compensate for the increased variance. We present calculations of release ratios for behavioral and morphological variables with different distributions and illustrate the functional relationship between release numbers, increased variation, and change in average behavior and morphology. Our calculations indicated that the release of 130–150 captive-bred oldfield mice is equivalent to the release of 100 wildlike animals. Release ratios will vary among species, however, and perhaps among different populations of the same species and should be calculated separately for each situation. Development of the release ratio is the first rigorous effort to incorporate behavioral and morphological changes due to captivity into reintroduction planning. Release ratios will help conservation biologists ensure that the appropriate number of animals is released, thus increasing the success of reintroduction programs.en_US
dc.format.extent285054 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Incen_US
dc.rightsThe Journal of the society for Conservation Biologyen_US
dc.titleIncreased Behavioral Variation and the Calculation of Release Numbers for Reintroduction Programsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumSchool of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 430 E. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1115, U.S.A.en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71584/1/j.1523-1739.2004.00478.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00478.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceConservation Biologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArcher, J. 1973. Tests for emotionality in rats and mice: a review. Animal Behaviour 21: 205 – 235.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArnold, S. J. 1995. Monitoring quantitative genetic variation and evolution in captive populations. Pages 295 – 317 in J. D. Ballou, M. Gilpin, and T. J. Foose, editors. Population management for survival and recovery. Columbia University Press, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBallou, J. D., and T. J. Foose. 1996. Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. Pages 263 – 283 in D. G. Kleiman, M. E. Allen, K. V. Thompson, and S. Lumpkin, editors. Wild mammals in captivity: principles and techniques. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBeck, B. B. 1995. Reintroduction, zoos, conservation, and animal welfare. Pages 155 – 163 in B. G. Norton, M. Hutchins, E. F. Stevens, and T. L. Maple, editors. Ethics on the ark: zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBiggins, D. 2000. Predation on black-footed ferrents ( Mustela nigripes ) and Siberian polecats ( M. eversmannii ): conservation and evolutionary implications. Ph.D. dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBritt, A., A. Katz, and C. Welch. 1999. Project Betampona: conservation and re-stocking of black and white ruffed lemurs ( Varecia variegata variegata ). Seventh world conference on breeding endangered species: linking zoo and field research to advance conservation. Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Cincinnati.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChivers, D. J. 1991. Guidelines for re-introductions: procedures and problems. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 62: 89 – 99.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDarwin, C. R. 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEveritt, B. S. 1998. The Cambridge dictionary of statistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFord, M. J. 2002. Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild. Conservation Biology 16: 815 – 825.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrankham, R., H. Hemmer, O. Ryder, E. Cothran, M. SoulÉ, N. Murray, and M. Snyder. 1986. Selection in captive populations. Zoo Biology 5: 127 – 138.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrantzen, M. A. J., J. W. H. Ferguson, and M. S. de Villiers. 2001. The conservation role of captive African wild dogs ( Lycaon pictus ). Biological Conservation 100: 253 – 260.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGinsberg, J. R. 1994. Captive breeding, reintroduction and the conservation of canids. Pages 365 – 383 in P. J. S. Olney, G. M. Mace, and A. T. C. Feistner, editors. Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman & Hall, London.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGriffith, B., J. M. Scott, J. W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245: 477 – 480.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHÖhn, M., M. Kronschnabl, and U. Ganslosser. 2000. Similarities and differences in activities and agonistic behavior of male Eastern grey kangaroos ( Macropus giganteus ) in captivity and the wild. Zoo Biology 19: 529 – 539.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoller, N. R., D. W. Mason, R. M. Dawson, T. Simons, and M. C. Wooten. 1989. Reestablishment of the Perdido Key beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis on Gulf Islands National Seashore, Alabama, USA. Conservation Biology 3: 397 – 404.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKellison, G. T, D. B. Eggleston, and J. S. Burke. 2000. Comparative behaviour and survival of hatchery-reared versus wild summer flounder ( Paralichthys dentatus ). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 1870 – 1877.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKleiman, D. G. 1989. Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation: guidelines for reintroducing endangered species into the wild. BioScience 39: 152 – 161.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKleiman, D. G., B. B. Beck, A. Baker, J. D. Ballou, L. Dietz, and J. Dietz. 1990. The conservation program for the golden lion tamarin, Leontopithecus rosalia. Endangered Species Update 8: 82 – 85.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKleiman, D. G., B. B. Beck, J. M. Dietz, and L. A. Dietz. 1991. Costs of a reintroduction and criteria for success: accounting and accountability in the golden lion tamarin conservation program. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 62: 125 – 142.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKreger, M. 2003. Behavioral profiles of the captive juvenile Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ) as an indicator of reintroduction behavior and survival. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKummer, H., and F. Kurt. 1965. A comparison of social behavior in captive and wild hamadryas babbons. Pages 65 – 80 in H. Vagtborg, editor. The baboon in medical research. University of Texas Press, Austin.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLacy, R. C. 1987. Loss of genetic diversity from managed populations: interacting effects of drift, mutation, selection, and population subdivision. Conservation Biology 1: 143 – 159.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLickliter, R., and J. W. Ness. 1990. Domestication and comparative psychology: status and strategy. Journal of Comparative Psychology 104: 211 – 218.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLindburg, D. G. 1992. Are wildlife reintroductions worth the cost ? Zoo Biology 11: 1 – 2.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceManly, B. F. J. 1997. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Second edition. Chapman & Hall, New York.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarchetti, M. P. and G. A. Nevitt. 2003. Effects of hatchery rearing on brain structures of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Environmental Biology of Fishes 66: 9 – 14.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcPhee, M. E. 2002. Effects of captivity on behavior and morphology in the oldfield mouse, Peromyscus polionotus subgriseus. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcPhee, M. E. 2004. Generations in captivity increases behavioral variance: Considerations for captive breeding and reintroduction programs. Biological Conservation 115: 71 – 77.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller, B., D. Biggin, C. Wemmer, R. Powell, L. Calvo, L. Hanebury, and T. Wharton. 1990. Development of survival skills in captive-raised Siberian polecats ( Mustela eversmanni ). II. Predator avoidance. Journal of Ethology 8: 95 – 104.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller, B., D. Biggins, D. Hanebury, and A. Vargas. 1994. Reintroduction of the black-footed ferret ( Mustela nigripes ). Pages 455 – 464 in P. J. S. Olney, G. M. Mace, and A. T. C. Feistner, editors. Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman & Hall, London.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMills, M. G. L. 1999. Biology, status and conservation with special reference to the role of captive breeding in the African wild dog ( Lycaon pictus ). Seventh world conference on breeding endangered species: linking zoo and field research to advance conservation. Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Cincinnati.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMyers, P., B. L. Lundrigan, B. W. Gillespie, and M. L. Zelditch. 1996. Phenotypic plasticity in skull and dental morphology in the prairie deer mouse ( Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii ). Journal of Morphology 229: 229 – 237.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNesbitt, S. A., M. J. Folk, K. A. Sullivan, S. T. Schwikert, and M. G. Spalding. 2001. An update of the Florida Whooping Crane release project through June 2000. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 8: 62 – 72.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOlla, B. L., M. W. Davis, C. H. Ryer. 1998. Understanding how the hatchery environment represses or promotes the development of behavioral survival skills. Bulletin of Marine Science 62: 531 – 550.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePrice, E. O. 1970. Differential reactivity of wild and semi-domestic deermice ( Peromyscus maniculatus ). Animal Behaviour 18: 747 – 752.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePrice, E. O. 1984. Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. The Quarterly Review of Biology 59: 1 – 32.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePrice, E. O. 1998. Behavioral genetics and the process of animal domestication. Pages 31 – 65 in T. Grandin, editor. Genetics and the behavior of domestic animals. Academic Press, San Diego.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRowell, T. E. 1967. A quantitative comparison of the behavior of a wild and a caged baboon group. Animal Behaviour 15: 499 – 509.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStatistical Sciences. 1999. S-Plus guide to statistical and mathematical analysis. Version S-Plus 2000. Professional release 2. Statscience, MathSoft, Seattle.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStuart, S. N. 1991. Re-introductions: to what extent are they needed ? Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 62: 27 – 37.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStunz, G. W., and T. J. Minello. 2001. Habitat-related predation on juvenile wild-caught and hatchery-reared red drum Sciaenops ocellatus (Linnaeus). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 260: 13 – 25.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSundstrÖm, L. F., and J. I. Johnsson. 2001. Experience and social environment influence the ability of young brown trout to forage on live novel prey. Animal Behaviour 61: 249 – 255.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Recovery plan for the Choctawhatchee, Perdido Key and Alabama beach mouse. USFWS, Atlanta.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Recovery plan for the Anastasia Island and southeastern beach mouse. USFWS, Atlantaen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Threatened and endangered species system. Division of Endangered Species, USFWS, Washington, D.C. Available from http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/tesswebpageviplisted?code=V8listings=0, ( accessed August 2003 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWallace, M. P. 1994. Control of behavioral development in the context of reintroduction programs for birds. Zoo Biology 13: 491 – 499.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWooten, M. 2001. The beach mouse info page. Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. Available from http://www.ag.auburn.edu/~mwooten/main.html#A1.1 ( accessed October 2001 ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Fourth edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.