International Zoo YearbookVolume 51by John Ewen, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, UK, and Co-Chair of the Hihi Recovery Group, set up by the Department of Conservation, New Zealand (http://www.hihiconservation.com/)

Conservation translocations, which include reintroduction, reinforcement, ecological replacement and assisted colonisation, are close to my heart. I am passionate about these methods for recovering species and ecosystems. My approach is also pragmatic as I try to ensure this passion is applied rationally and following best practice as detailed in the IUCN’s Guidelines for Reintroduction and Other Conservation Translocations (IUCN/SSC, 2013). Translocations are inevitably a series of choices and practitioners need to navigate these decisions to best ensure success (Chauvenet et al., 2017). The recognised scientific discipline of reintroduction biology should assist practitioners in making the best decisions (Taylor et al., 2017). I have developed a mantra around supporting translocation practice; know what you want to achieve, figure out the options that you could use to achieve what you want, compare these and select the best one. The more we do this the better our outcomes will be.

Since 2004 I have been based at the Zoological Society of London, yet most of my conservation-translocation work has been with animals in the wild. I am certainly aware of the roles of zoos using captive-bred individuals in conservation translocation but have only recently become directly involved through my work with Durrell, Chester and other zoo partners who support the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation in Mauritius. As such it was a great pleasure to be able to review the special section of Volume 51 of the International Zoo Yearbook (2017) on ‘Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations’, coordinated by guest editors Dr Tania Gilbert and Pritpal Soorae. I was immediately struck by how well represented the 14 contributions were, both geographically and taxonomically. Furthermore, the themes developed cover the diversity of roles that zoos and aquariums play in conservation translocations. I congratulate the editors for achieving this mix as I believe it does a good job of capturing the past, present and future of zoo and aquarium contributions to conservation translocation. My personal highlights were the studies by Jen Nightingale and colleagues about the creation of ark sites to secure White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes in the United Kingdom (Nightingale et al.), Dr Carolyn Hogg and colleagues about metapopulation management of Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii in Australia (Hogg et al.), and Dr Johannes Fritz and colleagues about establishing a migratory population of Northern bald ibis Geronticus eremita between breeding sites in Austria and Germany and an overwintering site in Italy (Fritz et al.).

It is quite clear from all 14 contributions that the classic view of zoo and aquariums as managing insurance populations has changed. As Tania and Pritpal state ‘the traditional in situ–ex situ paradigm is being replaced by a spectrum of management intensity in support of species conservation’ (Gilbert & Soorae). Zoos and aquariums are working more closely with other stakeholders to ensure recovery objectives are met through the best use of either or both in situ and ex situ management. The set of contributions from Australia emphasises this, from a carefully managed metapopulation of Tasmanian devils linking captive and wild populations (Hogg et al.) to managing multi-species breeding-for-release programmes that best support regional species recovery programmes at Perth Zoo (Mawson & Lambert). We cannot forget the continued absolute importance of insurance populations for Eastern barred bandicoot Perameles gunnii conservation in Victoria following extinction in the wild (Parrott et al.). Similarly, Ettling et al.’s study of Ozark hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi in Missouri, USA, shows how zoos joining multi-agency collaborations can improve the status of threatened species.

Beyond directly providing animals for release it is worth noting the substantial and varied ways that zoos and aquariums contribute to conservation translocations, including providing funding support, staff and expertise as well as equipment. Examples of these types of contributions permeate each of the studies in this special issue. I was particularly struck by the efforts of Dr Jenny Daltry and colleagues through their innovative education campaign to improve the negative public attitudes towards snakes as part of the Antiguan racer Alsophis antiguae reintroduction in the West Indies (Daltry et al.). Similarly, the expertise and staff involved in successfully establishing a migratory population of Northern bald ibis using human-led migration flight (Fritz et al.).

Often the objectives of conservation-translocation programmes are assumed to be obvious, saving a particular species from extinction. Furthermore, prioritisation for which species to focus on is frequently assumed to be those that are most at risk (e.g. based on IUCN Red List criteria: IUCN, 2016). However, these are often simplistic views and we should always think carefully about what we want to achieve (remember my conservation-translocation mantra). One obvious and

important objective can be around ecosystem restoration and this is at the heart of ecological-replacement translocations. The studies in this special issue are refreshing because they recognise multiple objectives that drive their work. It’s telling, for example, that nearly one-third of species reintroduced from EAZA institutions were classified as Least Concern (IUCN, 2016) (Gilbert et al.). Threat status was not a pre-requisite for all reintroductions. A common objective is working within local landscapes where the chosen species may only be regionally rare (Bird et al.; Gardiner et al.; Woodfine et al.). Species may also be chosen on cultural grounds and the case study of the Black poplar Populus nigra provides a neat example from the United Kingdom (Bird et al.). Fraser et al. perhaps go furthest in their development of a designer ecosystem where conservation education, training and visitor engagement are the fundamental objectives driving their programme. Regardless of what they are it is imperative to state these objectives clearly as this is the only way to make rational choices and then judge how successful our efforts are.

Effort is where I think this set of contributions shine. Conservation translocations require investment and substantial effort. The people and organisations represented here provide that in spades and it is credit to them that these stories show successful outcomes. This is showcased in efforts such as training birds to migrate (Fritz et al.), supporting captive-bred Andean condor Vultur gryphus through to independence in the wild (Astore et al.), planting larval food plants to support reintroduction of Fisher’s estuarine moth Gortyna borelii (Gardiner et al.) or long-term monitoring of Black poplar (Bird et al.). Most contributions noted the importance of guidance from available resources, such as the IUCN’s Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations (IUCN/SSC, 2013). Recognising the importance of good process and drawing on available information or expertise wherever possible can only help us achieve our stated objectives. In a world where conservation stories are often so alarming and representative of a crisis where we are slowly losing ground, I find this collection a refreshing take on what we can achieve if we focus our effort. Again, I congratulate the guest editors and all the contributors of this special edition on their inspiring collection.

REFERENCES

Chauvenet, A. L. M., Canessa, S. & Ewen, J. G. (2016): Setting objectives and defining the success of reintroductions. In Reintroduction of fish and wildlife populations: 105–122. Jachowski, D. S., Millspaugh, J. J., Angermeier, P. L. & Slotow, R. (Eds). Oakland, CA: University of California Press. IUCN (2016): The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK: International Union for Conservation of Nature. Available at http://www.iucnredlist.org IUCN/SSC (2013): Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland. International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission.Taylor, G., Canessa, S., Clarke, R. H., Ingwersen, D., Armstrong, D. P., Seddon, P. J. & Ewen, J. G. (2017): Is reintroduction biology an effective applied science? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 32: 873–880.

To find out more, please go to the table of contents for Volume 51 of the International Zoo Yearbook.