de revistas y literatura gris publicados sobre translocaciones en Canadá, Estados Unidos, México, América Central y el Caribe previas a 2014 identificadas por una revisión completa de la literatura. Las translocaciones para la conservación involucraron a la crianza en cautiverio en 162 (58%) de las 279 especies animales reubicadas. Cincuenta y cuatro zoológicos contribuyeron con animales para su liberación. Las 40 especies de animales criadas para luego ser liberadas por los zoológicos representaron solamente el 14% de todas las especies animales para las cuales se publicó sobre su translocación y sólo el 25% de todas las especies animales criadas para ser liberadas que existen en América del Norte. Las contribuciones de los zoológicos variaron por taxón, abarcando desde animales criados en zoológicos en el 42% de las translocaciones de anfibios hasta cero contribuciones para los invertebrados marinos. La participación proporcional de los zoológicos en los programas de crianza en cautiverio para la liberación ha incrementado desde 1974 hasta 2014 (r = 0.325, p = 0.0313), ası́ como lo ha hecho la proporción de artı́culos cientı́ficos enfocados en las translocaciones co-escritos por profesionales de los zoológicos (de 0% en 1974 a 42% en 2013). Aunque los zoológicos también contribuyen a las translocaciones para la conservación por medio de la educación, el financiamiento, y la experiencia profesional, el incremento en la contribución de animales para liberar en programas responsables de translocación para la conservación presenta una futura necesidad y oportunidad para la conservación. Alentamos de manera especial el incremento en el diálogo y en la planeación entre la comunidad de zoológicos, las instituciones académicas, y el gobierno para optimizar la contribución directa que los zoológicos pueden hacer para la conservación de la fauna por medio de las translocaciones.
Palabras Clave: acuarios, América Central y el Caribe, poblaciones ex situ, refuerzos, reintroducciones
Introduction
In an effort to curb the growing loss of biodiversity, conservation translocations, “the intentional movement and release of a living organism where the primary objective is a conservation benefit” (IUCN SSC 2013), have become an increasingly important form of species management (Seddon et al. 2007; Bajomi et al. 2010; Brichieri-Colombi & Moehrenschlager 2016; Swan et al. 2016). It is unclear how many conservation translocations are performed annually worldwide, but recent reviews indicate that over 1200 species have been subject to conservation translocations to date, based on data on North American animals (Brichieri-Colombi & Moehrenschlager 2016), global marine taxa (Swan et al. 2016), plants (Godefroid et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2015), birds (Lincoln Park Zoo 2008; Cromarty & Alderson 2013), mammals (Van Houtan et al. 2009), amphibians (Short 2009), invertebrates and reptiles (McHalick 1999), and additional global conservation translocation databases (Soorae 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013; Armstrong et al. 2015; Soorae 2016). Conservation translocations are an important tool for addressing global conservation concerns and should be conducted responsibly when their needs and use are justified (IUCN SSC 2013).
Conservation translocations inevitably require a viable source population. Preferences are generally given to wild populations due to relatively high post-release success in terms of survival, behavior or breeding performance across species (Letty et al. 2007). However, declines in abundance, extent of occurrence, area of occupancy or connectivity may render remaining populations too fragile to act as a continuous source (Dimond & Armstrong 2007; Todd & Lintermans 2015).
The obvious alternative to wild source populations is captive breeding. Captive breeding can be difficult due to taxon-specific genetic, behavioral, or health challenges and postrelease success is often limited unless animals are specifically selected or adequately prepared for release (Todd & Lintermans 2015). Conversely, captive breeding can be advantageous given the ability to provide assurance against species extinction (Zippel et al. 2011), and an increased ability to target specific sex or age cohorts for releases (IUCN SSC 2013).
Institutions with long-standing experience in captive breeding or ex situ propagation include zoos and aquaria (hereafter jointly referred to as zoos). For example, the Bronx zoo was involved in the first bison (Bison bison) translocation in 1907 (Kleiman 1989). Conservationminded breeding emerged in the 1960s (Carr & Cohen 2011) and by the 1980s transformed into the Ark paradigm, which focused on safeguarding genetic reservoirs for species or subspecies whose wild populations are under threat from human impacts (Lees & Wilcken 2009). Today, many genetically representative assurance populations are held under human care (Conde et al. 2011). However, assurance populations can only help stem the loss of biodiversity and functional ecosystems if safeguarded genes or species are ultimately returned to the wild. Accordingly, many modern zoos have in recent years increased focus on and allocated resources for threatened species recovery (Penning et al. 2009; Barongi et al. 2015), and at least two zoo associations, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) and the European Associations of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), have formally adopted the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations (IUCN SSC 2013; Barongi et al. 2015; EAZA 2018). Species that have benefited from releases to the wild include the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia), California condor (Gymnogyps
Volume 33, No. 1, 2019
