POLICY PERSPECTIVE

Standards for documenting and monitoring bird reintroduction projects

  1. William J. Sutherland1,
  2. Doug Armstrong2,
  3. Stuart H. M Butchart3,
  4. Joanne M. Earnhardt4,
  5. John Ewen5,
  6. Ian Jamieson6,
  7. Carl G. Jones7,
  8. Rebecca Lee8,
  9. Peter Newbery9,
  10. James D. Nichols10,
  11. Kevin A. Parker11,
  12. François Sarrazin12,
  13. Philip J. Seddon6,
  14. Nirmal Shah13,
  15. Vikash Tatayah14

Article first published online: 29 MAR 2010

DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00113.x

Issue

Conservation Letters

Conservation Letters

Volume 3, Issue 4, pages 229–235, August 2010

Additional Information

How to Cite

Sutherland, W. J., Armstrong, D., Butchart, S. H. M., Earnhardt, J. M., Ewen, J., Jamieson, I., Jones, C. G., Lee, R., Newbery, P., Nichols, J. D., Parker, K. A., Sarrazin, F., Seddon, P. J., Shah, N. and Tatayah, V. (2010), Standards for documenting and monitoring bird reintroduction projects. Conservation Letters, 3: 229–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00113.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

  2. 2

    Wildlife Ecology Group, Ecology Building 624, Massey University, PB 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand

  3. 3

    BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, UK

  4. 4

    Lincoln Park Zoo, 2001 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60614, USA

  5. 5

    Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London, England NW1 4RY, UK

  6. 6

    Department of Zoology, University of Otago, 340 Great King Street, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand

  7. 7

    Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Les Augrès Manor, Trinity, Jersey JE3 5BP, Channel Islands

  8. 8

    Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloustershire, GL2 7BT, UK

  9. 9

    Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, UK

  10. 10

    USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 0708-4017, USA

  11. 11

    The Ecology and Conservation Group, Institute for Natural Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 102904, North Shore Mail Centre, Auckland, New Zealand

  12. 12

    Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, UMR 7204 MNHN-CNRS-UPMC, Conservation des espèces, Restauration et Suivi des populations, Paris F-75005, France

  13. 13

    Nature Seychelles, Seychelles, Indian Ocean

  14. 14

    Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, Grannum Road, Vacoas, Mauritius, Indian Ocean

*Correspondence William J. Sutherland, Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. Tel: 01223-336686; fax: 01223-336686. E-mail w.sutherland@zoo.cam.ac.uk

  1. Editor Andras Baldi

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 2 AUG 2010
  2. Article first published online: 29 MAR 2010
  3. Received 23 November 2009Accepted9 March 2010

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (116K)

Keywords:

  • Birds;
  • evidence-based conservation;
  • reintroduction;
  • translocation

Abstract

It would be much easier to assess the effectiveness of different reintroduction methods, and so improve the success of reintroductions, if there was greater standardization in documentation of the methods and outcomes. We suggest a series of standards for documenting and monitoring the methods and outcomes associated with reintroduction projects for birds. Key suggestions are: documenting the planned release before it occurs, specifying the information required on each release, postrelease monitoring occurring at standard intervals of 1 and 5 years (and 10 for long-lived species), carrying out a population estimate unless impractical, distinguishing restocked and existing individuals when supplementing populations, and documenting the results. We suggest these principles would apply, largely unchanged, to other vertebrate classes. Similar methods could be adopted for invertebrates and plants with appropriate modification. We suggest that organizations publically state whether they will adopt these approaches when undertaking reintroductions. Similar standardization would be beneficial for a wide range of topics in environmental monitoring, ecological studies, and practical conservation.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (116K)