Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conde 2011
Conde 2011
CONSERVATION
to Conserve Biodiversity
a resource for ex situ conservation efforts.
A
t the October 2010 meeting of the global amphibian population declines (11). resented and 4% of amphibians. Our primary
Convention on Biological Diversity Captive breeding for reintroduction has focus is on species of conservation concern;
(CBD) in Nagoya, Japan, delegates downsides. Sociopolitical factors can deter- for mammals, roughly one-fifth to one-quar-
discussed a plan to reduce pressures on the mine the success of programs. For example, ter of threatened (19) and Near-Threatened
planet’s biodiversity. Key targets include reintroduction of Arabian oryx (Oryx leu- species are represented in ISIS zoos (see
expanding coverage of protected areas, halv- coryx) in central Oman was hampered by the figure) (table S1). With the exception of
ing the rate of loss of natural habitats, and poaching, partly because local communities Critically Endangered species, which only
400
200 18%
24% 23% 17%
25% 37%
17%
19% 9% 28% 51% 6% 4% 3%
100% 100% 18% 0% 2% 50%
0
NT VU EN CR EW NT VU EN CR EW NT VU EN CR EW NT VU EN CR EW
5000
500
50 50 50 50
1
Percentage of
species per interval 21 27 25 27 8 40 29 23 6 40 32 22 24 10 18 48
NT: Near threatened VU: Vulnerable EN: Endangered CR: Critically endangered EW: Extinct in the wild
Threatened
Endangered species in zoos. (Top) The number of able for design of conservation programs, 7. J. Belant, P. Gober, D. Biggins, in IUCN Red List of Threat-
species with IUCN status, globally described (color policy-makers must encourage and facilitate ened Species, Version 2010.4 (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,
2010).
bars) and in ISIS zoos (black bars). (Bottom) The the participation of zoos from regions with 8. V. J. Meretsky, N. F. R. Snyder, S. R. Beissinger, D. A. Clen-
number of individuals in ISIS zoos for species listed high levels of biodiversity threat in global denen, J. W. Wiley, Conserv. Biol. 14, 957 (2000).
by IUCN—for mammals (142 species), birds (83 spe- networks, such as ISIS and the World Asso- 9. J.-C. Thibault, J.-Y. Meyer, Oryx 35, 73 (2001).
cies), reptiles (90 species), and amphibians (29 spe- 10. Amphibian Ark, www.amphibianark.org.
ciation of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 11. L. F. Skerratt et al., EcoHealth 4, 125 (2007).
cies). The vertical broken lines show the boundaries
by 250, 50, and 10 individuals. The large numbers of
The potential for zoos to contribute to 12. J. A. Spalton, M. W. Lawerence, S. A. Brend, Oryx 33, 168
individuals classified as Vulnerable and Near Threat- conservation is not a new concept for the zoo (1999).
13. V. Morell, Science 320, 742 (2008).
ened are omitted for clarity. See SOM for details. community. Zoos and aquariums have devel- 14. R. Barnett, N. Yamaguchi, I. Barnes, A. Cooper, Conserv.
oped conservation projects in the wild, along- Genet. 7, 507 (2006).
side research and education programs (23). 15. T. H. White, J. A. Collazo, F. J. Vilella, Condor 107, 424
(2005).
do not necessarily reflect the situation in the For example, members of WAZA collectively 16. International Species Information System, www.isis.org.
wild, such as population flexibility in the face spend ~U.S. $350 million per year on conser- 17. IUCN, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 3.1
of changing conditions. vation actions in the wild, which makes them (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2009); www.iucnredlist.org.
18. ISIS and IUCN information were matched on the species
Despite their current and potential contri- the third major contributor to conservation level using the Catalogue of Life (F. A. Bisby et al., Eds.);
butions to species conservation, ISIS zoos are worldwide after the Nature Conservancy and www.catalogueoflife.org.
concentrated in temperate regions, whereas the World Wildlife Fund global network (24). 19. Threatened species are those listed as Critically Endan-
gered (CR), Endangered (EN), or Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN.
most threatened species are tropical (5, 22) Given the scale of the biodiversity challenge, 20. T. Coulson, G. M. Mace, E. Hudson, H. Possingham,
(fig. S1). This mismatch between the areas it is vital that conservation bodies and policy- Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 219 (2001).
where captive populations are held and their makers consider the potential that zoos as a 21. J. M. Reed et al., Conserv. Biol. 16, 7 (2002).
22. R. Grenyer et al., Nature 444, 93 (2006).
native range poses a challenge for imple- global network can provide. 23. WAZA, Building a Future for Wildlife: The World Zoo and
mentation of effective conservation actions. Aquarium Conservation Strategy (WAZA, Berne, Switzer-
Acclimatization to a new home is likely to be References and Notes land, 2005).
1. D. Normile, Science Insider, 29 October 2010; http:// 24. M. Gusset, G. Dick, Zoo Biol., 6 December 2010 (http://
faster for animals raised in conditions similar news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/10/negotia- onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/zoo.20369/
to those where they are to be released. This tors-agree-on-biodiversity.html. abstract).
is one reason that it is suggested that captive 2. Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 9, United 25. We thank J. Vaupel, M. Gusset, C. D. L. Orme, D. Levitis,
breeding be done in the country of the spe- Nations—Treaty Series, pp. 149 and 150 (1993). D. de Man, W. van Lint, K. Zippel, S. Möller, J. Runge, E.
3. IUCN, IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Brinks, G. Fiedler, P. Kutter, and F. Quade. We also thank
cies’ origin (2). Ex Situ Populations for Conservation (IUCN, Gland, Swit- three anonymous referees.
There are large parts of the world with high zerland, 2002), p. 4.
biodiversity value, yet whose zoos are not 4. W. G. Conway, Zoo Biol. 30, 1 (2011). Supporting Online Material
5. M. Hoffmann et al., Science 330, 1503 (2010).
well represented in a global network (fig. S1). 6. M. C. Van Dierendonck, M. F. Wallis de Vries, Conserv.
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/331/6023/1390/DC1
Given the importance of having data avail- Biol. 10, 728 (1996). 10.1126/science.1200674