No abstract

No abstract

Despite rapid growth in the field of reintroduction biology, results from scientific research are often not applied to translocations initiated when human land‐use change conflicts with the continued persistence of a species' population at a particular site. Such mitigation‐driven translocations outnumber and receive more funding than science‐based conservation translocations, yet the conservation benefit of the former is unclear. Because mitigation releases are economically motivated, outcomes may be less successful than those of releases designed to serve the biological needs of species. Translocation as a regulatory tool may be ill‐suited for biologically mitigating environmental damage caused by development. Evidence suggests that many mitigation‐driven translocations fail, although the application of scientific principles and best practices would probably improve the success rate. Lack of transparency and failure to document outcomes also hinder efforts to understand the scope of the problem. If mitigation‐driven translocations are to continue as part of the growing billion‐dollar ecological consulting industry, it is imperative that the scale and effects of these releases be reported and evaluated.

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

The global amphibian crisis has resulted in renewed interest in captive breeding as a conservation tool for amphibians. Although captive breeding and reintroduction are controversial management actions, amphibians possess a number of attributes that make them potentially good models for such programs. We reviewed the extent and effectiveness of captive breeding and reintroduction programs for amphibians through an analysis of data from the Global Amphibian Assessment and other sources. Most captive breeding and reintroduction programs for amphibians have focused on threatened species from industrialized countries with relatively low amphibian diversity. Out of 110 species in such programs, 52 were in programs with no plans for reintroduction that had conservation research or conservation education as their main purpose. A further 39 species were in programs that entailed captive breeding and reintroduction or combined captive breeding with relocations of wild animals. Nineteen species were in programs with relocations of wild animals only. Eighteen out of 58 reintroduced species have subsequently bred successfully in the wild, and 13 of these species have established self-sustaining populations. As with threatened amphibians generally, amphibians in captive breeding or reintroduction programs face multiple threats, with habitat loss being the most important. Nevertheless, only 18 out of 58 reintroduced species faced threats that are all potentially reversible. When selecting species for captive programs, dilemmas may emerge between choosing species that have a good chance of surviving after reintroduction because their threats are reversible and those that are doomed to extinction in the wild as a result of irreversible threats. Captive breeding and reintroduction programs for amphibians require long-term commitments to ensure success, and different management strategies may be needed for species earmarked for reintroduction and species used for conservation research and education.