Summary1. Endangered species subjected to reintroduction programmes often occur as small and isolated populations with local high density and depressed fecundity. Variation in territory quality may lead to this low fecundity owing to increasing occupation of suboptimal territories as population density grows, known as the habitat heterogeneity hypothesis (HHH). In this context, food supplementation in poor territories may be used to produce extra young which could be allocated to reintroduction programmes. 2. We analyse the density-dependent fecundity pattern and the underlying mechanism in a small population of bearded vultures Gypaetus barbatus in Arag on (northeast Spain). We then use population simulations to examine the viability of a hypothetical reintroduction programme using extra young produced by supplementary feeding on poor-quality territories and the effect on the donor population. We also compare the economic cost of such a reintroduction programme in relation to the cost of a traditional captive breeding programme. 3. The wild population showed clear negative, density-dependent fecundity regulation driven by the HHH mechanism. Simulations showed that extractions for translocations had no relevant long-term effects on the donor population viability, but a marked population reduction during the extraction period. However, the implementation of supplementary feeding to produce extra young for translocation lessened significantly this expected initial population reduction. 4. Analyses showed that the annual budget of a captive breeding programme for this species could be seven times more expensive than the translocation of extra young produced by food supplementation. 5. Synthesis and applications. Reintroduction programmes based on translocation of wildreared individuals, after a supplementary feeding programme oriented to poor-quality territories, provide a source of young at least seven times cheaper than those from captive breeding programmes. The use of this approach would decrease initial effects on donor population avoiding public criticism. Increasing the number of young released during the first years of the reintroduction decreases total financial cost and increases the final population size in the new area.

No abstract

The NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner. Accepted ArticleThis article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 3. Results of Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) analysis with relative productivity as the dependent variable, species and supplementary feeding as fixed factors and territory as random factor, showed a significant effect of supplementary feeding on relative productivity in both species as well as in the interaction between territory and supplementary feeding. This implied a different response among territories to supplementary feeding. Birds in poor quality territories with low productivity levels responded more strongly to supplementary feeding than birds in territories with higher levels of natural productivity.4. A reintroduction programme based on supplementary feeding and extraction of nestlings costs eight times less than the same program based on captive breeding, and takes ten years less.5. Synthesis and applications. Supplementary feeding in territorial raptors could be useful in two situations: (i) in an episodic main prey collapse and (ii) in poor quality territories in a high density population, to produce extra young for reintroduction programmes. For greatest efficiency, supplementary feeding needs to be targeted at the poorer territories in which the reproductive rate has the potential to be raised by provision of extra food. The extra young produced can then be used in reintroduction programmes in which their chances of recruiting to a breeding population are high.

The present biodiversity crisis has led to an increasing number of reintroduction programs, and this conservation method is likely to be increasingly used in the future, especially in the face of climate change. Many fundamental questions in population ecology are focused on the mechanisms through which populations escape extinction. Population viability analysis (PVA) is the most common procedure for analyzing extinction risk. In the use of PVA to model the trajectories of reintroduced populations, demographic values are sometimes taken from other existing wild populations or even from individuals in captivity. Density dependence in productivity is usually considered in viability models, but density‐dependent variation in age of first breeding is usually ignored. Nevertheless, age of first breeding has a buffering effect on population fluctuations and in consequence on population persistence. We simulated the viability of Spanish Imperial Eagle ( Aquila adalberti ) and Osprey ( Pandion haliaetus ) populations using data from established and reintroduced populations in southern Spain. Our results show that reduction in the age of first breeding is critical in the success of reintroductions of such long‐lived birds. Additionally, increases in productivity allow populations to growth at maximum rate. However, without considering variation in age of breeding, and the associated increasing overall productivity, reintroduced populations seem nonviable. To ignore density dependence in age of breeding in PVA means that we are seriously limiting the potential of the model population to respond to fluctuations in density, thereby reducing its resilience and viability. Variation in age of first breeding is an important factor that must be considered and included in any simulation model involving long‐lived birds with deferred maturity.