Successful predatory‐avoidance behaviour to lion auditory cues during soft‐release from captivity in cheetah

Abstract

Due to global biodiversity declines, conservation programmes have increasingly had to consider reintroducing captive animals into the wild. However, reintroductions often fail as captive individuals may be naïve to predators and do not recognise or respond appropriately to predatory cues, contributing to high mortality rates soon after release. This study evaluates differences in predator-response behaviours between individuals from three experimental groups, a captive population (n = 13), a semi-wild population (i.e. raised in captivity and successfully released; n = 6) and a wild population (n = 2) of cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) to an artificially simulated auditory threat of lions (Panthera leo), a larger, natural predator in South Africa. Such comparisons improve our understanding of differences between captive and wild behaviours and provide an aspect to evaluating the relative success of reintroduction programmes.Changes in the proximal distance, the latency of approach and hesitation towards both control (African bush cricket, Acanthoplus discoidalis) and treatment (lion) auditory cues were observed for 29 cheetah from captive, semi-wild and wild populations in at least three trial replicates each. Overall, captive individuals consistently displayed poor predatory-response behaviours, approaching the treatment as often as the control, as well as spending more time near the stimulus (<10 m) and hesitating more often than semi-wild cheetah, which could distinguish between the control and treatment, consistently fleeing from the latter with little hesitation. Repeatability analyses indicated that these behavioural responses to predatory cues could not be explained by individual personality and between-trial learning comparisons showed no evidence of habituation. Our findings demonstrate how a priori testing for predator naïvety could inform future introductory decisions and thereby increase post-release survival rates, significantly improving the efficacy of reintroduction strategies. We, therefore, emphasise the importance of such research and screening in highly threatened species, such as cheetah, where reintroduction from captivity has become a necessary consideration.

Simulated genetic efficacy of metapopulation management and conservation value of captive reintroductions in a rapidly declining felid

“…In this study, we consider the translocation of captive‐raised cheetah into a wild metapopulation of fenced reserves, so whilst such animals have shown a higher survival rate when released into fenced reserves, estimates from those studies would not apply directly to this scenario. However, captive individuals have been successfully reintroduced into wild populations before (Wemer et al ., 2021). Important considerations for release into reserves would also need to include information about the existing cheetah populations in these reserves, prey densities, habitat suitability and other existing predator densities (Boast et al ., 2018).…”

“…As discrete, rather than overlapping generations were used, these could represent anything between reproductive age (2–3 years) and total lifespan (>12 years), with no backcrossing and potentially underrepresented reproduction as cheetahs often produce several litters (Buk et al ., 2018). Captive cheetahs are not exposed to the same selectional pressures as those in wild conditions and as such, artificial selection acting on captive cheetahs may select for traits that are undesirable in wild populations (Willoughby & Christie, 2019; Wemer et al ., 2021). Regardless, any captive cheetah released into the metapopulation will be exposed to natural evolutionary pressures (e.g.…”

“…Instead, this requires supplementation with unrelated individuals, such as those currently held in captivity. Whilst initially, cheetah population and habitat viability were informally assessed (Lindsey et al ., 2009), with follow‐up studies exploring relocation success (Johnson et al ., 2010), minimum prey and area requirements (Lindsey et al ., 2011), demography (Bisset & Bernard, 2011), self‐sustained growth (Buk et al ., 2018), supplementary feeding (Warmenhove et al ., 2020), predatory naiveté (Wemer et al ., 2021) and release of captive‐raised cheetah (Walker et al ., 2022), to our knowledge, this is the first study using genetic data representing all three South African subpopulations and which simulates the efficacy of metapopulation management and conservation value of captive reintroductions. Such large‐scale conservation intervention should however be supported by intensive rewilding processes, as well as rigorous health and genetic screening to maximize individual survival and therefore genetic contribution.…”