Asking the right questions about the role of zoos in amphibian conservation

We thank Griffith (2017), Tapley et al. (2017) and Canessa (2017) for their thoughtful commentaries on Biega et al. (2017). All three pieces emphasize the complex interfaces between the ex situ network and amphibian conservation outcomes, and all three counter to varying degrees our conclusion that ‘zoos’ (in our broad interpretation of the term) should bolster their representation of species at global risk. These commentaries highlight alternate means of interpreting ex situ conservation success, signpost emerging agreements on where ex situ conservation work is most appropriately conducted, and, importantly, raise many questions for further consideration. The commentaries ask whether focusing on representation of threatened species in zoos is appropriate, whether zoos (particularly traditional institutions in developed nations) are best equipped to host ex situ programs, and whether the positives of ex situ management outweigh the potential risks for many threatened amphibians. These are questions that we believe should be empirically addressed in order for practitioners and society to evaluate the role of zoos in ex situ conservation. To begin, it is true that zoos can achieve particular conservation goals without shifting their entire collection to globally threatened species. However, keeping threatened species would ideally satisfy multiple objectives, including conservation education or developing husbandry expertise that cannot always be gained from breeding close relatives (Tapley et al., 2015). Many zoos are also shifting focus towards locally threatened species (Griffith, 2017) to meet regional or political conservation targets. But do people value locally threatened native species more than globally threatened non-native species? Furthermore, do visitors want to see zoos participate in ex situ breeding programs? We call for formal studies that evaluate visitor preferences. Additionally, it is important to investigate the risks of holding amphibian species in zoos outside of their native range. Ex situ programs hosted outside a species’ natal range within commercial zoos bear both additional financial costs and potential disease risks (Griffith, 2017; Tapley et al., 2017), but given that these institutions may also possess greater capacity, expertise, and financial support, are programs more successful in these institutions? Additional related questions include whether the risk of pathogen transfer is actually greater outside of species’ native ranges and whether and how partnerships between traditional and peripheral institutions could alleviate potential risk. More generally, we need to understand more fully how collaborations between zoos and specialist facilities affect the success of ex situ programmes, and how to encourage zoos to participate in current initiatives that support such partnerships (see e.g. www.amphibianark.org). Further, not all threatened species are amenable to captivity (Tapley et al., 2015; Canessa, 2017), and we also frequently lack fundamental knowledge on species’ natural history and subsequent husbandry (Canessa, 2017; Griffith, 2017). Triage is therefore needed to evaluate which species will best be suited for ex situ management, ensuring wise application of available resources (IUCN/SSC, 2014). Can we assess which species’ traits may increase their chance of ‘success’ in ex situ programs a priori? For instance, perhaps there are common life histories that are most amenable to different forms of ex situ management. These are just a sample of questions, the answers for which would inform both how zoos can most effectively contribute to ex situ conservation and how society at-large values zoos as conservation enterprises. Answering these questions is potentially difficult, but not impossible. We would need more detailed information on zoological collections, on visitor preferences, and on the outcomes of ex situ programs. Indeed, using the Zoological Information Management System database to assess global zoological holdings, as we did, only gives us one part of the picture (Tapley et al., 2017). We have shown that including amphibian collections in peripheral institutions, highlighted by the Amphibian Ark database, greatly changes the representation of threatened species (Biega et al., 2017). There are likely many more collections being overlooked across the world. A key next step is to expand the representation of our datasets beyond traditional zoos in developed countries, particularly as many ‘mega-diverse’ nations are poised to achieve rapid economic development in the coming decades and have the potential to reshape the landscape of ex situ conservation if they are brought into the fold of the global ex situ community (Martin, Lurbiecki & Mooers, 2014). More directed research could help us objectively evaluate the effectiveness of ex situ conservation for amphibians, but as this program unfolds, we must also ask another question. Amphibians are the most threatened Class of vertebrates and some of the most pressing threats to amphibians, such as emerging infectious diseases, are difficult to mitigate in situ (Dawson et al., 2016). Signatories of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity have committed to safeguarding threatened biodiversity (Aichi target 12; Marques et al., 2014), and increased efforts to safeguard threatened amphibians ex situ may be necessary to stem a potentially very high tide of amphibian species loss. If zoos want to make the most impact, we believe they should act with Aichi target 12 specifically in mind. And so, put starkly, practitioners everywhere must ask whether the reasonable conservation benefits of deliberation are worth the potentially very high costs of global extinction. We agree with Canessa (2017) that this is a question about values.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.