Confronting Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Kevin Zippel - CBSG/WAZA Amphibian Program Officer
What is an amphibian? • Frogs & toads • Newts & salamanders • Caecilians
Why are amphibians important? • • source of human medicine indicators of environmental health control insects and insect-borne diseases vital role in ecosystems role in culture/religion aesthetics amphibians are declining
Are they really in trouble? • 5, 743 species of amphibians – 43% in decline (2, 469 spp. ) – 32% threatened (1, 856 spp. ) – 120 presumably extinct (since 1980) – 23% data deficient (1, 294 spp. ) • probably endangered • Worse than birds (12%) or mammals (23%)
Why? • • • tropical forests cover 7% of the land home to 50 -90% of world’s species 44% gone by our hands going at 4 -5 football fields / second gone by 2020? 85% of US primary forests gone, 99% of tallgrass prairies numbers vs. rate
Amphibian chytrid • Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis - Bd • associated with amphibian dieoffs on every continent – genetically uniform • unstoppable & untreatable in wild • “the worst infectious disease ever recorded among vertebrates in terms of the number of species impacted, and its propensity to drive them to extinction. ”
Human Immunodeficiency Virus • HIV, causes AIDS • in 2004, – – 40 million people living with AIDS 5 million more infected 3 million died 20 million dead since ‘discovery’ in 1981 • arose in Africa in the 1930 s • spread by human translocation around the world, every human-inhabited continent
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis • amphibian chytrid fungus, causes chytridiomycosis • statistics (other factors), – – 43% of species are declining 32% are globally threatened more than 120 species are extinct at least 1 family is gone • arose in Africa in the 1930 s • spread by human translocation around the world, every human-inhabited continent
African clawed frog Xenopus laevis • • • native to South Africa earliest record of chytridiomycosis (1938) used in human pregnancy tests (1930 s-1970 s) amphibian ‘lab rat’ (immunology, embryology) distributed around the world by 1000 s-10, 000 s/year
~28 km/yr 198788 1993 -94 20024 199603 97
Mortality - stream transects
Continued mortality 1 Feb. 05 (n = 347) 4 Oct. 04
347 dead individuals of 40 species: • Bufonidae - *Atelopus zeteki (26), * Bufo coniferus, *B. haematiticus (12) • Dendrobatidae - Colostethus inguinalis (24), C. nubicola (48), C. flotator (5), C. talamancae (6), Dendrobates vicente, D. auratus, Phyllobates lugubris • Centrolendiae - *Centrolene prosoblepon (4), C. ilex (16), Cochranella albomaculata (9), C. euknemos (2), Hyalinobatrachium colymbiphyllum (6) • Leptodactylidae - *Eleuth. bufoniformis (7), E. bransfordii (2), E. caryophyllaceus, E. crassidigitus (10), E. cruentus (14), E. museosus (5), E. “podi-noblei” (28), *E. punctariolus (4), E. azueroensis, E. tabasarae (3), E. talamancae (21), E. fitzingeri, Leptodactylus pentadactylus (2), Physalaemus pustulosus • Hylidae - *Hyla colymba (41), *H. palmeri (22), H. miliaria (2), Gastrotheca cornuta, Phyllomedusa lemur (2) • Ranidae - Rana warszewitschii (6) • Microhylidae - Nelsonophryne aterrima (7) • Plethodontidae Bolitoglossa schizodactyla (2), Oedipina collaris (2), O. parvipes complex (*in mark-recapture program; arboreal; fossorial)
Monitoring Bd: Histology& PCR #spp. #individuals #infected (%) Chance of 0 positives (if true p=0. 01) 2000 3 10 0 (0%) 0. 904 2002 5 11 0 (0%) 0. 904 2003 43 125 0 (0%) 0. 285 May-Jul 03 7 100 (toes) 0 (0%) 0. 366 Jan 04 36 400 (swabs) 0 (0%) 0. 018 Mar 04 32 282 (swabs) 0 (0%) 0. 059 May 04 43 311 (swabs) 0 (0%) 0. 028 Jul 04 31 248 (swabs) 0 (0%) 0. 084 PRE-DIEOFF TOTAL 43 1, 487 0 (0%) 2. 098 x 10 -7 23 Sep- 2 Oct 04 2 168 (swabs) 12 7% Oct-Dec 04 40 249 (dead frogs) 244 98% Oct 04 21 217 (swabs) 128 59% Nov 04 31 460 (swabs) 245 53% Dec 04 16 127 (swabs) 58 34% POST -DIEOFF TOTAL 48 1, 294 536 41%
Captures: streams Bd
Captures: trails (NS)
Case study: Colostethusspp.
Case study (II): Focal species
Summary of decline: • December 1997 - July 2004 : – No dead frogs; no tadpole mouthpart defects – No Bd; P(false negative) = 0. 025% • May 2004: Stream captures begin to decline • 23 Sep - 2 Oct 2004: first Bd+ frog; ~7% prevalence • 4 October 2004: first dead frogs & tadpoles missing mouthparts • January 2005: – 347 dead frogs (98% examined Bd+) – No other cause of death – 48 species & 8 families infected (71% of fauna) – Abundance reduced by ~90%; species missing
Conclusions • • Bd arrives or emerges at a site Many frogs die Populations decline Evidence of directional movement – Frog-frog contact, wind, rain, etc. – vectors not necessary • Pattern NOT consistent with: – Climate change, UV-B – agrochemicals, habitat alteration, exotic species, pet trade.
Paradigm Shift • Declining population phenomenon – Are amphibians declining and, if so, why? • Species extinction crisis – Given global amphibian extinctions, how can we implement new research and conservation action to prevent further population declines and extinctions?
Next for chytrid • Continued expansion into eastern Panama, southern Andes (Peru) • Invasion into tropical montane and temperate Africa & Asia • Identical extent of losses? – High endemism, all frogs susceptible, perpetual conditions for Bd Global Amphibian Extinctions
Long-term Prognosis • Bd does not cause immune response • Bd can survive in habitat or on other organisms • new lab tests show anurans from affected populations die more slowly than naïve • reports of a small minority of populations recovering • inhibition of Bd by members of 8 genera of bacteria isolated from the skin of 2 amphibian species that exhibit parental care behavior
What is being done? • “. . . it is morally irresponsible to document amphibian declines and extinctions without also designing and promoting a response to this global crisis. ” • Amphibian Conservation Summit – Declaration • ACAP • ASA • more from Joe, later
Conservation • in situ • top priority • fails to protect against some threats • ex situ • when in situ is too slow or ineffective • stopgap to buy time for species that would otherwise become extinct • coupled with an obligation to deliver in situ threat mitigation • success = end of captive program • politics, expense, biosecurity, inbreeding/artificial selection • the only hope for 100 s of species (more from Bob, later)
The Mandates • 2002 IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex-situ populations for Conservation: – “All Critically Endangered and Extinct in the Wild taxa should be subject to ex situ management to ensure recovery of wild populations. ” • 2005 IUCN ACAP White Papers: – “Survival assurance colonies are mandatory for amphibian species that will not persist in the wild long enough to recover naturally once environments are restored; these species need to be saved now through ex-situ measures so that more complete restoration of ecosystems is possible in the future” • 2005 IUCN ACS Declaration: – “The ACAP recommends prioritized. . . captive survival assurance programs. . . to buy time for species that would otherwise become extinct. . . ” • 2006 IUCN ACAP Draft: – “The only hope for populations and species at immediate risk of extinction is immediate rescue for the establishment and management of captive survivalassurance colonies”
Are zoos and aquariums ready to respond? • Currently very limited capacity to hold and breed amphibians in the world’s zoos (10/60, 10%) • Most collections are cosmopolitan mixes with inadequate attention to hygiene and biosecurity • Limited numbers of staff with amphibian skills
Do we have the resources? • If each visitor to a WAZA zoo contributes just 2 cents (US$ 0. 02) for amphibian conservation, then we will have all the funds that we need. • If zoos got rid of one particular high profile mammal species program, (there are 2) then we will have all the resources that we need. – As much a problem of resource allocation as availability
The summation of the 1999 space survey is that there is only enough space existing in AZA institutions to accommodate 10 taxa of amphibians at the management level of PMP or SSP. In these same institutions there is enough space allocated for mammals to accommodate at least 57 SSPs and the majority of these mammals have a body mass of more than 10 kg and significant space requirements. If each AZA institution allocated an additional 400 square foot building to amphibian management and provided keeper support for the facility, the number of taxa that could be managed at a PMP or SSP level would easily exceed 100 taxa. If AZA is to "Keep all the Pieces", theme of its 1996 annual conferences, then a wave of dedicated amphibian facilities must be built. Amphibians need dedicated space and should not be simply incorporated into Reptile Houses or included as a small part of biome or zoogeographically-themed facilities. If this dedicated space is lacking, zoos will never play a major role in maintaining amphibian biodiversity. - Dr. Kevin Wright, ATAG 2000 Regional Collection Plan
Making the Mandate Tangible • To save from immediate extinction every species that needs ex situ conservation, . . . • … each WAZA zoo must commit the resources to secure the future for one amphibian species. • ~500 = ~500
WAZA and CBSG are together taking responsibility for helping to coordinate the global amphibian ex situ conservation response
Other progress meetings • • • May 2005 – ARAZPA/SEAZA/CBSG August – CBSG convenes planning meeting September – Amphibian Conservation Summit October – WAZA/CBSG annual February 2006 – Panama meeting May – PAAZAB June – ASA structure meeting August - WAZA/CBSG annual September - AZA Annual October - Costa Rica
WAZA/CBSG Amphibian Ex situ Conservation Workshop • • 13 -15 February, 2006, El Valle Panama CBSG facilitated 50 participants from 14 countries 4 Working Groups
KEY RESULT AREAS • • Organization Best Practices Species Selection Rapid Response
Organisation Working Group
Best Practices Working Group
Best Practices Working Group • Promote research on small population management issues - #s • Capacity – more isolated space (Allan), prioritise range-country facilities • Expertise – husbandry training programs, internships • Private sector - mirror TSA (academia) • Form ART committee – cryo • Compile husbandry manuals, TMAs, expert database (in & ex) • Develop recovery plans (with in situ) • Environmental education and community involvement – IZE/education committee, develop database of case studies
Quarantine Standards • Highest Standards: Animals or progeny out of range country destined for return to the wild (entrance and exit of pathogens) • Intermediate Standards: Animals or progeny in range country destined for return to the wild (entrance of pathogens) • Lowest Standards: Ex-situ or in-situ with no possibility of return to the wild. Animals not required for conservation or release. (exit of pathogens).
Species Selection Working Group
Rapid Response Working Group • Establish a response program to rapidly implement capacity in range countries in response o amphibian crises, or relocate to out-of-range facilities • Protocols flexible enough to apply to disparate threats in disparate regions • Temporary measures until permanent capacity established in range – Train nationals in husbandry, vet, management, fundraising, education
What else is happening? • a brief taste. . . • more to come in the symposium
Building expertise • AZA Amphibian Biology & Management - April – 3 years, >60 students – 6 Latin American students • ABM Mexico - May • DWCT Amphibian Biodiversity Conservation - June – 18 students, 15 countries • ABM/ABC Colombia - October • ABM Tanzania - ? ?
Building (up) facilities at home • Atlantans, Auckland, Bristol, Cologne, Detroit, Houston, London, Melbourne, Omaha, Perth, San Antonio, Toledo • who’s next?
Building (up) facilities offsite • • • Houston Zoo - El Nispero Zoo (Panama) Zoo Zurich - Cali Zoo (Colombia) St. Louis Zoo - Catolica University (Ecuador) Omaha Zoo - Johannesburg Zoo London/Chester/Jersey Zoos - Dominica Chester - standardized mobile biosecure facilities • who’s next?
Some low-hanging fruit • • • regional surveys reassign/create space websites, zoo graphics engage local public/media World Frog Week - 1 st week of October sponsor a keeper at ABM/ABC, PM
Additional fundraising • Need: 400 million • ASG GEF Pipeline • CBSG/WAZA – training – rescues – strategy workshops – new facilities – old facilities
Where do we go next? • come to the amphibian working group session TOMORROW
Скачать презентацию Confronting Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Kevin Zippel —
95386ac1e288892ea404145b121a3157.ppt