Download Confronting Amphibian Declines and Extinctions

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 1930s
• 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 1930s
• 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 (1930s-1970s)
amphibian ‘lab rat’ (immunology, embryology)
distributed around the world by 1000s-10,000s/year
~28 km/yr
198788 1993-94
200
20024
1996-03
97
Mortality - stream transects
Continued mortality
1 Feb. 05 (n = 347)
400
Cum #dead frogs
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
4 Oct. 04
0
0
100
200
#surveys
300
400
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: Colostethus spp.
0.45
0.4
Colostethus caps/mtr/p
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Aug-03
Oct-03
Dec-03
Jan-04
Mar-04
May-04
Date
Jun-04
Aug-04
Oct-04
Nov-04
Jan-05
Case study (II): Focal species
0.09
A. zeteki
0.08
C. prosoblepon
Avg. #captures/mtr
0.07
E. punctariolus
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
May-03
Aug-03
Dec-03
Mar-04
Date
Jun-04
Oct-04
Jan-05
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 100s 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", the 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 - 1st 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