Problems related to reintroduction of confiscated lorises to the wild
Initial explanation of the use of some terms in this website to avoid
misunderstanding (partly based on IUCN information and
Griffith et al. 1998, see also first
aid and rescue chapter):
Rehabilitation: here used for the process of restoring an animal´s health, behavioural training and other measures prior to release
Translocation: transport of organisms or populations from one part of their range to another:
Conservation / benign introduction: an attempt to establish a species, for the purpose of conservation, within an appropriate habitat and eco-geographical area, but outside its recorded distribution area.
Reintroduction: an attempt to establish a species in an area which was once part of its historical range, but from which it had been extirpated or become extinct. (This term is sometimes used in a wider sense, including rehabilitation prior to release and monitoring after release).
Re-inforcement, Supplementation: addition of individuals to an existing population of conspecifics.
Release: used here for the process of release into the wild (preparations and later monitoring not included)
Reintroduction may cause some problems for surviving wild populations and ecosystems if not properly planned. In particular the following problems may occur:
Some links to other websites:
Loris, potto reintroduction:
Streicher, U.; Nadler, T., 2003: Re-introduction
of pygmy lorises in Vietnam. Reintroduction News (Newsletter of the IUCN
Reintroduction Specialist Group) 23: 37-40.
See IUCN/SSC Re-Introduction Specialist Group (RSG) download page for newsletters: http://www.iucnsscrsg.org/newsletters.php
Gipps, J. H. W., (ed.), 1991: Beyond captive breeding. Re-introducing endangered mammals to the wild. Proceedings of a symposium held at the Zoological Society of London on 24th and 25th Nov. 1989. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Foose, T. J., 1991: Viable population strategies for reintroduction programmes. Pp. 165-172 in: Gipps, J. W. H. (ed.): Beyond captive breeding; re-introducing captive mammals to the wild. Oxford, Clarendon Press. May, R. M., 1991: The role of ecological theory in planning reintroduction. Pp. 145-163 in: Gipps, J. W. H. (ed.): Beyond captive breeding. Re-introducing captive mammals to the wild. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Kleiman, D. G., 1989: Reintroduction of captive
mammals for conservation. Bioscience 39 (3): 152-161.
Mills, C., 1999: The wild, wild pest. The Sciences , March / April 1999: 10-13 (New York Academy of Sciences, New York).
Plowright, W., 1988: Viruses transmissible between wild and domestic animals. Pp. 175-194 in: Reproduction and disease in captive and wild animals; Smith, G. R.; Hearn, J. P. (eds.), Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 60, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Woodford, H. M. (ed.), 2000: Quarantine and health
screening protocols for wildlife prior to translocation and release into
Published jointly by the IUCN Species Survival Commission's Veterinary Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland, the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), Paris, France, Care for the Wild, U.K., and the European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians, Switzerland. Available from: Care for the Wild International, Ashfolds, West Sussex RH12 4QX, UK or as a PDF file under http://wildlife.usask.ca/bookhtml/RiskAnalysis/Quarantine.pdf. (Link: above)
Woodford, M. H.; Kock, R. A., 1991: Veterinary
considerations in re-introduction and translocation projects. Pp. 101-110
in: Gipps, J. W. H. (ed.): Beyond captive breeding. Re-introducing captive
mammals to the wild. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Behaviour: natal and early influences on development
Apfelbach, R., 1995: Olfactory imprinting to food odours: the example of the European ferret (Mustela putorius f. furo L.). Pp 176-186 in: Ganslosser, U., Hodges, J. K., Kaumanns, W. (eds.): Research and captive propagation. Filander, Fürth.
Davis, J. M.; Stamps, J. A., 2004: The effects
of natal experience on habitat preferences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19
(8):411-416. ISSN: 0169-5347
Content: natal habitat preference induction (NHPI), resulting individual difference in habitat preference
Metcalfe, N. B.; Monaghan, P., 2001: Compensation
for a bad start: grow now, pay later? Tree 16: 254-260.
Content: effect of insufficient feeding during ontogeny on later life, compensation, overcompensation.
Pollack, V., 1994: Verändern verschiedene
Futterqualitäten während der Nestlingszeit das Verhalten von
Amseln? [Do different food qualities during nestling period change the
behaviour of blackbirds?] Diplomarbeit, Universität Innsbruck, Austria
Content: in two bird species, groups reared with natural food (insects) later, during adulthood, showed quantitative behavioural differences as compared to a group reared with other food (both groups looked healthy)
Sachser, N.; Beer, R., 1995: Longterm influences of social situation and socialization on adaptability in behaviour. Pp 207-214 in: Ganslosser, U., Hodges, J. K., Kaumanns, W. (eds.): Research and captive propagation. Filander, Fürth.
Back to the top of this page
|Loris and potto conservation database - reintroduction||Last amendment: 7 January 2010|
|Info for field studies & wild population surveys||Reintroduction to the wild||Captive
|Diseases of lorises and pottos||Behaviour||General Info|