Table Of Content/
Contributions
ClarityaCnidarian LifeCycle -The“Hydrozoan”Micro- theUnitedKingdom88,259-262.
hydrulalimopsicolaIsanEarlyLifeStageoftheStaurozoan Zagal CJ, Hirano YM, Mills CE, Edgar GJ and Barrett NS
Haliclystusantarcticus. PLoSONE5:e10182. doi:10.1371/ (2011)NewrecordsofStaurozoafrom Australiancoastal
journal.pone.0010182. waters,with adescriptionofa newspecies ofLucernari-
MirandaLS,Morandini ACandMarquesAC(2009)Taxo- opsisUchida, 1929(Cnidaria, Staurozoa, Stauromedusae)
nomicreviewofHaliclystusantarcticusPfeffer,1889(Stau- and a key to Australian Stauromedusae. Marine Biology
romedusae,Staurozoa,Cnidaria),withremarksonthege- Research7,651-666.
nusHaliclystusClark, 1863.PolarBiology32,1507-1519.
Zagal CJ (2008) Morphological abnormalities in the stau-
romedusa Haliclystus auricula (Cnidaria) and their pos-
siblecauses.JournaloftheMarineBiologicalAssociationof Received14March2013;accepted4July2013
Release or retain? Prioritising biodiversityconservation when
deciding the endpoint forVictorian reptiles and frogs
removed from the wild for research purposes
NickClemann
ArthurRylahInstituteforEnvironmentalResearch,DepartmentofEnvironmentandPrimaryIndustries
POBox137,Heidelberg,Victoria3084
Abstract
Oneofseveralpossibleendpointsforanimalsremovedfromthewildforresearchpurposesistoreturnthose
animals (ortheirprogeny) tothewild. However, thisendpointinvolvesriskstowildpopulationsthatcanbe
damaging,suchasbehavioural problems orfailuretolocatesuitableresources, orevencatastrophic, suchas
theintroduction orspreadofpathogensanddisease. Whilst theriskofpathogen transfercanbelowforany
givenrelease,theconsequenceswhenitdoesoccurcanbeextreme.Riskssuchastransferringnoveloremerg-
ingpathogensfromcaptivitytowildpopulationscanoccurbeforepathogensareknowntooccur.Thissitua-
tionoccurredwiththeintroduction toAustraliaoftheamphibian diseasechytridiomycosis,whichprobably
enteredwildpopulationsviainfectedcaptivefrogsbeforethepathogenthatcausesthediseasewasidentified.I
arguethatreptilesandfrogsremovedfromthewildinVictoriashouldnotbereturnedtothewild,anddiscuss
somealternativeendpointsfortheseanimals.(TheVictorianNaturalist130(5)2013,207-211).
Keywords: research,reptiles,frogs, release,retain
Biodiversity is under increasing pressure a permit to allow them to collect reptiles and
around the world (Butchart et al. 2010), and or frogs within Victoria for research purposes.
reptiles(Gibbonsetal.2000;Sinervoetal.2010; Typically, these applications fall into one of
Bohm etal. 2013) and amphibians (McCallum two categories: those for which returning the
2007) are conspicuous components of global animalstothewildisanintegralcomponentof
biodiversityloss. Infact,lossofamphibiansdue the experimental design, and those for which
to the disease chytridiomycosis, caused by the there is no research need to return animals to
Amphibian Chytrid Fungus Batrachochytrium thewild. Itisimportanttodistinguish between
dendrobatidis over the last few decades has returninganimalstothewildattheconclusion
,
been labelled ‘the most spectacularloss ofver- ofaresearchproject(thesubjectofthispaper),
tebrate biodiversity due to disease in recorded versus the numerous wildlife management
history’ (Skerratt et al. 2007: 125). Protection projects involving animal releases that occur
and restoration ofbiodiversity is the primary in Victoria and have Management Authorisa-
objectiveofconservation agencies. tions under the Wildlife Act 1975. These latter
Numerous researchers (> 12 in 2012; au- projects must meet strict criteria and have ap-
thor’s unpublished data) apply to the Victo- propriate approvals, and the issues addressed
rian DepartmentofEnvironment and Primary inthispaperaretypicallyconsideredandman-
Industries (DEPI) (formerly Department of aged duringthoseprojects.
Sustainability and Environment) each year for
Vol 130 (5) 2013 207
Contributions
Any movement ofanimals from captivity to permitprocessingprocedure,and,ifthecollec-
the wild involves risks. These include: intro- tion is supported, will typically be considered
duction or spread of pathogens from captive negligible, based on best available information
to wild populations (e.g. Jacobson et al. 1991; atthetime. Most research projects involvecol-
Picco and Collins 2008; Allender et al. 2012), lection ofa relatively modest number ofVic-
moving animals beyond their existing range torian reptiles and amphibians (pers. obs.); if
(Lever 2001), elevated rates of predation due the impact ofcollection was deemed notto be
to unfamiliarity with the field site and retreat negligible, and the population was thought to
locations(Bennettetal 2013),unavailabilityof beunabletocopewithsuch collection, thecol-
bioticandabioticresourcesduetocompetition lection is unlikely to be supported in the first
with conspecifics, and intraspecific aggression place.
or territoriality from wild conspecifics (e.g. Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) and re-
DoneandHeatwole 1977). searchers applying forapermit fromthe DEPI
Intermsofdiseaseimpacts,unknownornov- are often adamant that threatened species re-
el pathogens maybe the most devastating due moved from the wild for research be released
tohostnaivete,becausethepathogensmaynot at the conclusion ofthe project (authors pers.
be evident or understood for some time after obs.); however, few species are so threatened
release, orbecausenoconsiderationisgiven to that minor, judicious collecting will adversely
theirmanagement. Forexample,itislikelythat affect a population; iftheyare that threatened,
once-captive amphibians contributed to the they should not be collected at all (unless as
spread in the wild ofthe Amphibian Chytrid partofan approvedconservationprogram that
Fungus and, thus, contributedto losses offrog necessitatessuch collection).
populations before this pathogen was even Frequently, releaseofanimals is expected (or
known toexist(e.g.Farreretal 2011). Because even demanded) by AECs and applicant re-
ofthe risk ofdisease transmission in amphib- searchers with little or nojustification forwhy
ians during research projects, Phillott et al theanimalsmustbereleased;when queried on
(2010: 9) recommend when assessingpermits their motivation to return the animals to the
forsuchanactivity,wildlifeconservationagen- wild, thereasoningisusuallyemotive orbased
ciesandethicscommitteesshouldviewanimals on anthropomorphising of the animal’s fate
takenfrom thewild asapermanenttake’. Even (author’s pers. obs. For another example ofan
ifthevastmajorityofcasesofreturninganimals AEC applying emotive reasoning, see Jones et
to their point ofcapture result in no introduc- al 2012). The need to return reptilesand frogs
tion ofpathogens, ittakes but a single transfer to the wild must bejustified bythe researcher
ofadevastatingpathogen(suchastheAmphib- or the relevant AEC. This justification should
ian Chytrid Fungus) to cause massive losses explain how the risks mentioned above have
ofwild populations. And, remaining with the been quantified, and how they will be man-
Amphibian ChytridFungusexample,pathogen aged. Furthermore, if release is intended, a
screening would not have detected this patho- funded post-release monitoring program of
genatthetimethatitwasinitiallyspreadingin sufficient duration and intensity to assess the
Australia because the pathogen was unknown fateofreleasedanimals,andotherrelevantspe-
for more than a decade after its introduction. cies attherelease site, shouldbe implemented.
Furthermore, someamphibianspeciescancar- Animal Ethics Committees’ unfamiliarity with
ry the fungal pathogen without exhibiting the manyspecies’ ecologyfrequentlyresults in ad-
disease chytridiomycosis (Reeder et al 2012); vice that, whilstundoubtedlywell-intentioned,
consequently, quarantine would not have nec- couldresultinundesirableoutcomesforthein-
essarilyprevented captivetowild transmission dividual animalsinvolved (pers. obs.). IfAECs
ofthispathogen. facilitated an open exchange of information
Retainingcollectedanimalsalsoinvolvessome between themselves, applicant researchers and
risks, including the loss to the ‘donor’ popula- experts on the study species, the most ethical
tion ofthe animals collected for the research. endpointforstudyanimalsismorelikely.
Thisimpactisassessed bytheDEPI duringthe
208 TheVictorianNaturalist
Contributions
Wildlife research is a scientific, evidence- • Subject to approvals, and alignment with the
based field, and AECs typically demand that captive schedules ofthe Wildlife Regulations
applicant researchers provide justification for 2013, the animalscould betransferred to the
their work, evidence ofwhy animals must be captivetrade.
collected, andcitationstojustifycollection and • Someoralloftheanimalscouldbehumanely
scientificmethods.Thesecommitteesshouldbe euthanised, preserved, and submitted to
under the same burden ofproofwhen justify- Museum Victoria. Comparatively few speci-
ing andvalidating their recommendations, in- mens are contributed to the Museum in
cludingdirectivestoreturnanimalstothewild. the modern era, and submission of these
IfanAECcannotdemonstratethatthebenefits specimens will benefit the collection (e.g.
Payne and Sorenson 2002; Feeleyand Silman
ofreleaseoutweightherisksinherenttorelease, 2011; Joseph2011; Kemperetal. 2011),albeit
theirdirectivestoreleaselackcredibility. in a manner geographically biased by the
Ifreleaseispartoftheresearchdesign research aimsandmethods.
If release of Victorian reptiles and frogs is a Wherelargenumbersofanimalsareusedina
componentoftheexperimentaldesign,thefol- project,acombinationoftheseendpointscould
lowingfactorsmustbeconsidered: beconsidered.
• Iftheyarenotpartofatranslocationprogram Put simply, ifbiodiversity conservation is an
approved bythe DEPI, are the animalsbeing overriding consideration, minimising risks to
returnedtotheirprecisecollectionlocation? wildpopulationsmusttakeprecedenceoverthe
• Have the animals been housed away from liberty ofthe small numbers (relative to those
other animals? Have the animals been remaininginthewild) ofindividuals usedeach
subject toadequatequarantinestandardsand yearforresearch.Thispositionmaybesumma-
durations? risedthus:
• Prior to release, has an adequate sample Iftherisktobiodiversityofreleasingreptiles
of animals been subjected to appropriate andfrogsisgreaterthan zero (anditinvari-
pathologytests? ably is), and the benefits to biodiversity of
• Can the researcher prove that all risks have such releaseare zero orunknown (andthey
beenadequatelymanaged(disease,predation, usually are), and release is not an integral
irnetsroausrpceecsi)f?icAaggnruesmsbieonr, toefrrtithoersiealiftay,cteornsouagrhe componentoftheexperimentaldesign,ani-
typically overlooked or down-played by malsshouldnotbereturnedtothewild(Fig.
AECs. 1).
• Does the researcher/AEC have an adequate In orderto put into practice the oft-cited de-
contingency plan ifthe monitoring program sireto minimise riskstobiodiversity, research-
suggeststhatthereleaseisproblematicforany ersseekingapermittocollectVictorianreptiles
reason? For example, ifdisease is introduced and frogs, and the AECs that are charged with
or spread, how will this be remedied? If overseeing the ethical use of animals in re-
released animals are harassed or killed by search, must either accept that removal from
conspecifics, howwillthis beaddressed? thewildofanimalsforresearch isapermanent
take,orthattheymustbeartheburdenofproof
Fateofretainedanimals
that releasing these animals will have no con-
There are various potential endpoints for re- ceivable impactonbiodiversity.
tainedanimals, including:
•The animals may be suitable for further Acknowledgements
research projects. This can minimise further I thank Daniel Purdey, Alan Websterandananony-
collection ofwildanimals. mous reviewer forconstructive input into a draft of
• The animals may be kept in perpetuity at Wthiinsfipealpde,r,BarnadmLMiansdoynLuamnsddKeni,mSLuoeweHafdodrecnh,ecMkairnkg
the research facility (this will necessitate an themanuscript.
additionalpermit).
• Theanimalsmaybetransferredtoazoological References
ppaarrkka(ntdhisapwpirlolvarleqfuriormetahewDilElPiIn)g.zoological Aldslpoe.nxdiCen,rfeMDceCtil,oannDerieynslMeiaAksMtae,rnnWdymlKaiinsessSea,lsPaMhuiJlgla(ip2rs0a1Ct2,t)lWeCyshlnriakyeesDsoBs,[ploeMtratiedru]-m.
Vol 130 (5) 2013 209
Contributions
Fig. 1. Deciding on the use and ultimate fate ofVictorian reptiles and frogs removed from thewild for re-
search.
210 TheVictorianNaturalist
— —
Contributions
EmergingInfectiousDiseases17,2383-2384. JosephL(2011)Museumcollectionsinornithology:todays
Bennett VA, Doerr VAJ, Doerr ED, Manning AD, Linden- record ofavian biodiversity for tomorrows world. Emu
mayerDBandYoonH-J(2013)Causesofreintroduction 111,i-xii.
failureofthebrowntreecreeper: Implicationsforecosys- KemperCM,CooperSJB,Medlin GC,Adams M,Stemmer
BothemmrMes.toertatailo.n.(2A1u7stcroa-laEuctohloorgsy)D(O2I0:121)0.T1h1e1lc/oanesce.r1v2a0t1i7on gDr,eyS-abienltlKieMd,duMncnDaorwte(lSlmiMntChoapsnidsAgursitseionveJJnt(e2r0)1d1i)sCcroyvpetriecd
statusoftheworldsreptiles. BiologicalConservation 157, in South Australia: genetic, morphological and subfossil
372-385. analyses show the value ofcollecting voucher material.
ButchartSHM,WalpoleM,CollenB,vanStrienA,Scharle- AustralianJournalofZoology59,127-144.
mannJPW,AlmondREA,BaillieJEM,BomhardB,Brown Lever C (2001) The Cane Toad. The historyandecologyof
AAC,,M,BGraCulsnlioorwkJa,eyCJa,JrNDp,aevnGitedenrsoovKneEs,NiCC,aP,rDrGerGneMtge,onreCyrhaRFn,Ds,FoonsHtoJec,rkCiMhne,gnsGearlMrl,yi McaPCuabslluiclcsuehsimsnfguM:lLOctolle(oy2n,0is0Wt7.e)s(tAWmYeopsrhtkbisubhriiryaen,AcUdaKedc)elimniecoarndextSciinecnttiiofni?c
MKaAp,osMcVR,aLeamL,arMqiuneayJs-Fo,nLAe,veMroirncgitlolnoFM,HL,ohOlJd,fiMeclGdeToEcEh, CnaulrroefnHterdpeectloilnoesgyd4w1a,r4f8b3-a4c9k1g.roundextinction rate.Jour-
PaulyD,QuaderS,RevengaC,SauerJR,Skolnik,B,Spear PayneRBandSorensonMD (2002)Museumcollectionsas
D,Stanwell-SmithD,StuartSN,SymesA,TierneyM,Tyr- sourcesofgeneticdata.Band51,98-104.
rellTD,VieJ-CandWatsonR(2010)Globalbiodiversity: PhillottAD,SpeareR,HinesHB,SkerrattLF,MeyerE,Mc-
DoInnedicBaStoarnsdofHreeactewnotldeecHlin(e1s9.7S7c)ieSnocceia3l28b,eh1a1v6i4o-u1r16o8f.some MDionniamlidsiKnRg,eCxapsohsiunrseSoDf,aMmephnidbeizanDsatondpaBtehroggeernsLd(u2r0i1n0)g
Australianskinks.Copeia1977,419-430. fieldstudies. DiseasesofAquaticOrganisms DAO Special
FadMrF,reCerBrsoosRncAh,L,JW,ePCiounnnedrntiSLnL,gAS,hhaBamiheaAlrbA-y,GJo,WlGeaalnrdnRoe,nrHCTe,Wn,dkuBDaPlrAleoeauznxLdFH,F,CilsAahnre-er Pi4lc,ickoe1l-Ay11Ms.ouarncdeCoofllpiantshoJgPe(n20p0o8l)luAtimopnh.iCboinasnercvoatmimoenrBcieolaosgya
(2011) Multiple emergences of genetically diverse 22,1582-1589.
amphibian-infectingchytrids include aglobalizedhyper- Reeder NMM, Pessier AP and Vredenburg VT (2012) A
virulentrecombinant lineage. ProceedingsoftheNational reservoir species for the emerging amphibian pathogen
AcademyofScience108,18732-18736. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis thrives in a landscape
FeeleyKJ andSilman MR(2011) Keep collecting: accurate decimatedbydisease.PLoSOne7,1-7.
species distribution modelling requires more collections Skerratt LF, Berger L, Speare R, Cashins S, McDonald KR,
thanpreviouslythought.DiversityandDistributions2011, Phillott AD, Hines HB and Kenyon N (2007) Spread of
1-9. chytridiomycosishascaused therapidglobaldeclineand
GibbonsJW, Scott DE, RyanTJ, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville extinctionoffrogs.EcoHealth4,125-134.
TD, MettsBS,GreeneJL,MillsT,LeidenY, PoppySand SinervoB, Mendez-de-la-CruzF, Miles DB, HeulinB,Bas-
Winne CT (2000) The global decline ofreptiles, deja vu tiaans E, CruzMVS, Lara-Resendiz R,Martinez-Mendez
amphibians.Bioscience50,653-666. N,Calderon-EspinosaML,Meza-Lazaro,RN,GadsdenH,
JaCcoHb,soLnapEoRi,ntGeasJkLi,nAJdMa,mBsroHwPn ManBd, HRaergrgiisarRdKo,CGar(d1i9n9e1)r CAvFiDl,aLIJb,arMgoureanngodyotiMa,N,DePulnatRriivaanoIJ,CASe,puMlavsesdoatPMV,,LReopcehtaz
Chronic upper respiratory tract disease offree ranging V, Oksanen TA, Chappie DG, Bauer AM, Branch WR,
desert tortoises (Xerobates agassizii). Journal of Wildlife ClobertJand Sites JW (2010) Erosion oflizard diversity
Diseases27,296-316. byclimatechangeandalteredthermalniches.Science328,
JonesM,HamedeRandMcCallumH(2012)TheDevilisin 894-899.
the detail: conservation biology,animalphilosophies and
theroleofanimalethicscommittees.InScienceundersiege:
zoology underthreat, pp 79-88. Eds Peter Banks, Daniel
LunneyandChrisDickman.(RoyalZoologicalSocietyof Received5July2012;accepted6June2013
NewSouthWales:Mosman,NewSouthWales)
Ninety-NineYearsAgo
SOMECOASTALPLANTS:THEIRSHELTERVALUEANDFIREDANGER.
BYT.S. HART,M.A.,B.Sc.
THEprevalentcoastaltea-treescrubiswellknown tobehighlyinflammable; butanyextensive re-
movalofvegetationonanopen,sandycoast,eithertomakeclearfire-breaksorbygeneralthinning,
wouldbelikelytoleadtoseriousandincreasingsand-drifting. Thepracticalproblembecomes that
ofpreserving a sufficient covering ofvegetation ofthe least inflammable kinds possible. ... I have
recentlymadesomeroughtestsoftheeaseofignitionofthefoliageofseveralspecies ....Theresults
maybesummarizedasfollows:
1.Mostinflammable,quickignition,andplentyofflame
Leptospermumlaevigatum CoastTea-tree, andLeucopogonRichei,NativeCurrant.
,
2. Easily ignited—Bursaria spinosa, Sweet Bursaria, Correa alba, White Correa, Casuarina quadri-
valvis DroopingSheoke.
,
3.Fire-resistingplants—Acacialongifolia,var.sophorae,CoastWattle,RhagodiaBillardieri,SeaBerry,
Tetragonia implexicoma Warrigal Cabbage,Muehlenbeckiaadpressa Climbing Lignum,Myoporum
, ,
insulare,Boobialla—especiallythelastthree,buttheotherswerenotfarbehind.
From The VictorianNaturalistxxx,p.222-223April,1914
Vol 130 (5) 2013 211
