Biodiversity and conservation approaches:

In-situ and Ex-situ avian conservation.

Daniel Watson

BSc (Hons) Conservation and Environment (Biological Conservation)

Word count: 2763

i

Abstract

In order to conserve species and habitats different conservation approaches have been

implemented. The two core approaches are in-situ and ex-situ conservation. The in-situ

approach is the conservation of a species within its natural environment, whilst the ex-situ

approach is the conservation outside of the natural environment. An integrated approach of

the two methods is preferred, though modern conservation currently favours in-situ as it is

beneficial for ecosystems as a whole.

Conservation of species is shifting towards a more holistic approach, whereby the

ecosystem as a whole is conserved, ensuring protection of the desired species. Both in-situ

and ex-situ approaches are used in avian conservation, though the technique adopted is

systematic with the species needs.

ii

Contents

Abstract i

1.1 Global biodiversity 1

1.2 Threats to Biodiversity 2

1.3 The need for conservation 3

2. Bird populations: A brief overview 4

3.1 Conservation and protection of species (In-situ and Ex-situ) 4

3.2.1 In-situ conservation 5

3.2.2 Case study: The Eurasian bittern Botaurus stellaris 6

3.3 Ex-situ conservation 7

3.4.1 Captive breeding 7

3.4.2 Case Study: The Spoon billed sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus 8

3.5.1 Reintroductions 9

3.5.2 Case study: The White tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in the UK 9

4. Discussion 10

5. Conclusion 11

6. References 12

Tables

Table 1: Threats to global biodiversity 2

Table 2) Habitat requirements for Eurasian bittern 6

Figures

Figure 1: Global Biodiversity hotspots 1

Plates

Plate 1: Eurasian bittern in flight 6

Plate 2: Spoon billed Sandpiper 8

Plate 3: Adult White tailed eagle 9

1

1.1 Global biodiversity

The number of species that exist on earth has long been contested, with the figure put

somewhere between 5 – 30 million species (May, 1992; Stork, 1993), though recent findings

suggest there are approximately 8.7 million species on the planet (Mora et al., 2011), though

of these some 86% of terrestrial and 91% of marine species are still unclassified or unknown

(ibid). The areas which hold the highest biological diversity are generally found in the tropics

(23° 26′ 16″N and 23° 26′ 16″ S) (MEA, 2005), though other “biodiversity hotspots” are found

extralimital to this area (Myers et al., 2000), such as the Cape Floristic Province and the

Caucasus mountain region (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Global Biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al., 2000)

Biodiversity hotspots are areas of high biological importance, which hold not only high

concentrations of biodiversity, but also high numbers of endemics (Reid, 1998). Myers et al.

(2000) identified 25 key hotspots, which held up to 44% of all vascular plant species, and

35% of all vertebrate species which are areas of high conservation value. The combined

total for these areas covered only 1.4% of the earth’s surface.

2

1.2 Threats to Biodiversity

Biodiversity is under threat as a result of a multitude of factors, both anthropogenic and

natural. Habitat loss (Franklin et al., 2002; Brooks et al., 2006; St-Laurent et al., 2009),

climate change (Fischlin et al., 2007), exploitation of natural resources (MEA, 2005; Mooney

et al., 2009) and invasive species are all contributing to the decline of both species and

habitats, though other factors are also influential (table 1).

As many of the biodiversity hotspots occur in developing countries, there is often systematic

degradation and overexploitation as a result of the development of the areas (Wood et al.,

2000). The disparity of wealth and lack of basic living conditions in these areas results in

local people having little choice but to utilise resources from the natural environment (Dietz

and Adger, 2003; Wood et al., 2000), and as a result habitat is lost through conversion to

agriculture and housing (Pauchard et al., 2006), and species are hunted for food (Linder and

Oates, 2011).

Table 1: Threats to global biodiversity

Threat Reference

Habitat loss, conversion, degradation and

fragmentation

MEA, 2005; Franklin et al., 2002; St-Laurent

et al., 2009

Population growth McKee et al., 2003; Dietz and Adger, 2003

Over exploitation of natural resources Schindler and Lee, 2010

Invasive species Bax et al., 2003; Burgiel and Muir, 2010

Climate change Leemans and Eickhout, 2004; Fischlin et al.,

2007

Pollution Wood et al., 2000; Lapointe et al.,

Disease Lips et al., 2006

Lack of protection/weak enforcement of law Wood et al., 2000; Gaveau et al., 2009

Poverty Gaveau et al., 2009

Background extinction Brook et al., 2008

Stochastic events Wood et al., 2000; Brook et al., 2008

3

1.3 The need for conservation

Biodiversity is highly important to both humans and the planet, providing us with services,

provisions, functioning processes and holding intrinsic value (Norton, 1987). Habitats and

biodiversity are utilized with such regularity that it is easy to become complacent about its

importance, and the services provided. A predominant use of biodiversity by humans is

provision of food, where a multitude of plants and animals are processed into sustenance

(Costanza et al., 1997; Foley et al., 2005).

Ecosystems provide more subtle, but equally integral services to humans via ecosystem

services (Costanza et al., 1997; Fischlin et al., 2007), with services such as climate

regulation, groundwater supply, pollination and natural resources. Ecosystem services are

the processes and resources provided by natural systems, which have value to humans

(Daily et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2002). These services can be broken down into four core

servicing categories;

Functioning – these services are the functions which underpin biological processes.

Provisioning – These are the processes and services which are provided by

ecosystems which are beneficial to humans.

Regulating – These are the biological and atmospheric processes which determine

various functions, from the health of an ecosystem through to weather formation.

Cultural – These services hold intrinsic value to humans for cultural or religious

purposes.

Functioning of these processes is driven by environmental health (Rapport et al., 1998), with

more resilient habitats providing more economic functions. Although vital, these services are

been affected by anthropogenic activities, with over 60% of these processes being

diminished by such activities in the last 50 years (Mooney et al., 2009).

Conservation of ecosystems and species increases resilience, with more resilient systems

providing continuous ecosystem services, and having increased resistance to stochastic

events. Ecosystem services are considered to be worth in excess of $16 trillion dollars per

annum (Costanza et al., 1997) though the services provided cannot be replaced at any

monetary cost (ibid).

There are various approaches to the conservation of different biota, with in-situ and ex-situ

being the most frequent conservation techniques, though other approaches such as genetic

conservation for vascular plants (Gonzalez-Perez et al., 2009) and animals (Hedrick, 2001)

are also used.

4

This assignment will discuss in-situ and ex-situ strategies adopted in conservation, with a

focus on bird species.

2. Bird populations: A brief overview

There are some 10,052 species of birds known to science (Birdlife International, 2012b),

though this number is likely to increase as a result of taxonomic studies, which are finding

some sub-species are genetically divergent enough to be classified as species (Sangster,

2009). Birds are a widely studied group, and resultantly there is a wealth of information on

their distribution and status (Canterbury et al., 2000). 41% of birds are decreasing (MEA,

2005), with major declines noted in Asia and Oceania, and in particular populations found in

farmland, forests and marine systems (Birdlife International, 2012a). Approximately 12.5% of

birds (1,253 species) were considered to be threatened with extinction in 2011 (Birdlife

International, 2012a). The key drivers behind these declines are conversion of land to

agriculture and overexploitation of natural resources, which affects 93% of threatened

species (Birdlife International, 2012a), though invasive species are also highly influential,

threatening a third of species, particularly seabird populations (ibid; Wanless et al., 2007).

3.1 Conservation and protection of species (In-situ and Ex-situ)

Adaptive conservation strategies are needed to secure the future of the natural world. New

conservation approaches are beginning to come to the fore, with the “ecosystem approach”

the primary practice for conservation management (Shepperd, 2008; CBD, 2012). This

holistic approach takes every level of an ecosystem into account (Chapman, 1992), and

seeks the preferred technique for maintaining overall ecosystem health. This is in direct

contrast to the old school reductionist approach whereby ecosystems are managed

specifically for a single species. Early research by Prendergast et al, (1993) suggested that

the coincidence of rare species from different taxa in a given area in the UK would lead to a

reductionist approach, with sites being managed for specific species. Following this study

Simberloff (1998) found that maintaining overall ecosystem health was necessary and would

be beneficial to all species present.

5

3.2.1 In-situ conservation

In-situ conservation is the management of species within their natural environment

(Greenwood, 1996). This method of conservation is preferred for species which are sensitive

to disturbance or direct human contact (Bell and Merton, 2002), as they can be managed in

their natural habitat, reducing the amount of stress (International Union for Conservation of

Nature (IUCN), 1995; Bell and Merton, 2002). This practice is also beneficial as it allows

species to remain in the environment to which they are accustomed, and when used over a

long temporal scale, it allows the species to maintain its evolutionary traits and adapt

naturally (IUCN, 1995).

Under the UK habitats directive (annex 1) bird species are protected under the EC Birds

Directive, and Special Protected Areas (SPAs). These legislations were drawn up in order to

protect species which breed and migrate through the EU. There are currently 269 SPAs

designated in the UK, covering an area of 2,748257 hectares (Joint Nature Conservation

Committee (JNCC), 2012). These areas provide a form of In-situ conservation, as they are

protecting particular species within their natural range.

Shaffer (1981) identified four major categories of natural risk associated with in-situ

conservation;

Demographic uncertainty – the result of random events associated with the species

such as fecundity, recruitment and survival rates.

Environmental uncertainty – the result of unpredictable factors such as weather, food

supplies, predation, disease and competition.

Natural catastrophes – the effect of stochastic events such as flooding/fire/droughts

within the habitat.

Genetic uncertainty – the result of genetic divergence which could lead to reduced

resilience, genetic drift or inbreeding.

In addition to these naturally and uncontrollable occurring risks, there are the anthropogenic

influences, such as hunting and persecution, which are detrimental to in-situ approaches.

6

3.2.2 Case study: The Eurasian bittern Botaurus stellaris

Plate 1: Eurasian bittern in flight (D. Watson, May 2010)

The Eurasian bittern B. stellaris (plate 1) is benefiting directly from in-situ conservation.

Historically numerous (White et al., 2006), the species suffered a serious decline in the 19th

Century as a result of extensive drainage in its east Anglian strongholds (White et al., 2006),

and was reduced to a minimum population of just 11 booming males in 1997 (Gilbert et al.,

2005).

As a result of concerted effort of multiple conservation bodies the species is increasing in

number and spreading to new areas (Wotton et al., 2009). Studies into the ecology and

habitat requirements (Table 2) of the species led to improved understanding of its needs,

and as a result several reserves are currently managed for this species (Gilbert et al., 2005),

which is also beneficial to other reed bed specialists (Hawke and Jose, 1996) such as Marsh

harrier circus aeruginosus, bearded reedling Panurus biarmicus and Water rail Rallus

aquaticus.

Table 2) Habitat requirements for Eurasian bittern B. stellaris

Habitat Requirement Breeding Winter

Mixture of cut and established Phragmites australis X X

Availability of fish X X

>14.6ha of reed bed (males) X

100m - 2.8ha of reed bed (female) X

Presence of open water within 30m of reed bed X

Presence of scrub for roosting X

10-20cm water depth X

>20cm water depth X

7

A key issue in the recovery of the UK population is that the highest breeding densities occur

within 3km of the East Anglian coastline (White et al., 2006), which is currently under threat

from coastal erosion (Brown et al., 2006), and saline incursion (Wotton et al., 2009). This

could destroy much of the suitable habitat needed by the birds, which would be detrimental

to the population. In a bold countermeasure the RSPB is buying areas inland which can be

converted to reedbeds (Wotton et al., 2009), as part of a wider conservation initiative (White

et al., 2006). These measures will allow the establishment of new habitat, for when the

current coastal areas are lost (Wotton et al., 2009).

3.3 Ex-situ conservation

Ex-situ conservation is the management of species outside of either its natural habitat or

range (Engelmann and Engels, 2002). Species may be bred in captivity (see 3.4.1) with the

offspring being released back into the wild (Lynch and O’Hely, 2001), or individuals may be

trans-located as part of a re-introduction program (see 3.5.1) to create a new population. Ex-

situ conservation is very costly, both fiscally and temporally (Balmford et al., 1995; Sullivan,

2010), and there is an increased incidence towards failure of these projects (Oro et al.,

2011).

3.4.1 Captive breeding

When a wild population falls below a viable state, one of the measures that can be

undertaken to assist its survival is to take individuals from the wild (or from a pre-existing

captive population) and instigate a breeding program (Black, 1991). The young can either be

held to increase the captive population, or they can be re-introduced back into the wild.

Captive breeding provides the opportunity for conservationists to selectively breed

individuals from a small population in order to maximise heterozygosity (Bryant et al., 1999),

in addition to producing more clutches and lower mortality rate than in wild scenarios

(Mathews et al., 2005). Increased genetic diversity results in increased resilience, and can

contribute to a healthier and sustainable population (Hedrick, 2001).

8

3.4.2 Case Study: The Spoon billed sandpiper Eurynorhynchus. pygmeus

Plate 2: Spoon billed Sandpiper (James Gilroy, 2010)

Spoon billed sandpiper E. pygmeus (plate 2) was classified as critically endangered in 2008

(Birdlife International, 2010), with a global population estimated at between 240‐500

individuals (Ibid), and a breeding population “optimistically” estimated at between 120‐200

individuals (Zöckler et al., 2010a). Conversion of habitat on its breeding, passage and

wintering quarters (Syroechkovskiy and Zöckler, 2009), in conjunction with hunting in

wintering areas (Zöckler et al., 2010b) and decreased recruitment (Zöckler et al., 2010a),

means that the outlook for the species in the wild is questionable.

As a result of this, 20 eggs were taken from nests at risk from predation to form part of a

captive population (Pain et al., 2011). These eggs were incubated at Moscow zoo, before

being flown to the UK to be reared by a specialist team at Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust

(WWT) Slimbridge. It is hoped that these individuals will breed and produce offspring that

can be returned to the wild. The project is expected to cost £100,000, with support coming

from NGO’s, namely the RSPB and Birdlife International, with donations from the public and

a number of natural history societies (Pain et al., 2011).

As with any captive breeding program there is no certainty that the initial captive birds will

produce offspring as these birds may represent a limited genetic diversity (Wedekind, 2002).

Hand-rearing birds in captivity is notoriously difficult (Riper, 2008), and further expansion of

the compound is necessary in order for the birds to behave in a natural way so that they can

be reintroduced into the wild.

9

3.5.1 Reintroductions

The introduction of a species into a habitat in order to increase biodiversity, or to fill an

ecological niche is a fairly widespread practice, which encompasses both in-situ and ex-situ

conservation philosophies. Reintroductions are generally undertaken to increase local

biodiversity, by returning a species to a part of its former range (Norton, 1986: Seddon et al.,

2007). Reintroductions are costly (Sarrazin and Barbault, 1996; Seddon et al., 2007), and

there are multiple shareholders involved with every such scheme. Comprehensive surveys

of the area mooted for reintroductions are vital to determining whether a viable population

could be established (Osborne, 2005; Perez et al., 2011).

3.5.2 Case study: The White tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in the UK

Plate 3: Adult White tailed eagle (Birdguides.com, 2011)

The White tailed eagle H. albicilla (plate 3) was lost as a British breeding bird during the late

19th Century, as a result of persecution predominantly from sheep farmers (Forrester and

Andrews, 2007). The species occurred occasionally in winter from the continent (Birdlife

International, 2002), but it was feared to have been lost as a native species forever.

Reintroductions were undertaken in 1959 and 1968, but these proved to be unsuccessful

(Evans et al., 2009). In 1975 the Nature Conservancy Council (now JNCC) once again set

about attempting to reintroduce the birds to the west coast of Scotland (Forrester and

Andrews, 2007). Over the next decade a total of 82 juveniles were exported from Norway

(where the population was expanding) and were released onto the Isle of Rum. The birds

were contained in large aviaries in order to acclimatise and for quarantine.

The first pair bred in 1983 though these were unsuccessful, and finally in 1985 the first

successful breeding took place on Mull (Forrester and Andrews, 2007; Evans et al., 2009).

10

The eagles have been successful every year since then, and the current population stands

at 52 pairs (white tailed sea eagle, 2012). The birds currently generate £2 million per annum

(Forrester and Andrews, 2007).

The birds were not appreciated by all as a total of 6 adult birds had suffered persecution,

with 2 clutches lost to egg collectors (Forrester and Andrews, 2007). In 2009, the RSPB,

Natural England and Anglian Water proposed a reintroduction project for East Anglia,

originally in North Norfolk, then later on the Suffolk Coast. Although these areas didn’t

appear suitable, a sustainable population is established in Germany in similar habitat (Hauff

and Mizera, 2006). As a combination of funding cuts in Natural England, which was to

provide £600,000 to the project (Natural England, 2010), and the inability of local landowners

to accept scientific justification for the reintroduction, the project was halted in 2010.

4. Discussion

There is some debate as to whether in situ or ex-situ conservation approaches are more

effective, Pritchard et al (2011) argue that although integrated approaches are preferred,

there is still space for ex-situ, citing outside influences on the development of conservation

as one mechanism that has seen the scientific community favour integrated approaches.

The in-situ approach is currently favoured, as it allows species to be conserved in their

natural habitat (Greenwood, 1996), and is generally more cost effective than ex-situ

approaches. Other benefits of this approach are lower stress levels as a result of reduced

exposure to humans (Bell and Merton, 2002), which in turn allows species to adopt more

natural behaviour (Bell and Merton, 2002), and in turn increases the likelihood of successful

integration into the habitat.

One of the key disadvantages of in-situ conservation is the increased possibility of the

species failing as a result of natural or anthropogenic factors, such as disease, extreme

weather or persecution (Forrester and Andrews, 2007; Oosterhout et al., 2007), whilst with

ex-situ strategies these variables are limited by the controls implemented (Wedekind, 2002).

By contrast ex-situ conservation can be beneficial dependent upon the organism, though in

cases where species in ex-situ circumstances are reintroduced, issues regarding disease

outbreaks as a result of lowered resilience are increased (Snyder et al., 1996; Oosterhout et

al., 2007). Costs are higher (Balmford et al., 1995; Sullivan, 2010), and there is no guarantee

that the species will be successful (Snyder et al., 1996).

11

5. Conclusion

The suitability of in-situ and ex-situ conservation approaches should be established in

accordance with the species. In-situ generally benefits a wider suite of species and

ecosystems, and is the default method adopted in modern conservation. Ex-situ approaches

are generally costlier, but are necessary to secure the future of species seriously threatened

in the wild, particularly those threatened with habitat loss and genetic depression.

12

6. References

Balmford, A. Leader-Williams, N. and Green, M.J.B. (1995) Parks or Arks: where to

conserve threatened mammals? Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 595-607.

Bax, N. Williamson, A. Aguero, M. Gonzalez, E. Geeves, W. (2003) Marine invasive alien

species: A threat to global biodiversity. Marine Policy 27, 313-323.

Bell, B.D. and Merton, D.V. (2002) Critically endangered bird populations and their

management, in: K, Norris. and D.J. Pain. (eds) Conserving bird biodiversity. Cambridge

University Press, UK.

Black, J.M. (1991) Reintroduction and restocking: guidelines for bird recovery programmes.

Bird Conservation International 1, 329-334.

Birdlife International (2002) Action plan for the conservation of the White tailed eagle

Haliaeetus albicilla. [www document] available at:

http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/species_action_plans/europe/White-

tailed_Eagle.pdf (date accessed 14/2/2012).

Birdlife International, (2010) Species factsheet: Spoon-billed sandpiper [www document]

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=3060 (date accessed 01/12/11).

Birdlife International (2012a) Recently re-categorised species. [www document] available at:

http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/global_species_programme/whats_new.html

(date accessed 28/3/2012).

Birdlife International (2012b) Birds on the IUCN Red List. [www document] available

at:http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/global_species_programme/red_list.html

(date accessed 28/3/2012).

Brook, B.W. Sodhi, N.S. and Bradshaw, C.J.A. (2008) Synergies among extinction drivers

under global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, 453-460.

Brooks, T.M. Mittermeier, R.A. da Fonseca, G.A.B. Gerlach, J. Hoffmann, M. Lamoreux, J.F.

Mittermeier, C.G. Pilgrim, J.D. and Rodrigues, A.S.L. (2006) Global biodiversity conservation

priorities. Science 313, 58-61.

Brown, I. Jude, S. Koukoulas, S. Nicholls, R. Dickson, M. and Walken, M. (2006) Dynamic

simulation and visualisation of coastal erosion. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems

30, 840-860.

13

Bryant, E.H. Backus, V.L. Clark, M.E. and Reed, D.H. (1999) Experimental tests of captive

breeding for endangered species. Conservation Biology 13, 1487-1496.

Burgiel, S.W. and Muir, A.A. (2010) Invasive species, Climate change and ecosystem-based

adaptation: Addressing multiple drivers of global change Global Invasive Species Program

September 2010.Accessed via http://moodle.writtle.ac.uk/file.php/729/Burgiel_Muir_2010.pdf

date accessed 1/11/11.

Canterbury, G.E. Martin, T.E. Petit, D.R. Petit, L.J. and Bradford, D.F. (2000) Bird

communities and habitat as Ecological Indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring.

Conservation Biology 14, 544-558.

Chapman, P.M. (1992) Ecosystem health synthesis: can we get there from here? Journal of

Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 1, 69-79.

Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] (2012) Ecosystem Approach: Introduction. [www

document] available at http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/ (date accessed 4/4/12).

Costanza, R. d’Arge, R. De Groot, R. Farber, S. Grasso, M. Hannon, B. Limburg, K. Naeem,

S. O’Neill, R.V. Paruelo, J. Raskin, R.G. Sutton, P. and Van Der Belt, M. (1997) The value of

the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253-260.

Daily, G.C. Alexander, S. Ehrlich, P.R. Goulder, L. Lubchenco, J. Matson, P.A. Mooney, H.A.

Postel, S. Schneider, S.H. Tilman, D. Woodwell, G.M. (1997) Ecosystem services: Benefits

supplied to human societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology 2, 11-19.

De Groot, R.S. Wilson, M.A. and Boumans, R.M.J. (2002) A typology for the classification,

description and valuation of ecosystem function, good and services. Ecological Economics

41, 393-408.

Dietz, S. and Adger, W.N. (2003) Economic growth, biodiversity loss and conservation effort.

Journal of Environmental Management 68, 23-35.

Engelmann, F. and Engles, J.M.M. (2002) Technologies and strategies for ex-situ

conservation [www document] available at:

http://www2.bioversityinternational.org/publications/727/pdf/0851995225Ch9.PDF (date

accessed 12/2/12).

Evans, R.J. Wilson, J.D. Amar, A. Douse, A. Maclennan, A. Ratcliffe, N. and Whitfield, D.P.

(2009) Growth and demography of a re-introduced population of White tailed eagles

Haliaeetus albicilla. Ibis 151, 244-254.

14

Fischlin, A., Midgley, G.F. Price, J.T. Leemans, R. Gopal, B. Turley, C. Rounsevell, M.D.A.

Dube, O.P. Tarazona, J. and Velichko, A.A. (2007)Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and

services. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, Parry, M.L. Canziani, O.F. Palutikof, J.P. Van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson,

C.E. Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 211-272.

Foley, J.A. DeFries, R. Asner, G.P. Barford,C. Bonan, G. Carpenter, S.R. Chapin, F.S. Coe,

M.T. Daily, G.C. Gibbs, H.K. Helkowski, J.H. Holloway, T. Howard, E.A. Kurcharik, C.J.

Monfreda, C. Patz, J.A. Prentice, I.C. Ramankutty, N. and Snyder, P.K. (2005) Global

consequences of land use. Science 309, 570-574.

Forrester, R. and Andrews, I. The birds of Scotland. Scottish Ornithologists Club, Edinburgh,

Scotland.

Franklin, A.B. Noon, B.R. and George, T.L. (2002) What is habitat fragmentation? Studies in

Avian biology 25, 20-29.

Gaveau, D.L.A. Linkie, M. Suyadi, (no forename). Levang, P. Leader-Williams, N. (2009)

Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: Effects of coffee prices, law

enforcement and rural poverty. Biological Conservation 142, 597-605.

Gilbert, G. Tyler, G.A. Dunn, C.J. and Smith, K.W. (2005) Nesting habitat selection by

bitterns Botaurus stellaris in Britain and the implications for wetland management. Biological

Conservation 124, 547-553.

Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. Sosa, P.A. and Batista, F.J. (2009) Genetic variation and

conservation of the endangered endemic Anagyris latifolia from the Canary Islands. Plant

System Evolution 279, 59-68.

Greenwood, A.G. (1996) Veterinary support for in situ avian conservation programs. Bird

Conservation International 6, 285-292.

Hauff, P. and Mizera, T. (2006) Verbreitung und Dichte des Seeadlers Haliaeetus albicilla in

Deutschland und Polen: eine aktulle Atlas-Karte. Vogelwarte 44, 134-136.

Hawke, C.J. and Jose, P.V. (1996) Reed bed Management for commercial and wildlife

interests. RSPB, Sandy, UK.

Hedrick, P.W. (2001) Conservation genetics: where are we now? Ecology and Evoloution

16, 629-636.

15

IUCN (1995) Conservation of Biodiversity and the new Regional planning [www document]

available at: http://www.oas.org/DSD/publications/Unit/oea04e/oea04e.pdf (date accessed

10/4/2012).

Joint Nature Conservation Committee JNCC (2012) Classified and potential Special

Protected Areas (SPAs) in the UK. [www document] http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1399 (date

accessed 17/3/12).

Lapointe, B.E. Thacker, K. and Getten, H.L. (2011) Sewage pollution in Negril, Jamaica:

effects on nutrition and ecology of coral reef microalgae. Chinese journal of Oceanology and

Limnology 29, 38-49.

Leemans, R. and Eickhout, B. (2004) Another reason for concern: regional and global

impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Global Environmental Change

14, 219-228.

Linder, J.M. and Oates, J.F. (2011) Differential impact of bushmeat hunting on monkey

species and implications for primate conservation in Korup National Park, Cameroon.

Biological Conservation 144, 738-745.

Lips, K.R. Brem, F. Brenes, R. Reeve, J.D. Alford, R.A. Voyles, J. Carey, C. Livo, L. Pessier,

A.P. and Collins, J.P. (2006) Emerging infectious disease and the loss of biodiversity in a

neotropical amphibian community. PNAS 103, 3165-3170.

Lynch, M. and O’Hely, M. (2001) Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural

populations. Conservation genetics 2, 363-378.

Mathews, F. Orros, M. McLaren, G. Gelling, M. and Foster, R. (2005) Keeping fit on the ark:

assessing the suitability of captive bred animals for release. Biological Conservation 121,

569-577.

May, R.M. (1992) How many species inhabit the earth? Scientific American 10, 18-24.

McKee, J.K. Sciulli, P.W. Fooce, C.D. and Waite, T.A. (2003) Forecasting global biodiversity

threats associated with human population growth. Biological Conservation 115, 161-164.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MEA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being:

Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Mooney, H. Larigauderie, A. Cesario, M. Elmquist, T. Guldberg, O.H. Lavorel, S. Mace, G.M.

Palmer, M. Scholes, R. and Yahara, T. (2009) Biodiversity, climate change and ecosystem

services. Current opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1, 46-54.

16

Mora, C. Tittensor, D.P. Adl, S. Simpson, A.G.B. and Worm, B. (2011) How many species

are there on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biology 9, 1-8.

Myers, N. Mittermeier, R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J. (2000)

Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities Nature 403, 853-858.

Natural England (2010) Sea eagle reintroduction in East Anglia. [www document] available

at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/east_of_england/ourwork/wtefaq.aspx (date

accessed 13/4/2012).

Norton, B.G. (1986) The preservation of species: The value of biological diversity. Princeton

University Press, USA.

Norton, B.G. (1987) Why preserve natural variety? Princeton University Press, USA.

Oosterhout, C.V. Smith, A.M. Hanfling, B. Ramnarine, I.W. Mohammed, R.S. and Cable, J.

(2007) The Guppy as a conservation model: Implications of parasitism and inbreeding for

reintroduction species. Conservation Biology 21, 1573-1583.

Oro, D. Martinez-Abrain, A. Villuendas, E. Sarzo, B. Minguez, E. Carda, J. and Genovart, M.

(2011) Lessons from a failed translocation program with a seabird species: Determinants of

success and conservation value. Biological Conservation 144, 851-858.

Osborne, P.E. (2005) Key issues in assessing the feasibility of reintroducing the Great

bustard Otis tarda to Britain. Oryx 39, 22-29.

Pain, D. Green, R. and Clark, N. (2011) Can the Spoon billed Sandpiper be saved? British

Birds 104, 350-363.

Pauchard, A. Aguayo, M. Pena, E. and Urrutia, R. (2006) Multiple effects of urbanisation on

the biodiversity of developing countries: The case of a fast-growing metropolitan area

(Concepcion, Chile). Biological Conservation 127, 272-281.

Perez, I. Noguera, J.C. and Minguez, E. (2011) Is there enough habitat for reintroduced

populations of the Lesser Kestrel? A case study in eastern Spain. Bird Conservation

International 21, 228-239.

Prendergast, J.R. Quinn, R.M. Lawton, J.H. Eversham, B.C. and Gibbons, D.W. (1993) Rare

species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365, 335-

337.

17

Pritchard, D.J. Fa, J.E. Oldfield, S. and Harrop, S.R. (2011) Bringing the captive closer to the

wild: redefining the role of ex situ conservation. Oryx 46, 18-21.

Rapport, D.J. Costanza, R. and McMichael, A.J. (1998) Assessing ecosystem health. Trends

in Ecology & Evolution 13, 397 -402.

Reid, W.V. (1998) Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7, 275-280.

Riper, S.V. (2008) Hand rearing birds. Journal of Wildlife diseases 44, 531-533.

Sangster, G. (2009) Increasing numbers of bird species result from taxonomic progress, not

taxonomic inflation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276, 3185-3191.

Sarrazin, F. and Barbault, R. (1996) Reintroduction: challenges and lessons for basic

ecology. Tree 11, 474-478.

Schindler, D.W. and Lee, P.G. (2010) Comprehensive conservation planning to protect

biodiversity and ecosystem services in Canadian boreal regions under a warming climate

and increased exploitation. Biological Conservation 143, 1571-1586.

Seddon, P.J. Armstrong, D.P. and Maloney, R.F. (2007) Developing the science of

reintroduction biology. Conservation Biology 21, 303-312.

Shepperd, G. (ed) (2008) The Ecosystem Approach: Learning from Experience. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN.

Simberloff, D. (1998) Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single species management

passé in the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83, 247-257.

Snyder,N.F.R. Derrickson, S.R. Beissinger, S.R. Wiley, J.W. Smith, T.B. Toone, W.D. and

Miller, B. (1996) Limitations of captive breeding in Endangered Species Recovery.

Conservation Biology 10, 338-348.

St-Laurent, M.H. Dussault, C. Ferron, J. and Gagnon, R. (2009) Dissecting habitat loss and

fragmentation effects following logging in boreal forest: Conservation perspectives from

landscape simulations. Biological Conservation 142, 2240-2249.

Stork, N.E. (1993) How many species are there? Biodiversity Conservation 2, 215-232.

Sullivan, M. (2010) The challenges of ex-situ orchid conservation. [www document] available

at:

http://www.orchidconservationcoalition.org/pdf/articles/thechallengesofexsituorchidconservati

on.pdf (date accessed 10/4/2012).

18

Wanless, R.M. Angel, A. Cuthbert, R.J. Hilton, G.M. and Ryan, P.G. (2007) Can predation by

invasive mice drive seabird extinctions? Biology Letters 3, 241-244.

Wedekind, C. (2002) Management of Captive populations. Conservation Biology 16, 1204-

1211.

White, G. Purps, J. and Alsbury, S. (2006) The bittern in Europe: A guide to species and

habitat management. RSPB, Sandy, UK.

White tailed sea eagle (2012) The White tailed eagle [www document] available at:

http://www.white-tailed-sea-eagle.co.uk/index.htm (date accessed 10/4/2012).

Wotton, S. Brown, A. Burn, A. Dodd, A. Droy, N. Gilbert, G. Hardiman, N. Rees, S. White, G.

and Gregory, R. (2009) Boom or bust – a sustainable future for reedbeds and Bitterns?

British Wildlife 20, 305-315.

Wood,A. Stedman-Edwards, P. and Mang, J. (2000) The root causes of biodiversity loss.

Earthscan Publications, London, UK.

Zöckler, C and Syroechkovskiy, E.E. (2009) Preliminary results and conclusions of Spoon-

billed sandpiper survey in Kamchatka and Chukotka 2009. Spoon-billed sandpiper recovery

team, unpublished report for Birdlife International.

Zöckler, C, Syroechkovskiy, E.E. and Atkinson, P.W. (2010a) Rapid and continued

population decline in the Spoon-billed sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus indicated

imminent extinction unless conservation action is taken Bird Conservation International 20,

95-111.

Zöckler, C, Htin Hla, T. Clark, N. Syroechkovskiy, E.E. Yakushev, N. Daengphayon, S. and

Robinson, R. (2010b) Hunting in Myanmar is probably the main cause of the decline of the

Spoon-billed sandpiper Wader Study Group Bulletin 117, 1-8.