Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041081. Epub 2012 Jul 17.
Reintroductions are an increasingly common conservation restoration tool; however, little attention has hitherto been given to different methods for monitoring the stress encountered by reintroduced individuals. We compared ten potential measures of stress within four different categories (neuroendocrine, cell function, body condition and immune system function) as proxies for animal welfare in water voles being reintroduced to the Upper Thames region, Oxfordshire, UK. Captive-bred voles were assessed pre-release, and each month post-release for up to five months. Wild-born voles were captured in the field and assessed from two months post-release. Plasma corticosteroid, hydration and body condition of captive-bred voles differed between their pre-release measures and both their first ("short-term") recapture, and their final recapture ("long-term" release), however only body condition and immunocompetence measured using the Nitroblue Tetrazolium (NBT) test were significantly different post-release between the first and last recaptures. Captive-bred animals had lower fat reserves, higher weight/length ratios and better immunocompetence (NBT) than did wild-born voles. Captive-bred males had higher ectoparasite burdens compared to wild-born males and, as reintroduction site quality decreased, became less hydrated. These observations indicate that some methods can identify changes in the stress response in individuals, highlighting areas of risk in a reintroduction programme. In addition, a single measure may not provide a full picture of the stress experienced; instead, a combination of measures of different physiological systems may give a more complete indication of stress during the reintroduction process. We highlight the need to monitor stress in reintroductions using measures from different physiological systems to inform on possible animal welfare improvements and thus the overall success rate of reintroductions.
重引入是一种越来越常见的保护恢复工具;然而,迄今为止,人们对监测重新引入个体所面临的压力的不同方法关注甚少。我们比较了四个不同类别(神经内分泌、细胞功能、身体状况和免疫系统功能)中的十种潜在应激措施,作为英国牛津郡上泰晤士地区重新引入水鼠的动物福利指标。圈养繁殖的水鼠在释放前进行评估,并在释放后每月进行一次评估,最多进行五个月。在野外捕获的野生水鼠在释放后两个月进行评估。圈养繁殖的水鼠的血浆皮质醇、水合作用和身体状况在释放前的测量值与其第一次(“短期”)重新捕获以及最后一次重新捕获(“长期”释放)之间存在差异,但只有使用硝基四唑蓝(NBT)试验测量的身体状况和免疫能力在第一次和最后一次重新捕获之间有显著差异。圈养繁殖的动物比野生水鼠具有更低的脂肪储备、更高的体重/长度比和更好的免疫能力(NBT)。与野生雄性相比,圈养雄性的外寄生虫负担更高,而且随着再引入地点质量的下降,其水合作用也变得更差。这些观察结果表明,某些方法可以识别个体应激反应的变化,突出再引入计划中的风险领域。此外,单一措施可能无法全面了解所经历的应激;相反,不同生理系统的多种措施的组合可能更全面地反映再引入过程中的应激情况。我们强调需要使用来自不同生理系统的措施监测再引入中的应激,以告知可能的动物福利改善,从而提高再引入的总体成功率。