International Zoo Yearbook

INTERNATIONAL ZOO YEARBOOK EDITORIAL BOARD

MARCIA A. EDWARDS, PHD, FLS 8 Turners Mead, Storrington, Pulborough, West Sussex RH20 452

N. L. JACKSON Director, Zoological Society of Wales, The Welsh Mountain Zoo & Botanic Gardens, Colwyn Bay, Clwyd LL28 5UY

PROFESSOR J. KEAR, OBE, PHD Jewells Lodge Cottage, Umberleigh, Devon EX37 9EY

I. F. KEYMER, PHD, FRCVS, FRCPATH, CBIOL, FIBIOL The Old Smithy, Edgefield Green, Melton Constable, Norfolk NR24 2AL

J . M. KNOWLES, OBE Director, Manvell Zoological Park, Colden Common, Winchester, Hampshire SO21 1JH

GEORGINA M. MACE, DPHIL Institute of Zoology, The Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NWI 4RY

J. J. C. MALLINSON, CIBIOL, FIBIoL, FRGS Director, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, Les Augres Manor, Trinity. Jersey JE3 5BP, Channel Islands Chairman of the Editorial Board

PROFESSOR R. J. WHEATER, OBE, CBIOL, FIBIoL. FRSA, FRSE Director, Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, Scottish National Zoological Park, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH 12 6TS

INTERNATIONAL ZOO YEARBOOK ADVISORY PANEL DR S. ASAKURA, Tokyo Zoological Parks Society, Ueno Zoological Gardens PROFESSOR A. H. ABUZINADA. National Commission of Wildlife Conservation and

w. G. CONWAY, New York Zoological Society J. P. DeJOSE, Perth Zoological Gardens DR J. M. DOLAN, Zoological Society of San Diego DR DEVRA G. KLEIMAN, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC PROFESSOR DR H.-G. KLOS, Tierpark Berlin DR S. KUDRYAVTSEV, MOSCOW Zoo~ogical Park PROFESSOR H. MENDELSSOHN, Tel-Aviv University Wildlife Research Centre PROFESSOR DR G. NOGGE, Zoologischer Garten Koln DR M. K. RANJITSINH, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi DR A. B. RYLANDS. Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidade Federal de Minas

PROFESSOR TAN BANGJIE, Beijing Zoological Gardens

Development, Riyadh

Gerais

1993 International Zoo Year book volume 33

EDITED BY P. J. S. OLNEY PAT ELLIS FIONA A. FISKEN

PUBLISHED BY THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON 1994

THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON REGENT’S PARK, LONDON NW14RY First Published 1994

@Copyright reserved by The Zoological Society of London 1994. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced without the written permission of the Editors of the Infernational Zoo Yearbook, The Zoological Society of London

ISSN 0074-9664

Signed articles in the Yearbook represent the views of the authors and are not necessarily those of The Zoological Society of London or the Editorial Board.

Origination by BPC Whitefriars Ltd, Tunbridge Wells and printed and bound in Great Britain by BPC Wheatons Ltd, Exeter

Contents

SECTION 1 AQUATIC BIRDS

The New Zealand Penguin Conservation Assessment and Management

The new Penguin enclosure at Edinburgh Zoo: the Palace for the 1990s Plan: implications for conservation partnerships

The Penguin Parade exhibit at the Jurong Birdpark, Singapore Breeding the Black-footed penguin Spheniscus demersus at London Zoo

Management and breeding of pelicans Pelecanus spp in captivity

Captive-breeding and reintroduction project for the Milky stork

Black stork Ciconia nigra management in Europe Breeding the Marabou stork Leptoptilos crumeniferus at the Zoological

Center Tel Aviv and Noorder Zoo, Emmen Reproduction of the Marabou stork Leptoptilos crumeniferus at

Jacksonville Zoological Park A review of Red-cheeked ibis or Waldrapp Geronticus eremita

conservation Introduction of Waldrapp ibis Geronticus eremita on the basis of family

bonding: a successful pilot study Experimental releases of Waldrapp ibis Geronticus eremita: an

unsuccessful trial Managing colonial waterbirds: the Scarlet ibis Eudocimus ruber as a

model species Longevity and breeding records of ibises and spoonbills

Threskiornithidae in captivity

Mycteria cinerea at Zoo Negara, Malaysia

Management and research implications of selected behaviours in a

Wildfowl conservation: implications of the Anseriform Conservation

The Wetland Aviary in Rheine Zoo

Hand-rearing and breeding the endangered Black stilt Himantopus

Causes of mortality in Black stilts Himantopus novaezelandiae in

Alcids in North American zoos and aquaria Breeding alcids at the Seattle Aquarium

Methods of individual identification for captive colonial waterbirds:

mixed colony of flamingos at Rotterdam Zoo

Assessment and Management Plan

novaezelandiae at Twizel

captivity

lessons from the field

SECTION 2 NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ZOO WORLD

Reproductive biology in King vultures Sarcoramphus papa at the Paris

Breeding the Spix's macaw Cyanopsitta spixii at Loro Parque, Tenerife First hand-rearing of Kakapo Strigops habroptilus at the Auckland

Maintenance and reproduction of tenrecs Tenrecidae at Parc

Menagerie

Zoological Park

Tsimbazaza, Madagascar

Susie Ellis

Miranda F. Stevenson, Howard Dryden. Amanda Alabaster & Colin Wren

Wong H ( m Mun Mike Clark, Amanda

Ferguson. Alan Maskell & Fred Smith

Hiddirrga & Catherine E. King

Mohammed Nazim Yaacob

Koen Brouwer. Bart

Catherine E. King Amelia i'erkel

Sandy Peck

Cindy Tomiinson

K. Pegoraro & E. Thaler

H. Mendelssohn

Susan B. Elbin & Anna Marie Lyles

Koen Brouwer, Herbert Schifter & Marvin L. Jones

Catherine E. King

Andrew J. Green & Susie

Wolfgang Salzert & Achim

Christine E. M . Reed

Ellis

Johann

Christine E. M. Reed

Mary &man Gunther Barbara Douma & Mary

Susan B. Elbin & Joanna Carlson

Burger

Marsha A . Schlee

Tony SUva M. D. Sibley

Peter J . Stephenson. Paul A. Racey & Felix Rako I ondraparany

1

9

16 19

24

39

49 55

63

61

14

79

85

94

103

1 I4

1 I9

125

129

136 142

148

I59

I76 181

194

Natural history and captive management of the Aye-aye Daubentonru mudupscuriensip at the Duke University Primate Center, Durham

Increased activity in a nocturnal primate through lighting manipulation:

Management and early development of infant behaviour in the White- the case of the Potto Perodicticus potio

crowned mangabey Crrcocehus torquatus lunulutus at the Paris Menagerie

composition and the process of group formation The Detroit Zoo Chimpanzees Pan troglodytes: exhibit design. group

Husbandry of pangolins Manis spp Pygmy HippopotamusIMandrilI exhibit a t Melbourne Zoo

Calf management and the collection of physiological data for Okapi Oknpin johnstoni at Dallas Zoo

Hand-rearing the Arabian oryx 0rj.x /eucorj,.y at the National Wildlife Research Center. Saudi Arabia

Integrated environmental interpretation at the Curraghs Wildlife Park. Isle of Man

CERC1i.j: a computer system for the demographic and genetic analysis of captive invertebrates, fish and other populations of colony animals

The international zoo community and computer-mediated communication

Dnvid ,M. Hariiig, Willianr R. Hess, Burhara S. Coffman, E l ~ i ~ y i L. Simon.\ & Tim !,I. 0wcri.r

Fernandes

P. Lohe j o f

Cheryl Frc&ric.h & Dontiti

.Mar.rhu A . Schlee & Lisr

Susan .Mi.Dorrolti

.4/>lclici E. l V i / . ~ ~ / t John A r n o i i , Anrutrclu

Embur), & Ron Prendergast

E. Pjh? M . I4’iIloLv & 4 S. L . Liii(lx,y, C. Bennett.

Yung J . R. B. F/umcincl. .$.

Delhornnre & M. .4ncrentir

A’. J . Pinder

Ajuy Burlinghum- Johnsoti, Dave Clarke & Paul Pearce- Kcllj,

Donna Fit: Roy Hur&

SECTION 3 REFERENCE SECTION

Species of fishes bred in captivity during 1992 and multiple generation births Species of amphibians bred in captivity during 1992 and multiple generation births Species of reptiles bred in captivity during 1992 and multiple generation births Species of birds bred in captivity during 1992 and multiple generation births Species of mammals bred in captivity during 1992 and multiple generation births Census of rare animals in captivity 1993 International studbooks and registers for rare species of wild animals in captivity Associations Appendix 1: taxonomic authorities consulted in the Yearhook Author index volumes 30-33 Subject index volumes 30-33

20 I

2 1 Y

228

235

248 251

263

269

27.1

218

283

298 304 305 312 3 hh 408 456 469 412 474 478

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the many contributors who have helped in the compilation of this volume with articles, photographs, criticism and painstaking answers to our annual questionnaires. Without their continued interest, encouragement and hard labour the Yearbook could not exist. We would especially like to thank Dr S. Kudryavtsev for collecting and preparing data from Russia and other Eastern European and Central Asian zoos, and Ian Fisher for help in the processing of the Rare Animal Census.

COVER PHOTOGRAPHS Front: Eastern white pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus at Amsterdam Zoo. Ron Entius: Amsterdam z o o . Back: Pygmy hippopotamus Choeropsis liberiensis and calf at Whipsnztde Wild Animal Park. Michael Lyster: The Zoological Society of London.

Section I

Aquatic Birds

SPECIAL SUBJECTS OF SECTION 1. VOLUMES 1-32 OF THE YEARBOOK

Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7 Volume 8 Volume 9 Volume 10 Volume 11 Volume 12 Volume 13 Volume 13 Volume 15 Volume 16 Volume 17 Volume 18 Volume 19 Volume 20 Volume 21 Volume 22 Volume 23

Apes in Captivit! Elephants, Hippopotamuses and Rhinoceroses in Captivity Small Mammals in Captivity Aquatic Exhibits in Zoos and Aquaria Ungulates in Captivity Nutrition of Animals in Captivity Penguins in Captivity Canids and Felids in Captivity Amphibians and Reptiles in Captivity Birds of Prey in Captivity Marsupials in Captivity South American Primates in Captivity Waterfowl in Captivity Trade and Transport of Animals Small Mammals in Captivity Principles of Zoo Animal Feeding Breeding Endangered Species in Captivity (Second Confercncci Penguins Reptiles Breeding Endangered Species in Captivity (Third Conference 1

Zoo Display and Information Techniques New World Primates Birds of Prev

Volume 24/25 Breeding Endangered Species in Captn ity (Fourth Confcrencc) Volume 26 Aquatic Exhibits Volume 27 Volume 28 Reptiles and Amphibians Volume 29 Horticulture in Zoos Volume 30 Invertebrates Volume 3 1 Australasian Fauna Volume 32 Ungulates

Conservation Science and Zoos

Section I

Aquatic Birds

I AQUATIC BIRDS

Int. Zoo Yb. (1994) 33: 1-9 0 The Zoological Society of London

The New Zealand Penguin Conservation Assessment and Management Plan: implications for conservation partners hips SUSIE ELLIS IUCNISSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, 12101 Johnny Cuke Ridge Road, Apple Vuffey, Minnesota 55124, USA

One of the processes recently introduced for assessing management of wild and captive populations is the Conservation Assessment and Management Plan. A CAMP workshop was held in August 1992 to develop a conservation strategy for 11 taxa of New Zealand penguins. Each taxon was reviewed to assess threats and to develop preliminary recommendations for research and management of wild and captive pop- ulations. In this paper emphasis is laid on the part which could be played by captive management, both in making space available for the most threatened taxa and in the use of captive propagation techniques to aid the recovery of species in the wild.

Penguins are highly specialized birds whose behaviour and physical adaptations have been moulded by the harsh climates of the Antarctic and surrounding areas. Maintained as exhibit animals since the early days of zoological gardens, penguins’ tuxedo-style markings and their waddling gait combine to make them among the most endearing and popular of zoo ani- mals. Within the last two decades, the specialized habitat requirements of this taxonomic group have been successfully approximated in captivity and husbandry and management techniques refined (Ellis & Branch, 1994). Reproduction in a cap- tive setting is now quite common.

The majority of penguin species main- tained in captivity are not threatened; programmes for these species have been developed for reasons apart from con- servation need. One important outgrowth of the success of captive programmes for penguins is that techniques and method- ologies have been developed and refined, using non-threatened species, which have

the potential for application in conserva- tion efforts with threatened species in the field.

As wildlife populations and habitats continue to diminish at alarming rates all over the world, wildlife managers are developing strategies that will reduce the risk of the extinction of species. These strategies are global in nature and include habitat preservation, intensified informa- tion gathering and, in some cases, the use of technologies developed in captivity or scientifically managed captive populations that can facilitate genetic and demograph- ic interaction with wild populations.

A key component in preserving biotic diversity is deciding how to use limited resources where they can do the most good, maximizing options and minimizing regrets concerning species’ preservation. The traditional technique of triage treat- ment, whereby a great deal of money is spent to preserve a few select megaverte- brates, sometimes at the expense of other not so glamorous species, is not a viable or cost-effective technique for long-term preservation of biodiversity.

The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, the largest and most active of the nearly 100 Specialist Groups of the Species Survival Commission of IUCN, has a network of nearly 600 volunteers with expertise in species’ recovery planning, small population biology, reproductive and behavioural biology and captive ani- mal management. Within the SSC, CBSG’s primary goal is to contribute to the development of holistic and viable

Conservation strategies. Its main strength is in providing a link between in situ and ex situ conservation efforts.

The CBSG works closely with wildlife and conservation agencies, zoos and other organizations committed to conservation through habitat preservation in the wild and also sometimes through captive breed- ing. Because it does not represent any particular political constituency, CBSG is able to serve as a neutral catalyst and mediator for intensive species’ conserva- tion efforts throughout the world.

In collaboration with experts in the SSC and BirdLife International Specialist Groups, wildlife agencies, non-govern- mental organizations, global captive- breeding community and the private sec- tor, CBSG has pioneered the use of scientifically based management tools that allow informed and efficient decision- making regarding resource allocation for species’ management and survival. These tools bring together an assessment and planning process that considers both wild and captive populations, since in at least half of the cases with which CBSG works both must be managed to ensure species’ survival and recovery. One such assess- ment tool is the Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) (Foose & Seal, 1991; Foose et af., 1992; Seal rt nl., 1994). CAMPS A CAMP workshop brings together between ten and 40 experts to evaluate the threat status of all taxa in a broad group, to set conservation action and informa- tion-gathering priorities. The process has developed within the last two-and-a-half years to develop a strategy that will: ( I ) assess threat, attempting to apply (and test) the IUCN-approved criteria for threat: (2) make broad-based recommen- dations concerning conservation-orienta- ted management and research that might be necessary to contribute to the knowl- edge needed to develop comprehensive recovery programmes; (3) provide a first- cut definition of the scope of the problem

facing the taxonomic or regional group in question.

CAMPs are not intended to take the place of Action Plans developed by vari- ous SSC and BirdLife International Spe- cialist Groups but are a resource for the development of those plans. The SSC has endorsed CAMPs as the first logical step in the development of taxon-based Spe- cialist Group Action Plans. A Penguin Action Plan. should it be developed, would fall under the auspices of the BirdLife International Seabird Specialist Group.

During a CAMP workshop, each taxon is assessed in terms of the Mace-Lande criteria for threat (Mace & Lande, 1991) (or in the most recent CAMPs. in terms of the newly revised IUCN criteria for threat). The Mace-Lande criteria basically redefined the IUCN Red List categories and have subsequently been revised again to form new IUCN Red List criteria (Mace et ul., 1992). The Mace-Lande scheme attempted to assess threats in terms of likelihood of extinction with a specified period of time. The character- istics of the system are that it: (1 ) was simple, with few categories; (2) was based on a probabilistic assessment of risk; (3) had flexible data requirements; (4) could use flexible population units; (5) used clear terminology; (6) used a time-scale of years and generations; Mace- Lande used a biological time scale of 100-200 years to take into consideration long-lived species.

There are various methods of assessing threat. In assigning Mace-Lande cate- gories. several variables come into play: total population size (N), effective popula- tion size (NJ, number of subpopulations, rate of population decline. catastrophe or habitat change, exploitation and exotic introduction. The system defines three categories for threatened taxa. Critical. Endangered and Vulnerable, based on population viability theory. The new cate- gory, Critical, imparted a strong sense of urgency. with a message that any taxa

AQUATIC BIRDS 3

assessed as such is under the immediate threat of extinction (Table 1) .

In assessing threat, workshop partici- pants divide into working groups of two to ten people, examining information of the status and interaction of other population and habitat characteristics as well as total numbers or guesstimates of total numbers. Information about data quality, popula- tion fragmentation, demographic trends, range and environmental stochasticity are also considered.

For each taxa, recommendations are generated for the kinds of intensive man- agement action necessary. The recom- mendations may include: increased inten- sity of management programmes in the

wild currently under way, which generally includes habitat protection, in situ and ex situ collaborative research, and Population and Habitat Viability Assessments (PHVA), which combine analytic and sim- ulation techniques to look at the effects of an array of variables on the survivability of populations with the ultimate goal of preventing extinction and providing for recovery in the wild. Establishment of captive populations or the use of captive technologies for the sole purpose of sup- porting the long-term conservation of species are also considered.

To date, CAMPS have been conducted for waterfowl, Galliformes (quails, par- tridges and francolins, pheasants), cranes,

POPULATION TRAIT CRITICAL ENDANGERED VULNERABLE

Probability of extinction 50'%0 within 5 years or 2 generations, whichever is longer

any 2 of criteria below OR

Effective population N, < 50 Total population N < 250 Subpopulations <2, N,>25, N > 125

img. < Ilgen.'

Population decline

Catastrophe: rate and eirect

20% within 20 years or 10 generations whichever is longer

any 2 of criteria below or 1 CRITICAL criterion

< 500 < 2500 < 5, N, > 100, N > 500 or < 2, N, > 250,

N > 1250 img. < llgen.'

10% within 100 years

any 2 of criteria below or 1 ENDANGERED criterion

< 2000 < 10 000 < 5 , N, > 500, N > 2500 or <2, N,> 1000, N>5000

img. <: Ilgen.'

>20%/yr for last 2 yrs or > WJyr for last 5 yrs or > lWyr for last 10 yrs > 50% in last gen. > 10Wgen. for last 2 yrs

> 50% declinel5-I0 yrs, > 20% declinel5-10 yrs > 10% declinel5-10 yrs, or 2 4 gen. or 2 4 gen. > 20% declinel10-20 yrs

> 50% declinel10-20 yrs or > 50% decline/50 yrs or 5-10 gen.

subpops h.c.? subpops h.c.? subpops h.c.?

OR Habitat change

Commercial exploitation or interaction/

resulting in above effects on populations

resulting in above effects on populations OR

introduced taxa

'img. ...g en. = with immigration of one per generation. ?subpops h.c. = with subpopulations highly correlated.

Table 1. Mace-Lande categories and criteria for threat (Mace & Lande, 1991).

4 4QI'AIIC B I R D S

pigeons and doves, parrots, hornbills, Hawaiian forest birds and New Zealand penguins, in conjunction with BirdLife International and other organizations.

Because of its design the CAMP process is one that cannot be achieved with a large delegation. Yet, input from biologists world-wide is essential to the success of the programme and to the accuracy of the resultant documents. When an initial dis- cussion draft of the CAMP document is completed by workshop participants, it is circulated to 100-200 field biologists and wildlife managers for comment and review and is reviewed at regional CBSG meet- ings held in conjunction with regional zoo association meetings held throughout the world. This review process helps identify uncertainties in the data and stimulates response from those with better data, or stimulates survey or other specific action that will provide the needed data. Over time, each document evolves from the comments and discussions from other biologists as they react to the draft gen- erated at the initial CAMP meeting. Com- ments and clarification of data and text in CAMP documents are encouraged from all interested parties. After revision, CAMPS are distributed to reviewers, appropriate wildlife and conservation agencies and to zoological associations world-wide. It is the intention that these documents will never be final and will be updated as world situations change.

NEW ZEALAND PENGUIN CAMP PROCESS In August 1992 25 individuals met in Christchurch, New Zealand, to develop conservation strategies for the 11 penguin taxa found in that area. This group, which was largely self-selected from more than 45 people invited to attend, represented field biologists, non-governmental organiza- tions, wildlife and forestry experts, con- servation biologists, academic scientists and managers of captive collections. The workshop grew out of a Population and Habitat Viability Assessment Workshop that was requested by the New Zealand

Department of Conservation to assist in developing recovery and management plans for penguins. Attendance was heavi- ly weighted with representation from the Australasian region.

For initial examination the group began with taxonomy listed in Howard & Moore (1991). When additional taxonomic infor- mation was available, it was incorporated into each working group discussion.

I t is likely that most taxonomic ques- tions for this group can be resolved by DNA analysis. The analysis of the genetics of the Yellow-eyed penguin Megadiytes antipodes in the subantarctic and on the South Island of New Zealand. for exam- ple, suggests that there are three discrete populations of this species and that the amount of genetic differentiation (or genetic differences) between Yellow-eyed penguin populations is an order of magni- tude higher than that estimated for most other species of birds (Triggs & Darby, unpubl.). This study, as well as others, strongly reinforces the need to apply molecular techniques to investigate not only differentiation between populations but also the degree to which these tech- niques can describe species' variation.

During the New Zealand Penguin CAMP workshops, penguins were reviewed taxon by taxon to assess their vulnerability to extinction and to recom- mend conservation actions to improve the viability of their populations. The recom- mendations contained in the CAMP are based only on conservation criteria; adjustments for political and other con- straints are the responsibility of responsi- ble regional programmes and wildlife agencies. The New Zealand Penguin CAMP examined 11 distinct taxa (forms, subspecies or monotypic species). Although six subspecies of the Little or Blue penguin Eudyptula minor are recog- nized (Marchant & Higgins. 1990). the taxonomy of this group continues to be discussed. (For example, Howard & Moore (1991) list four subspecies and treat the White-flippered penguin as a full

AQUATIC BIRDS 5

species, E. albosignutu.) Because of taxo- nomic uncertainty Blue penguin forms endemic to New Zealand were considered separately for this first draft.

The draft CAMP document developed at the workshop was circulated to all workshop participants for review. A draft CAMP-like document, encompassing all the penguin taxa, is being developed and refined with extensive input from by Dr John Croxall of the British Antarctic Survey in collaboration with the SCAR Bird Biology Subcommittee. A CAMP review workshop to cover all penguin taxa, with full participation by field biologists, will be held in September 1996.

THREATS TO NEW ZEALAND PENGUINS Part of the CAMP process involves identi- fication of different threats or pressures operating on taxa and their populations. For all 11 penguin taxa examined, work- shop participants identified fisheries’ inter- actions and pollution as the primary threats. Threats posed by fisheries include increases in mortality because of capture in fishing nets and decreases in penguin survival and reproductive success because of competition for prey species. Pollution from petroleum products in the ocean is another serious threat. When a penguin’s plumage becomes oiled it loses its thermo- regulatory effectiveness and unless the bird is able to offset the heat loss by increased food intake, it generally retreats to shore and may starve or die of hypothermia.

Marine disturbances, in which variation in climate can change the distribution and abundance of prey species, have also been identified as a threat to New Zealand penguins, particularly Eudyptulu. Such changes can cause shifts in population sizes because the penguins may be unable to change their foraging range; this applies particularly when the birds are rearing chicks. The best known of these disrup- tions is the El Niiio Southern Oscillation which when well developed can cause reproductive failure and high mortality. Habitat loss or fragmentation continues to

be a problem as more and more penguin habitat is lost to agriculture or grazing activities. Disturbance by low-flying air- craft over nesting colonies has also been identified as a threat. Introduced preda- tors, including domestic dogs and cats, mustelids and rodents, and the endemic Weka Gullirallus australis have an impact on all New Zealand penguin taxa. Weka have also been introdluced to some of the islands where Fiordland crested penguins Eudyptes pachyrhynchus breed and in some areas have been reported to account for 38% egg loss and 209’0 mortality of young chicks (St Clair & St Clair, 1992).

LEVELS OF THREAT Seven of the 11 taxa were assigned to one of the three Mace-Lande categories, although none was assessed as being Critical. Two taxa were listed as Endan- gered: the Fiordland crested penguin and the Yellow-eyed penguin, which is listed as Endangered on the mainland of New Zealand and Stewart Island, and Vulner- able on Auckland and Campbell Islands. The other five threatened taxa were listed as Vulnerable: the Shares Island crested penguin Eudyptes robustus, Erect-crested penguin E. scluteri, !Southern rockhopper penguin E. chrysocome jilhoii and the Chatham Island E. minor chathamensis and White-flippered forms E. m. albosig- natu of the Blue penguin. The available data were insufficient to classify Eudyptulu minor iredulei or E. m. vuriubilis.

A comparison of the difference between assessment of threat by Mace-Lande cri- teria and by the traditional IUCN Red List categories showed that only one of the seven taxa assessed as threatened is found in the current IUCN Red List of Threat- ened Animals (Groombridge, 1993).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH A N D MANAGEMENT All 11 taxa examined were recommended for Population and Habitat Viability Assessment and nine for more intensive

6

wild management. All were recommended for research of some kind: nine taxa were assessed as needing taxonomic clarifica- tion: nine were designated for survey and census work: all were recommended for other kinds of research and/or manage- ment (ranging from energetics and inges- tion of marine debris to foraging and control of predation). The main point of the recommendations for examination and research is to enable a critical look to be made at the kinds of data still needed to determine conservation action.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CAPTIVE PROGRAMMES Levels of captive programmes and their potential were also discussed at the New Zealand Penguin CAMP workshop. Cap- tive populations, if recommended, should be treated as integral parts of meta- populations that are managed by con- servation strategies and action plans. If captive programmes are indicated, there is an attempt to propose the level of manage- ment required, that is, how soon a pro- gramme should be established and with what objective. Under circumstances where a captive programme may be of use to reinforce wild populations, initial pro- grammes should be established in the country of origin whenever possible. In some cases. application of 'captive tech- nology' may be sufficient to allow for species' recovery and may prove to be not only more cost effective but also more practical in the long term.

Seven taxa were recommended for intensively managed captive programmes only if'a formal PHVA indicates that they are necessary for conservation purposes: Fiordland crested, Snares Island crested, Erect-crested, Southern rockhopper, Royal E. sclilegeli, Yellow-eyed and White-flip- pered penguins. With the exception of the Southern rockhopper penguin none of these taxa are in captivity.

OTHER PENGUIN TAXA In addition to the recommendations for New Zealand taxa. cursory preliminary discussions of the need for captive pro- grammes for other penguin taxa took place at the CAMP workshop. In one case, the Magellanic penguin Spheiiiscus ninyel- lnnicus, it was determined that a captive population was not necessary for con- servation purposes. Based on a wild pop- ulation estimate of c. 1.3 million pairs. relatively stable population trends, reason- ably limited real and potential threats and other factors. a consensus was reached by the participants that the captive-manage- ment programme for this non-threatened species should be gradually eliminated in favour of expansion of captive pro- grammes for the threatened Humboldt penguin Spheniscus liurnholdti (estimated at 5000-6000 pairs) and African penguin Splzeniscus dernersus (estimated as 50 000-80 000 pairs); both species face numerous threats that continue to exacer- bate population declines (P. D. Boersma, pers. cornm.). All three are currently main- tained in zoos; all have similar spatial and environmental requirements in captivity and are in direct competition for available exhibit space. This recommendation was formally endorsed by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association's (AZA) Pen- guin Taxon Advisory Group in April 1992 (Branch, 1993).

Informal discussion of intensification of management of other taxa currently found in captivity also took place at the work- shop: Emperor AptmodjJte.s forstrri, King A . pcitcigonicii, Chinstrap or Bearded Pvgoscelis rintcircticci, Adelie P crdeliire, Gentoo P pripuri. Macaroni Eu4Ipte.s clirj~solopliu.~, Northern rockhopper E. c. ~ h r j ~ s o c o ~ i i ~ ~ and E. <'. moseleyi and Southern rockhopper E. clirj,socome $1- Mi, in addition to the Humboldt and African penguins. An international plan- ning session for the management of the existing programmes, in the form of a

AQUATIC BIRDS 7

Global Captive Action Recommendation should take place in the near future so that currently available captive resources are maximized. This kind of planning activity would not take place until a formal CAMP, for all penguin species, is con- ducted with input from both the field and captive community.

GLOBAL CAPTIVE ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS A Global Captive Action Recommenda- tion is an outgrowth of the CAMP process. The GCARs are a first-cut summary of the captive status and management priorities for taxa recommended by CAMPS for captive programmes world-wide. The GCAR takes the CAMP process one step further, recommending: (1) which taxa in captivity should remain there; ( 2 ) which taxa not currently in captivity should be there; (3) which taxa in captivity should no longer be there.

A primary focus of the GCAR is the development of captive-propagation pro- grammes that can serve as genetic and demographic reservoirs to support sur- vival and recovery of wild populations in the future. Another important outcome is the identification of how and where the captive community can assist with infor- mation and technology transfer. This proc- ess also attempts to develop priorities for the limited support the captive popula- tions can provide for in situ conservation.

For threatened species not already in captivity, captive-breeding programmes should be established only following a PHVA workshop in which the needs for such a programme are considered by all the interested parties and experts. This philosophy is strongly reflected in the recommendations found in the New Zeal- and Penguin CAMP; the establishment of new captive populations was considered for the sole purpose of supporting the long-term conservation of species.

APPLICATlON OF CAPTIVE PROPAGATION TECHNIQUES Captive propagation should be viewed as a support, not a substitute, for wild popula- tions. In some cases, application of ‘cap- tive technology’. for example, studbooks, cross-fostering, artificial incubation, hand- rearing, management in semi-natural pre- serves, may be sufficient to allow for species’ recovery and, as already stated, may prove to be more cost effective and more feasible in the long term. Some of these methods may be especially useful for penguin conservation. Some of the well- established techniques are collection and transport of penguin eggs, artificial incu- bation and hand-rearing (Ellis & Branch, 1994). For example, Sea World on four separate expeditions to collect more than 2000 eggs from subantarctic islands, repor- ted an overall egg hatchability of 75% and of the birds that hatched, an 84% fledging rate (Sea World of California, unpubl. data). These figures reflect methods that were, at the time, experimental. These and other techniques are available and if need- ed long term could be used to reinforce wild populations or establish captive or semi-natural populations without detri- ment to existing populations.

Similar techniques have been used in recovery efforts for other island species. A recent example involves the wild popula- tion of the Hawaiian crow Corvus h v u i i - rnsis on the Big Island of Hawaii. Experts in avian propagation from the Zoological Society of San Diego, The Peregrine Fund and Greenfalk Consultants set up an on- site rearing facility, removed seven eggs from wild clutches for artificial incubation, hand-reared seven chicks and hacked them back to the wild. All subsequent wild clutches were lost to predation (C. Kueh- ler, pers. comm.). In this case the use of captive technology made a significant dif- ference in the reproductive success of the wild population, increasing it from 12 to 17 individuals in a single season.

Comparable techniques have tremen- dous potential for threatened penguin

taxa, especially since methods have already been well worked out with non-threatened species. It would be quite feasible to set up temporary rearing facilities. similar to those used for the Hawaiian crow, near any number of penguin breeding areas and remove one or both eggs for future return of the fledged young to the colony. These techniques offer an opportunity to maxi- mize the productivity of pairs and surviva- bility of offspring with minimal impact on the wild population. This option may be particularly important for species such as the Fiordland crested penguin for which hatchability in some areas is about 50% and high losses of chicks and eggs are caused by the Weka alone (St Clair & St Clair. 1992).

During the course of the New Zealand Penguin CAMP workshop, field research- ers expressed real concern that, because the techniques developed in captivity have not to date been utilized for intensive conservation programmes in the field. there may be little interest or motivation for zoos to do so. Zoos have traditionally been perceived. especially by field researchers. as extractors. not conservators of nature. This is changing and many zoos are beginning actively to support field efforts. to .adopt' wildlife areas through- out the world and to work with field biologists and wildlife managers to devel- op holistic conservation strategies. This collaboration needs to be nurtured: devel- opment of these types of programmes must be intensified globally if zoos are to be able to make significant contributions to field conservation

There will be no om' answer to the biodiversity crisis: it is too large and complex. Habitat preservation is not the only answer nor is captive breeding or the application of captive technologies. Equal- ly, allowing animals to undergo 'extinction with dignity' is no solution. With luck and persistence. however, there will be many small answers. each tapping different resources and each contributing different

pieces to a patchwork solution. The first step in putting this solution together is active and open communication between the field and captive communities. It is only by collaborative exploration of rill options, using rill available information that we will be able to make the necessary strides leading to the long-term preserva- tion of species.

REFERENCES BRANCH, S. (1993): AAZPA Penguin Advisor) Group recommendations concerning Magellanic penguins /Sp/imi.sm\ r m ~ ~ c ~ l l n ~ i i c i ~ s ) in captivity in North America. C'BSG NN.\ 4(4): 1'. ELLIS. S. K BRANCH. S. (1994). Peri,qiori l7u.thtmdr~ I ~ I I I ~ ( L ~ / . Bethesda. hlD. American Zoo and Aquarium .4ssociation. Fbos~. T. J. h; StAL. U. S. (1991): Report of the Captire Breeding Specialist Group . ~ p e c r c ~ r 17: 77-79. Foost. T. J.. ELLIS-JOSEPH. S. A Si , \ I , U. S. (1992). Conservation assessment and management plans (CAMPs) progress report. Sprcie.s 18: 73 -75. GROOMBRIDGE. B. (Ed.) (1993): fOY4 IC'C'A' red /r.ct of threatened anrrncils. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.

checklist of the bids q f l h c i w r l d (2nd edn) London. San Diego. New York: Academic Press. MACE. G. .M. & L,wi) t . K (1991): Assessing extinction threats: torvards 'I rcefiiluation 01' IUCN threatened species categories. C ' o ~ r w i : Rro/ 5: 148--157. MAC^. G.. COI.I.AK N., coom. J., G ~ S l o h . K . GINSBERG. J.. LEADER WILLIAMS. N., MAUNI)IX M. A

MILN~R-GULLAND. E. J. (1992): The development of ne\\ criteria for listing species on the IUCN Red List S~w&,.s 19: 16 -21. MARCHANT. S. K HIGGINS, P. J. (1990): HundhiitiX of Austrdicrn. .Ye!v Zraltrriti m i i Aritcrri,tic, birds 1. Ruiitt,.\ ru (luck\. Melbourne. Oxford: Oxford UniLersit) Press. SI CI.-~IK. C. C. & Sr CLAIK K C (1992): Weka predation on eggs and chicks of Fiordland crested penguins. ~Yororni.s 39: 60 63.

Conservation Assessment and Management Plans (CAMPs) and Global Captive Action Plans (GCAPs). In C'reLrrrw cmi~eriw/ioti. irirrrczctiw

HOWARD. R. (i: M W R I . A ( 1991 ): .4 cori7p/Ctc,

SL~AL. U. S.. FOOSE. T. J. b t L i . i S , S. (1994):

AQUATIC BIRDS 9

management of wild and captive animals: 3 12-325. Olney, P. J. S., Mace, G. M. & Feistner, A. T. C. (Eds). London: Chapman & Hall. T~IGGS, S. & DARBY, J. T. (Unpublished): Genetics and conservation of yelloweyed penguin: an interim report. Unpublished Science and Research Internal Report

No. 43. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand, 1989.

Manuscript submitted 22 February 1994

In?. Zoo Yb. (1994) 33: 9- 15 0 The Zoological Society of London

The new Penguin enclosure a t Edinburgh Zoo: the Palace for the 1990s

MIRANDA F. STEVENSON1, HOWARD DRYDEN!, AMANDA ALABASTER' AND COLIN WREN' lRoyul Zoological Society of Scotland, Murruy3eld, Edinburgh EH12 6TS and ?Dryden Aquaculture Ltd, ButlerJield, Bonnyrigg, Edinburgh EH19 3JQ, Great Britain

Penguins have been exhibited at Edinburgh Zoo since 1914 and the Zoo is well-known for its expertise in keeping and breeding these birds, in particular the King penguin Aptenodvtes patagonica and Gentoo penguin Pygoscelis papua. Remodelling and exten- sion of the existing penguin enclosure was completed in 1992 and a young group of Macaroni penguins Eudyptes chrysolophus has been added to the exhibit. The new enclosure is believed to be the largest penguin enclosure in existence and the larger and deeper pool has allowed the birds greater opportuni- ty for swimming. The condition of King and Gentoo penguins has visibly improved and both species have produced young in the two breeding seasons since the reopening. In this paper the planning and design of the enclosure and water filtration is described, together with brief notes on the management of the birds.

Since January 1914 when the first pen- guins, one Gentoo Pygoscelis pupua, one Macaroni Eudyptes chrysolophus and four King Aptenodytes putagonica, arrived at the recently opened zoo, Edinburgh has become justifiably famous for the keeping of penguins. The birds were delivered at Leith docks from the steamer Coronda, owned by Christian Salvesen & Company, who had collected them from South Geor- gia. With the arrival of these birds and because of the enlightened attitude of the

Zoo's founder and first director Torn Gillespie, the Zoo developed an inter- national reputation for penguin husbandry which had its start in the hatching and rearing of the first King penguin in captiv- ity in 1919. Until 1963 regular shipments of several species arrived at the zoo but of them all, only the Gentoo and King penguins thrived.

As knowledge and management experi- ence increased, the penguin enclosure was modified (Fisher, 1966; Wheater, 1976). By the 1980s it had become apparent that, although the enclosure served the Gentoo penguins well, it was less than optimal for the King penguins. It was also felt that the pool was too shallow for either species and did not show the birds well so that much of their behaviour was missed by the public.

Utilizing the knowledge that we and other institutions had gained, it was decided to retain but extend the original, and reasonably successful, enclosure.

ENCLOSURE DESIGN The aim was to design an enclosure which would be suitable for the health and breeding of the birds and also provide the