BH: Would need to take for breeding sites.
SN: Although there are no ex-situ source
populations, there is knowledge and avicultural experience of breeding
other tern spp. However based upon the social ecology and impact of
habitat loss, the restoration of this species seems unlikely
BH: it appears that most breeding sites are in
the far east
BH: this would require head starting so not
really wild to wild. Translocation of adult birds would not work at
all
BH: importing eggs/chicks from donner sites
would need exceptions to current Import Health Certificates for
birds
SN: although the species has a broad global
distribution, I am unsure about sub-speciation across regions.
Challenges would need to be addressed regarding appropriate source
population for a migratory species along with the impacts upon a highly
social forager and communal nester
YG: Climate space moving away from the UK. Small
population from Poland westwards. Very edge of range for a migrant
tern.
BH: Would need very large aviaries and
development of husbandry expertise which doesn’t currently exist for
tern species with the exceptions of Inca terns
YG: I don’t have any experience, but presumably
more likely than unlikely given other terns have been bred in captivity
for translocations.
BH: would be extremely resource heavy with low
confidence of success
SN: there is currently no ex-situ population
available
BH: would be the same process as releases for
head starting. Work with New Zealand fiery tern would be a good
model
BH: suitable release sites needed
YG: As with wild/wild, climate space moving away
and would be very edge of range for a migrant tern.
BH: sourcing and importing birds would be
expensive and hand rearing facilities and staff needed
BH: would require predator proof fenced
enclosure to introduce fledgeling birds from which they would fly out
when ready. Staffing needed to care for bird in release pens. GPS
tracking of released birds
BH: Bird could be sourced from zoos and
rehabilitation centres
TB: WILD. Europe estimated pop: ~13.4–22.5
million mature individuals.
TOP 3 countries: Poland (~1.5M), Germany (~1.2M), France (~1M)
YG: Based on information provided on current
captive population. Presumably large natural donor population.
BH: importing birds from Europe into the UK is
difficult and expensive.
BW: Finding a source population on the correct
flyway Research into nesting populations - finding enough nests
Acquiring licenses and developing partnerships with European
Environmental agencies for wild take of eggs or juvenile birds
Developing protocols for transfer/captive genetic management
TB: 1/ Licensing and permissions: to collect
from wild (country authority for licence and landowners for permission
to take); export to England (DEFRA/APHA); UK quarantine (DEFRA/ APHA;
release (NE for licence, if required, and land-owners permission to
release on their land). 2/ Aviculture infrastructure creation and
maintenance; 3/ Staffing: field workers in country of origin;
aviculturists and veterinarians in England).
YG: Presumably genetic health.
BH: birds would need to be sourced from a
population with a compatible migration path
BW: Research into breeding sites Feasibility in
catching and transport techniques Licensing for catching donor birds and
wild take in Europe Captive management/quarantine after transport
Release techniques Monitoring Health management, disease risk
SN: the most demographically and genetically
appropriate population should be the source population
BH: importing freshly caught wild birds into the
UK from Europe will need special exceptions to current bird import
health certificates
KQ: appropriate migration enough birds released
to create critical mass in newly establishing population
SN: habitat suitability/food resources - nest
sites. Although the species is adaptable and climate change could
naturally extend the species range north into GB
YG: Answer is based on much uncertainty as to
habitat suitability and caterpillar food source etc…
BH: specialist breeding aviaries and dedicated
and experienced staff
BW: A number of unrelated breeding pairs housed
in pairs in large flighted aviaries with soft netting and densely
planted areas for nesting. Additional aviaries for fledglings and then
young birds to be paired once mature Parent rearing Additional flights
to house birds before they reach breeding aged where they when they
would be paired Ringing/tagging individuals Carful genetic management of
pairings Dedicated staff would manage the ex situ population
SN: there is a small ex-situ zoo population
which could be expanded.
BH: Species is prone to stress and aggression.
Ex-situ breeding could be challenging at scale and would require
development of specialist best practice husbandry protocols which would
take time to achieve
BW: There are not many birds successfully
breeding in captivity - reserch into successes in Europe Establishing
good productive breeding pairs Aviary space and design Migratory
restlessness Founding population - number available and keeping them
unrelated. Fairly long lived, so depending on initial wild take, how to
source additional founders
KQ: Cold tolerance in a British aviary (winters
in africa) Sufficient genetic variation Ability to get multiple pairs to
breed in close proximity Wild behaviours in captive-reared juvs
YF: Limited husbandry knowledge available
Acquisition of founder stock Husbandry practices would need to be
developed May require large aviaries
BH: as it’s a migratory species large numbers of
birds will need to be released each year to account for low returns.
Suggest maybe 100 birds needed for release each year
SN: Genetics and behavioural appropriateness
must be considered before releases occur. Suitable habitat and post
release monitoring must also be planned carefully. Consider the
likelihood of natural range expansion back into former habitat.
BH: Suitable habit at release sites - e.g. black
poplar
KQ: Acclimation to wild / appropriate behaviours
in immediate post-release period
YG: As with wild to wile translocation.
Uncertainty over habitat suitability.
BH: Would require multiple translocations
BH: comparable to estimated red-backed shrike
project ex-situ costings
SN: a European Zoo population already exists and
could be the basis of a focussed ex-situ programme for the species
restoration
YG: I have no experience of this.
BH: Comparable to cost of red-back shrike
release mythology estimates
SN: establishing expert rearing, release and
post release monitoring over multiple years is costly. Having a few
breeding centres involved could spread the risk and increase breeding
success
BH: would need to find wild nests from which
chicks could be harvested. Capture of adult birds difficult and these
would be unlikely to adapt to captivity. Sourcing birds from existing
captive populations very unlikely and would come with uncertainty about
providence
YG: Presumably available in private collections
and wild donor.
BH: challenging to find a donner population and
to import into the UK under current Import Health Certificate
requirements
BH: would need to source fertile eggs or chicks
and head start for release in the UK. As they migratory species a wild
to wild translocation of adult birds would be unlikely to work
BH: importation of birds into the UK would be
challenging
SN: as the species is migratory, suitable source
populations must be considered ie innate migratory routes. Also a
specialist feeder so supplemental feeding could be required to help
establish a new population until local knowledge of resources is
established
YG: A lot of uncertainty here. Wild climate
space appears suitable, concerns around impact of precipitation levels
in summer. Low confidence in there being suitable habitat at scale.
BH: founding stock would need to be sourced as
chicks. One pair per aviary. Diet might be difficult but can be
acclimatised to insectivore mixes and small commercially produced
insects. Would nest on artificial nest boxes or hollow logs.
SN: As far as I am aware, there is very little
avicultural knowledge or experience with this species so it would mean
starting from scratch. There may however be some transferrence of
knowledge from woodpecker spp
BH: maintaining ex-situ population without the
need to provide ants as diet.
SN: one or two established private breeders in
UK
YF: Little information on husbandry Need to
develop husbandry protocols Heated winter accommodation needed
YG: Presumably pretty likely that individuals
could be wild bred.
BH: Migratory species so would need to release
large numbers over many years
BH: suitable habitat with wood ants would need
to be available
BH: would need to head start chicks as wild to
wild translocation of adults would not work as migratory. This would
require facilities and staffing and donner and release sites
BH: comparable to red-backed shrike estimated
costs
BH: would most likely need to be sourced from
wild populations. Very few birds in zoos and unknown numbers in private
collections in Europe. Some birds could be sourced from captive
populations but not enough to establish a genetically diverse ex-situ
population.
BH: sourcing wild donner sites and importing of
birds into the UK.
BH: not migratory of adult birds could be
translocated
BW: Finding and licencing the wild take of eggs
from Europe transporting to Uk where the chicks could be hand reared and
released into the wild. Hand rearing however is a challenge in
canaries.
BH: Sourcing enough birds to translocate to
establish a population.
BH: 30 to 50 pairs. One pair bird aviary. Likely
to be relatively easy to manage as other related finch species can be
kept successfully. An ex-situ breeding population did not work with cirl
bunting and serin may be similar.
BW: I would assume pairs kept in small aviaries
and parent reared
SN: if a suitable source population is found, a
relatively low cost facility could be established for this small
seedeater.
BH: Use cirl bunting project as model. Releases
of young birds resulting in establishing a population of cirl buntings
in Cornwall.
BH: habitat suitably. Always have been at the
edge of range
BH: staffing to capture birds and soft release
care. Multiple years of translocations likely to establish
population
BH: comparable to red-backed shrike estimated
costs
BH: would need to be sourced from wild
population as very few if any available from captive sources
BH: finding a wild population to source birds
from and cost/logistics of importing birds. Unlikely to source birds
from Western Europe. Spoonbill sandpiper project as model for harvesting
birds
SN: due to fragmented remnant populations and
genetic uncertainty, finding an appropriate source population will be
challenging
YG: Seems likely that there will be suitable
wild donors, but will depend on conservation status of those.
BH: would need to be head started chicks. Wild
to wild translocation of adults unlikely to succeed due to being
migratory
BW: Probably taking eggs from donor population
transport to location close to the release site. Incubating, hatching
eggs. Rearing and releasing juveniles to try to establish a
population.
YG: Would need to be allied to beach nesting
bird protection programmes and habitat restoration. Most likely
geographic area would be Norfolk.
BW: License to take eggs from donor sites
Finding nests Incubation and transport of eggs
YG: Given experience on Piping Plover and Hooded
Plover and climate space this seems to have good chances. Issue will be
disturbance at recipient sites.
BH: similar to projects with other shorebirds
e.g. New Zealand shore plover. Would need to keep pairs separate. Other
small plover species have been kept successfully such as ringed plover
and killdeer.
BW: A large aviary designed for waders with
suitable pools, soft sand etc. potential to divide when pair bonds have
formed. Additional breeding aviaries for selected pairings could also be
established. Eggs artificially incubated and chicks hand reared
separately from the ex- situ breeding population
BH: would need to produce a large number of
birds as migratory species
BW: Space, secure long term investment into
infrastructure and staffing, predator proofing and good management of
environment between summer and winter. Genetic management of breeding
population if small number of genetically diverse founders
SN: There may be some knowledge and skills in
aviculture which could be applied here - eg: spoon-billed sandpiper.
However the set up required with limited knowledge is high risk
YG: Presumably good chance here and examples of
other plovers reared successfully, though a wild/wild preferable?
BH: release aviaries for soft releases as
suitable sites. Curlew and corncrake projects as models
BW: Release site feasibility study Release
technique feasibility - juveniles from acclimatisation aviary would be
most likely
BH: limiting factors mitigated
BW: Predator control Distance of rearing
facility to release site transportation of birds post release monitoring
staffing building release pen at suitable site, coastal so public could
be a challenge
BH: would need to be head started birds.
Translocations of adult birds unlikely to work as migratory. Would need
hand rearing facilities and staff at donner and release sites. Field
staff need to find nests. Importation costs for getting birds to the UK.
Donner sites likely to be from eastern range so more costly. Large
numbers for birds translocated needed to establish population as
migratory
BW: Wild to wild in this species would likely
still require a lot of captive management for translocation of eggs and
headstarting
BH: would need large aviaries for each pair with
suitable water features. Low productivity so programme would need to be
sustained for many years
BW: Infrastructure and staffing would be a large
cost over a number of years
BH: low cost release pens. Staff needed to care
for birds during soft release. Multiple year releases
BW: Most of the cost would be in the ex situ
setting. However infrastructure build of release pen, staffing,
accommodation, monitoring, gps tagging, predator and habitat management
over a number of year should be costly
BH: would need to harvest chicks from wild nests
in the UK. Bring adult birds into captivity unlikely to succeed
JQ: our knowledge of potential source
populations is reliant on knowledge from a few areas which have
entusiast monitoring them.
BH: Accessing nests for chick harvest.
Harvesting in a way that does not impact source population.
JQ: our knowledge of abundance and distribution
of this species is limited due to low detectability, nests are also time
consuming to find so stability or ability to supply source birds is
difficult to assess
YG: Not in captivity and would expected finding
enough nests very difficult.
BH: translocations of adult birds might work but
their could be a risk of them trying to fly back to the home
territories. Translocating head stated chicks may be for successful
JQ: assessment of dead wood for nest sites and
drumming trees, is there likely to be sufficient invertebrate food,
large extent of habitat needed for each pair. assess whether the species
is absent already.
SN: Competition with GSW ?
BH: if head starting, hand rearing and release
protocols would need to be developed.
YG: Given LSW are in diagnosis, then it feels
far too early to think about any releases.
BH: the species can be kept in aviculture but
uncertain if they could be maintained and bred at the scale needed for
reintroductions. The white-backed woodpecker project in Sweden is a good
model though the species are quite different.
BH: would need to develop the husbandry
understanding the protocols and this could take some time
JQ: it is unknown how to breed this species in
captivity and relatively few woodpeckers are kept in captivity.
BH: soft release of young birds
BH: limiting factors would need to be
mitigated
BH: possibly require head starting so would hand
rearing staff would be needed and translocations would be over multiple
years
JQ: if source and translocation sites can be
found this should be straight forward
BH: aviary design may require pairs to be held
in individual breeding aviaries separated by some distance as is the
case with white-backed woodpeckers. This would be more expensive than a
row of breeding flights
BH: would need soft release aviaries and staff
to manage this
BH: Could source birds from those nesting in the
UK if they still do so. Otherwise would need to be wild sourced from
Europe. Not kept in captivity
YG: Feel this is on balance unlikely. Issues
around finding stock in Western Europe given it is not in collections
and where populations all under pressure. Can genetically suitable stock
be found?
BH: Like Savi’s warbler would need to be head
started. Translocation of adult birds unlikely to succeed due to being
migratory.
BH: finding a source population if no longer
breeding in the UK.
YG: This feels quite unlikely to be successful
given the shift in climate space to the NE.
BH: due to highly insectivorous diet it is
unlikely an ex-situ population could be established
BH: development of husbandry protocols for a
species never maintained in captivity before
BH: would need to produce large numbers of birds
for release as migratory species
BH: would need to be head started birds so hand
rearing staff needed
YG: I think given likely challenges in finding
donor stock that this would be pretty expensive in comparison.
BH: would need a large number of pairs housed
separately. Cost of suitable live food would be high
BH: could harvest chicks/eggs from colonies in
the UK if still existing after being hit by avian influenza
JQ: only one sizable uk colony at coquet, unsure
about other European sources
BH: if needed to source birds from outside the
UK this would be more logistically challenging and costly
YG: As long as there is not a HPAI spike, then
should be straightforward to source from Coquet and Rockabill.
BH: this would only work with head started young
birds. New Zealand fairy tern project would be a model
JQ: would probably need some form of fostering
as juveniles stay with adults after fledging getting some food as they
learn to fish.
BH: bring birds in from Europe would be
challenging
JQ: getting enough birds returning to release
sites to establish breeding colony.
BH: maintaining adult birds for ex-situ breeding
would not be possible. head starting is the only option
BH: young birds released into predator proof
open topped pen from which they can fledge out of.
BH: limiting factor mitigated - Avian
influenza.
BH: birds would need to be head started which
will require hand rearing facilities and staff
BH: if enough resourced were provided it may be
possible but low chance of success
SN: as there is no ex-situ population nor stable
potential wild source populations, it is not realistic to cost this
BH: same process as Wild to Wilt
translocation
BH: large population maintain in captivity.
Unsure of ability of the captive soured birds to migrate appropriately
after release
BW: Large numbers of ruff in captivity, the max
plank institute previously have been a source of birds taken into
captivity. Wild breeding populations are studied
BH: would need to trail if captive sourced birds
would return as well as wild sourced birds with similar migratory path
instincts
BH: head starting and releasing young hand
reared birds would be needed. Adult bird translocation unlikely to
succeed due to being migratory
YG: I think this would be really challenging.
Available climate space is questionable and given experience with
breeding waders including BTGs the scale of predation impact is likely
to be a significant driver.
BH: Sustainable captive population exists and
husbandry needs of the species well known. Can be kept in a colony in
large aviaries. Cold hardy so heated inside area not needed in UK
climate.
BH: maintaining a genetically robust ex-situ
population
BH: released pens for soft releases of young
birds. Curlew and corncrake projects as models for soft release
protocols
BH: Uncertainty of migration ability if working
with a captive sourced population
BH: Would need to be head started birds.
Translocations of adult birds unlikely to work as migratory. Would need
hand rearing facilities and staff at donner and release sites. Field
staff need to find nests. Importation costs for getting birds to the UK.
Large numbers for birds translocated needed to establish population as
migratory
YG: I think wild/wild would be prohibitively
expensive and difficult. Captive stock more likely.
BH: low cost ex-situ facilities needed as can be
kept in colonies so less aviaries needed. Project would be multiple
years of staffing cost would be high
BH: low cost release pens. Staff needed to care
for birds during soft release. Multiple year releases
BH: Could only be sourced from wild
populations
BH: finding a donner site and importing birds to
the UK
SN: impact assessments must be considered before
selecting source population. Especially as populations becoming
increasingly fragmented due to habitat loss/specialism
BH: unlikely to work with adult birds a
migratory. Could use hand reared birds but this would be difficult
SN: connectivity of specialist
habitat/reedbeds
BH: due to highly insectivorous diet it is
unlikely an ex-situ population could be established
SN: potential to learn from model species eg:
bearded reedling?
BH: development of husbandry protocols for a
species never maintained in captivity before
BH: would need to produce large numbers of birds
for release as migratory species
BH: producing enough birds for viable releases
is unlikely
SN: success would be very dependent upon water
and reed management
BH: would need to be head started birds so hand
rearing staff needed
BH: would need a large number of pairs housed
separately. Cost of suitable live food would be high
BH: would need to be sourced as eggs or chicks
from wild nests in the UK
JQ: North of England seems most abundant
populations but population trend unknown
SN: wild populations across Europe
BH: ensuring wild harvest does not impact wild
population
JQ: productivity of Willow tits in uk has been
declining but it is unknown if any areas are still producing excess
juveniles as source for introductions. Adult survival declines with
higher annual temperatures so need to target northern populations.
YG: Plenty of breeding Willow Tit and not too
difficult to find nests, but finding enough without impacts on local
populations presumably challenging.
BH: translocation of adult birds. Soft release
methods could be trailed against hard release. Isolated habitat may mean
birds don’t disperse.
JQ: detailed climate and habitat suitability
assessment. Assess abundance of Great spotted woodpecker the main nest
predator and likely contributor to low breeding success.
SN: complexities with territoriality. will take
time for birds to learn where resources are. Habitat management
essential prior to release. Possible supportive techniques could be
used
BH: ensuring not to impact the source
population
JQ: ensuring the translocation doesn’t
detrimentally affect the source populations. determining time span that
target areas are likely to be suitable for in a species where
suitability is linked to climate change.
YG: As it stands, given strong declines and that
WTs are still in trial management, there has to be a high degree of
uncertainty over whether we fully understand what is needed.
BH: establishment of 20-40 pairs. Housed
separately. Low cost aviaries as heated indoor area not needed.
JQ: donors would be taken from several source
populations. as they only breed annually focus would need to be on
reducing losses from egg to breeding age to maximise growth of ex situ
population to provide source birds for release.
SN: small breeding units could be set up quite
cheaply.
BH: establishment of husbandry protocols for the
species
JQ: tits are not commonly kept or bred in
activity which suggests this may be difficult and likelihood of success
largely unknown. for research which uses captive birds these are usually
temporarily taken into captivity for the experiment.
BH: soft release aviaries for releasing young
birds. Short term supplementary feeding to get released birds
established
JQ: If possible find release sites with Crested
tit populations as these co-occur in continental Europe and create mixed
species winter foraging flocks, this may provide greater resilience
during the first year. ensure birds have large woodland aviaries for
natural foraging opportunities prior to release. Release in summer when
territory settling naturally occurs and release in small groups of up to
6 birds as they naturally occur in mixed age and sex groups during
winter. Have multiple release sites a few kilometres apart with well
connected habitat to allow some redistribution and spring territorial
exploring.
SN: caution if species released into habitat
occupied by extant birds due to territorial aggression.
BH: limiting factors mitigated
JQ: ensuring birds have natural foraging
experience before release to maximise changes of surviving the post
release phase while learning in the wild. Release sites have extensive
enough habitat and sufficient suitable nesting substrate.
BH: Harvesting from nests in the UK so cost
would be low
JQ: this assumes translocation sites exist and
do not have to have extensive habitat creation as part of the
programme
BH: would be lower cost than red-back shrike
ex-situ estimates
JQ: no idea of ex-situ cost but assume need
quite a lot of reasonably large aviaries as they do not occur in large
groups and naturally have large home ranges.
BH: low cost soft release aviaries. Staff needed
to care for birds while in soft release aviaries
JQ: expect there to be significant assessment
cost for new areas for release as well as some infrastructure and staff
costs for creating soft release sites. not including land acquisition or
management costs.
Comment
BH: would require large aviaries for each pair or pairs to be possible. Yearly productivity would be low so would take many years to establish variable wild population