Study

Health surveillance in wildlife reintroductions

  • Published source details Mathews F., Moro D., Strachan R., Gelling M., & Buller N. (2006) Health surveillance in wildlife reintroductions. Biological Conservation, 131, 338-347.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use holding pens at release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Use holding pens at release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals

    A review of a study in 2001–2002 at a restored wetland in London, UK (Mathews et al. 2006) found that using holding pens prior to release of captive-bred and translocated water voles Arvicola terrestris resulted in greater post-release survival than did releasing them directly into the wild. Voles released from pens were three times more likely to be recorded during the initial follow-up survey than were those released without use of pens (result presented as odds ratio). A total of 109 captive-bred and 38 wild-caught water voles were released in groups of 6–15 animals in May–July 2001. Prior to release, no water voles were present at the site. An unspecified number of animals were placed in an enclosure with food and shelter and allowed to burrow out at will. The remainder were released directly into the wild. Animals were monitored by live-trapping over three periods of five days, between autumn 2001 and early-summer 2002.

    (Summarised by: Phil Martin)

  2. Use holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals

    A review of a study in 2001–2002 at a restored wetland in London, UK (Mathews et al. 2006) found that using holding pens prior to release of translocated and captive-bred water voles Arvicola terrestris resulted in greater post-release survival than did releasing them directly into the wild. Voles released from pens were three times more likely to be recorded during the initial follow-up survey than were those released without use of pens (result presented as odds ratio). A total of 38 wild-caught and 109 captive-bred water voles were released in groups of 6–15 animals in May–July 2001. Prior to release, no water voles were present at the site. An unspecified number of animals were placed in an enclosure with food and shelter and allowed to burrow out at will. The remainder were released directly into the wild. Animals were monitored by live-trapping over three periods of five days, between autumn 2001 and early-summer 2002.

    (Summarised by: Phil Martin)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust