Keeping fit on the ark: assessing the suitability of captive-bred animals for release

By F. Mathews, Melanie E. Orros, G. McLaren, M. Gelling, R. Foster. 2005

190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Environmental enrichment reduces maladaptive risk-taking behavior in salmon reared for conservation (2011, background): “, 2002), take longer to detect and avoid predators (Alvarez and Nicieza, 2003), and are less successful at locating and claiming quality territories (Deverill et al., 1999; Mathews et al., 2005).”
The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis (2008, background): “Studies have suggested that projects using captive-born animals are less likely to be successful than projects using wild-caught animals (Mathews et al., 2005).”
An integrated comparison of captive-bred and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): Implications for supportive breeding programs (2008, background): “…date, most studies that aim to compare captive-bred with wild animals consider captive populations that (i) were founded by genitors from non-target wild populations and/or (ii) remained captive for up to two generations (e.g. Mathews et al., 2005; Kelley et al., 2006; Salonen and Peuhkuri, 2006).”
Developing the Science of Reintroduction Biology (2007, background): “Captive animals could potentially have poor health, due either to captive conditions (Mathews et al. 2005) or stress during the release process (Hartup et al. 2005), and captivity may result in the inadvertent selection of individuals lacking key traits, such as fearfulness (McPhee 2003), or…”