Boye Liu, Li Li, Huw Lloyd, Canwei Xia, Yanyun Zhang, Guangmei Zheng. 2016: Comparing post-release survival and habitat use by captive-bred Cabot's Tragopan (Tragopan caboti) in an experimental test of soft-release reintroduction strategies. Avian Research, 7(1): 19. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-016-0053-2
Citation: Boye Liu, Li Li, Huw Lloyd, Canwei Xia, Yanyun Zhang, Guangmei Zheng. 2016: Comparing post-release survival and habitat use by captive-bred Cabot's Tragopan (Tragopan caboti) in an experimental test of soft-release reintroduction strategies. Avian Research, 7(1): 19. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-016-0053-2

Comparing post-release survival and habitat use by captive-bred Cabot's Tragopan (Tragopan caboti) in an experimental test of soft-release reintroduction strategies

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Yanyun Zhang, zhangyy@bnu.edu.cn

  • Received Date: 20 Jun 2016
  • Accepted Date: 11 Oct 2016
  • Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
  • Publish Date: 24 Oct 2016
  • Background 

    Restoring a viable population by reintroduction is the ultimate goal of a large number of ex situ conservation projects for endangered animals. However, many reintroductions fail to establish a population in the wild, partly because released animals cannot acclimate to the native environment of the release site, resulting in very low survival rates. Acclimation training is a technique to resolve this problem, although it does not have positive results in all species. We tested whether acclimation training and soft-release could improve the reintroduction success for captive-bred Cabot's Tragopan (Tragopan caboti), an endangered pheasant in southern China.

    Methods 

    Reintroduction of captive-bred Cabot's Tragopan was carried out in the Taoyuandong National Nature Reserve, China from 2010 to 2011. We built a soft-release enclosure for acclimation training in the typical montane habitat of this pheasant. Nine birds were acclimated to the environment of this release site in this cage for more than 50 days before release ("trained birds"), while 11 birds remained only in the cage for 3 days prior to release ("untrained birds"). Released birds were tagged with a collar radio-transmitter.

    Results 

    Post-release monitoring revealed that the survival rate of trained birds was higher than that of untrained birds after 50 days (trained: 85.7%; untrained: 20.0%). Cox regression analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the mortality rates between the trained and untrained birds. In addition, a survey of the habitat of the experimental and the control groups showed significant differences in habitat selection between the groups.

    Conclusion 

    Our study suggests that pre-release acclimatization training is an important factor that can lead to improved survival and habitat selection of captive-bred reintroduced tragopans.

  • The primary driver of the global decline in biodiversity is habitat loss and fragmentation, caused by anthropogenic pressure on natural ecosystems. Urbanization is arguably the most damaging, persistent and rapid form of anthropogenic pressure (Morneau et al., 1999; Park and Lee, 2000; Porter et al., 2001; Clergeau et al., 2006). Although studies in London have demonstrated that the changes of urban building structures and vegetation affect the abundance of urban House Sparrows (Passer domesticus) (Peach and Vincent, 2006; Chamberlain et al., 2007), there is little information about the effect of urbanization on the abundance of the bird species closely linked to human environments in a rapidly developing country such as China.

    The Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus) is one of the most common birds found in a variety of environments along urban gradients in China (Ruan and Zheng, 1991; Pan and Zheng, 2003), which makes it a suitable model species to study the effects of urbanization on birds closely linked to human environments. They nest in hollows of buildings and eat small seeds (Ruan and Zheng, 1991); therefore, the distribution of this species is closely related to human environments. China's capital, Beijing, provides an example of a city with rapid urbanization during the last 20 years. The construction of new high-rise buildings have resulted in reduction of vegetation and the demolition of old buildings, reducing the food and habitat of the Tree Sparrow (Zhang et al., 2008). The abundance and distribution of Tree Sparrows are likely to be affected by habitat and food losses in Beijing. For these reasons, the objective of this study is to test whether the degree of urbanization affects the abundance of Tree Sparrows and what environmental factors impact the distribution pattern of this species.

    Scale is an important aspect involved in most ecological problems (Levin, 1992; Willis and Whittaker, 2002). Urban planning is also a multi-scale process encompassing both local scale design such as the structure of residential areas and landscape scale design such as the distribution of buildings and vegetation (Savard et al., 2000; Hostetler and Kim, 2003; Melles et al., 2003). Some earlier studies used a theory of island biogeography to predict the relationship between urban bird distribution and characteristics of native habitat patches (e.g., a large park) such as patch size and the degree of isolation from other areas of habitat (Tilghman, 1987; Diamond, 1988; Soulé et al., 1988). Since the presence of birds was expected to vary with land use pattern and with the overall composition of the landscape in a complex landscape mosaic (Trzcinski et al., 1999; Austen et al., 2001; Fahrig, 2001), the biogeography theory was not sufficient for many urban scenarios. More and more recent studies have been carried out based on spatial-structuring theories in which local-scale and landscape-scale habitat features surrounding the habitats were combined to predict the habitat factors affecting urban bird distributions (Bolger et al., 1997; Rottenborn, 1999; Odell and Knight, 2001; Melles et al., 2003; Hostetler and Kim, 2003; Hiroshi et al., 2005). Although our previous work has discussed the factors affecting the distribution of Tree Sparrows in Beijing, the habitat variables in that study were only on a local scale (Zhang et al., 2008). Therefore, in this study we hope to discuss this question of multiple scales based on spatial-structuring theories in order to predict the factors affecting the distribution of Tree Sparrows more comprehensively.

    Beijing is situated in the North China Plain. The urban area spreads out in bands of six concentric ring roads. The climate of the city consists of a hot, humid summer and a cold, windy and dry winter. The average daytime high temperature in January is 1.6℃, while in July it is 30.8℃. Annual precipitation is around 580 mm.

    Eight land use types were selected for analysis, i.e., suburban (SU), low building residential areas (LB), high-rise building residential areas (HB), brick bungalow areas (BB), commercial centers (CC), parks (PA), university campuses (UC) and main roads (MR). In these types, high-rise building residential areas, commercial centers and main roads are three urbanized land use types. With high-rise buildings we mean buildings higher than six floors, most of which were constructed after the 1990s; low buildings means the buildings lower than six floors, mostly constructed before the 1990s. The area within the fifth circle of Beijing was divided into four parts using Tiananmen Square as the center, Chang An Street as the X-axis and the meridian of the Forbidden City (the Dragon line) as the Y-axis. In each part, study sites were selected randomly and, in total, five to ten study sites were selected in the four parts for each land use type (Table 1).

    Table  1.  Land use types and their study sites
    Land use types Study sites
    Suburban area Xidian and Fangjia villages of Gaobeidian, Xiaoying Village of Daxing District, Babaoshan, and Nanshuitouzhuang Nanli
    Park Zizhuyuan Park, Yuyuantan Park, Botanical Garden, Yuanmingyuan Park, Haidian Park, the Summer Palace, Tiantan Park, and Ditan Park
    University campus Peking University, Beijing Normal University, Renmin University of China, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Capital Normal University
    Low building residential area Weigongcun Community, Guanyuan, Dongguantou Street, Canjiakou Community
    High-rise building residential area Tiantongyun residential quarter, Weibohao Community, Lianhua Community, and Tuanjie Community
    Commercial center Xidan, Chengxiang Trade Center, Zhongguancun, Haidian Books Market, Wangfujing Street, and Finance Avenue
    Main road Chegongzhuang Avenue, Gulou Avenue, Wukesong, Huayuanqiao, Zhongguancun Avenue, Qinghua West Avenue, and Weigongcun Road
    Brick bungalow area Dongdan, Dongguantou Street, West of Lianhua community, and Zhongshan Park
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We used an "urbanization score" (Liker et al., 2008) to quantify the degree of urbanization of the study sites and their surroundings. The occurrence of three important land cover types for birds, i.e., buildings, paved roads and vegetated areas were scored. One 1 km × 1 km area around each capture site was selected from high-resolution digital aerial photographs. Each 1 km2 area was divided into 100 cells (using a 10 × 10 grid with their scores), indicating levels of building cover (0, absent; 1, < 50%; 2, > 50%), the presence of roads (0, absent; 1, present) and vegetation cover (0, absent; 1, < 50%; 2, > 50%) for each cell. From these cell scores the following summary statistics for all seven capture sites were calculated: a mean building density score (potential range 0–2), the number of cells with high-rise building density (> 50% cover; range 0–100), the number of cells with roads (range 0–100), a mean vegetation density score (range 0–2) and the number of cells with high vegetation density (> 50% cover; range 0–100). The PC1 score of a principal components analysis of these five summary scores was taken as the overall "urbanization score" for each site. Principal components analysis extracted only one component, accounting for 95% of the total variance. From the loading of the original variables, higher urbanization scores can be interpreted as reduced vegetation density and increased building and road densities.

    Ten habitat variables at the local scale (a circle with a 50 m radius around Tree Sparrow-present points) and three landscape factors at three scales (circles with a radius of 200, 400 or 600 m around Tree Sparrow-present points) were selected to investigate the major factors affecting the distribution of Tree Sparrows (Table 2). At a local scale, the habitat factors include areas of high-rise buildings, pavement and weeds, number of conifer and broad-leaved trees, areas of low buildings, number of air conditioners (major nesting sites of urban Tree Sparrows), distance to main roads, number of pedestrians and vehicle flux. At the landscape scale, areas of high-rise buildings, reflecting a degree of modernization, low buildings and vegetation were selected.

    Table  2.  Definitions of habitat variables on local and landscape scales
    Scales Variables Descriptions of variables
    50 m Area of high-rise buildings Buildings higher than six floors
    Area of pavements Paved landscape including bitumen or cement bricks
    Area of weeds Natural lawn comprising weeds which provide food resources for Tree Sparrows
    Number of broad-leaved trees Broad-leaved trees can provide shelters for Tree Sparrows
    Number of conifer trees Observations indicated conifers may provide alternate roosting sites for Tree Sparrows during winter
    Area of low buildings Low buildings include brick bungalows, ancient buildings and the buildings lower than six floors. These buildings provide nest sites for Tree Sparrows
    Number of air conditioners Air conditioners installed on the exterior of buildings can be used as nest sites by Tree Sparrows
    Distance to main roads Roads comprising of more than three lanes of traffic
    Number of pedestrians Pedestrians passing the study site over a 10-min duration
    Vehicle flux Moving cars, motorbikes, trucks etc. passing the study sites over a 10-min duration
    200 m, 400 m, 600 m High-rise buildings (HB) Area percentage of buildings higher than six floors in a circle area around the Tree Sparrow present points
    Low buildings (LB) Area percentage of buildings lower than six floors in a circle area around the Tree Sparrow present points
    Vegetation (VE) Area percentage of vegetation in a circle area around the Tree Sparrow present points
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From January to August 2005, we surveyed the number of Tree Sparrows and local-scale habitat variables during the wintering period (January to March) and the breeding period (April to August). At each study site, we walked along 2–3 roads which traverse the study sites, recording the number of Tree Sparrows and the corresponding GPS coordinates of their locations, as used points for a one-hour time period. Randomly selected locations in all study sites were used as control points where their GPS coordinates were recorded. Following each avian survey we assessed local-scale habitat variables in areas using a circle with a 50 m radius, with each used and control point as a center. In total, we surveyed 239 used points and 118 control points in the winter and 226 used points and 126 control points in the breeding period. Areas and distances were measured with the GPS. Using satellite images acquired from Google Earth Web, we digitized the landscape variables for each used and control point using ArcGis and ArcView 3.2 to identify low building areas, high-rise building areas and vegetation areas. Low buildings and high-rise buildings were determined by local surveys according to the corresponding coordinates on the satellite images where they were difficult to be distinguished on the images. We created circles with a radius of 200, 400 or 600 m around each of the used and control points, after which we measured the areas of the three landscape variables using Spatial Analysist, the X-Tool and Geoprocessing extensions of ArcView3.2.

    We used one-way ANOVA to compare the number of Tree Sparrows of different land use types and Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc tests to conduct pairwise comparisons between land use types. The average number of Tree Sparrows (recorded within one hour in each study site) and the urbanization scores of all study sites for one land use type was used as the score for the number of Tree Sparrows and urbanization for each land use type. To analyze whether the number of Tree Sparrows is directly related to the degree of urbanization, we investigated the correlation between the score of the number of Tree Sparrows and the urbanization scores of eight land use types, using Pearson correlation analysis.

    We used stepwise elimination logistic regression to analyze the appropriate scales and key factors affecting the distribution of Tree Sparrows. Prior to the logistic regression, we first selected the habitat variables with significant differences between used and control sites using independent t-tests or the Mann-Whitney U-test. Using these variables, we created a 50 m scale model and three models integrating this scale model with those of a 200, 400 and 600 m scale respectively. The best fitting model was selected using Akaike's information criterion (AIC). All data were standardized to a normal distribution before logistic regression. The data analyses were performed with SPSS 11.0.

    The number of Tree Sparrows differed significantly among land use types (wintering period: one-way ANOVA, df = 7, F = 25.23, p < 0.001; breeding period: df = 7, F = 19.97, p < 0.001). The number of Tree Sparrows was highest in parks and lowest in commercial centers. Pairwise comparisons between land use types showed that the number of birds in commercial centers, high-rise residential areas and main roads were significantly lower than in parks, suburban areas and university campuses, both in the wintering period (Turkey's HSD test, CC vs. PA, CC vs. SU, CC vs. UC, HB vs. PA, HB vs. UC, MR vs. PA, MR vs. UC, MR vs. SU, p < 0.001; HB vs. SU, p = 0.046) and in the breeding period (Turkey's HSD test, CC vs. PA, CC vs. SU, CC vs. UC, HB vs. PA, HB vs. UC, MR vs. PA, MR vs. UC, MR vs. SU, p < 0.001; HB vs. SU, p = 0.013) (Fig. 1).

    Figure  1.  Number of Tree Sparrows in eight land use types

    The number of Tree Sparrows was negatively correlated with urbanization scores in both the wintering and breeding periods (wintering period: n = 8, r = –0.832, p = 0.010; breeding period: n = 8, r = –0.863, p = 0.006) (Fig. 2).

    Figure  2.  Relationship between number of Tree Sparrows in different land use types and capture site urbanization scores in breeding period (a) and wintering period (b)

    Within four models of the wintering period, the AIC was lowest at the 50 m × 200 m scale, suggesting this scale to be the most suitable for predicting environmental factors affecting Tree Sparrow abundance. The number of conifer trees and pedestrians are the two major factors on the 50 m scale, while areas of high-rise buildings and vegetation were the predominant factors on the 200 m scale (Table 3). In comparison to used points, the number of conifer trees and area percentage of vegetation was significantly lower in control points (independent t-test p < 0.001), indicating these two factors are advantageous in the distribution of Tree Sparrows. In contrast, the number of pedestrians and area percentage of high-rise buildings in used points were significantly lower compared to control points (Independent t-test p < 0.001). This indicates that these two factors have a negative effect on Tree Sparrow abundance (Table 4).

    Table  3.  Parameters of obtained equations of logistic regressions on different scales in winter and summer
    Variables Scales (m)
    Winter Summer
    50 m 50 m × 200 m 50 m × 400 m 50 m × 600 m 50 m 50 m × 200 m 50 m × 400 m 50 m × 600 m
    Intercept –0.367 –0.030 0.277 2.780 –0.895 –0.811 –0.714 0.599
    Area of low buildings 1.194 2.874 1.628 2.267
    Number of conifer trees 1.959 2.648 1.889 1.494 1.521 2.574 2.456
    Pedestrians –5.156 –3.550 –2.903 –4.188 –8.178
    Vehicle flux –0.687 –4.295 –4.147 –4.419
    Area Percentage of high-rise buildings –3.498 –1.380 –6.763 –1.891 –0.921
    Area Percentage of vegetation –1.247 –1.610
    AIC 97.446 68.332 89.378 95.603 68.706 76.618 66.947 69.643
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table  4.  The mean values of habitat factors and the difference-significant values of factors between used and control points
    Habitat variables Wintering period Breeding period
    Used points (n = 239) Control points (n = 118) p Used points (n = 226) Control points (n = 126) p
    Local scale (50 m)
    Area of high-rise buildings (m2) 1732.53 ± 196.03 3053.45 ± 387.21 0.001** 1826.04 ± 212.35 3132.11 ± 378.32 0.002**
    Area of pavements (m2) 2190.42 ± 173.65 3469.21 ± 239.27 < 0.001** 2226.29 ± 170.84 3467.31 ± 238.06 < 0.001**
    Area of weeds (m2) 156.27 ± 32.71 24.38 ± 19.69 0.032* 148.58 ± 30.29 27.80 ± 20.62 0.031*
    Number of conifer trees 30.73 ± 4.27 13.07 ± 1.37 0.001** 32.18 ± 3.09 11.04 ± 1.03 < 0.001**
    Number of broad-leaved trees 43.09 ± 2.86 31.07 ± 3.01 0.003** 43.82 ± 2.63 28.06 ± 2.12 0.001**
    Area of low buildings (m2) 928.69 ± 129.81 74.09 ± 15.07 < 0.001** 856.82 ± 130.11 194.28 ± 79.86 < 0.001**
    Number of air conditioners 41.76 ± 5.02 25.91 ± 4.07 0.024* 40.38 ± 4.30 26.98 ± 3.79 0.038*
    Distance to main roads (m) 79.05 ± 6.93 66.29 ± 12.85 0.401 78.81 ± 7.33 66.16 ± 12.99 0.474
    Pedestrian 77.52 ± 13.63 522.60 ± 89.23 < 0.001** 65.26 ± 3.51 506.91 ± 95.37 < 0.001**
    Vehicle flux 39.06 ± 7.08 141.01 ± 26.92 < 0.001** 46.29 ± 13.25 121.18 ± 15.13 0.004**
    Landscape scale (200 m, 400 m, 600 m)
    LB200 0.449 ± 0.031 0.254 ± 0.030 0.003** 0.441 ± 0.029 0.253 ± 0.018 0.006**
    HB200 0.039 ± 0.010 0.476 ± 0.039 0.002** 0.117 ± 0.011 0.445 ± 0.039 < 0.001**
    VE200 0.502 ± 0.033 0.268 ± 0.044 < 0.001** 0.506 ± 0.032 0.243 ± 0.044 < 0.001**
    LB400 0.433 ± 0.027 0.325 ± 0.019 0.001** 0.435 ± 0.026 0.314 ± 0.021 0.001**
    HB400 0.105 ± 0.015 0.439 ± 0.033 0.001** 0.117 ± 0.017 0.445 ± 0.034 0.001**
    VE400 0.452 ± 0.027 0.234 ± 0.031 < 0.001** 0.440 ± 0.025 0.238 ± 0.038 < 0.001**
    LB600 0.404 ± 0.027 0.312 ± 0.018 0.012* 0.407 ± 0.026 0.301 ± 0.018 0.004**
    HB600 0.135 ± 0.017 0.483 ± 0.030 0.005** 0.149 ± 0.017 0.487 ± 0.032 < 0.001**
    VE600 0.456 ± 0.025 0.203 ± 0.031 < 0.001** 0.441 ± 0.023 0.209 ± 0.038 < 0.001**
    Note: **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    During the summer, the 50 m × 400 m model resulted in a regression equation with the lowest AIC, thus 400 m provides a suitable landscape scale to predict the distribution of Tree Sparrows during the breeding season. At the 50 m scale, the area of low buildings, the number of coniferous trees and pedestrians are main the factors contributing to Tree Sparrow distribution, while at a 400 m scale the area percentage of high-rise buildings and vegetation remain important habitat variables (Table 3). Within the used points, areas of low buildings, number of coniferous trees and area percentage of vegetation were significantly higher than in control points (independent t-test p < 0.001), which indicates these factors are advantageous for the distribution of breeding Tree Sparrows. The area percentage of high-rise buildings in used points was significantly lower than for control points (independent t-test p < 0.001), indicating that high-rise buildings remain disadvantageous to breeding Tree Sparrows (Table 4).

    The Tree Sparrow is considered a species that has adapted to an urban environment (Ruan and Zheng, 1991). Our results however indicate that the degree of urbanization significantly affects Tree Sparrow abundance. Its abundance is very low in higher urbanized habitat types such as commercial centers, high-rise residential areas and main roads. In contrast, its abundance is high in habitats with a low degree of urbanization, such as parks, university campus and low building areas. The main components of the diet of nestling and adult Tree Sparrows are, respectively, arthropods and seeds (Kei, 1973; Pinowski and Wieloch, 1973), both of which may be less available in heavily urbanized habitats where vegetation is scarce (McIntyre et al., 2001). Vincent (2005) found that the biomass of House Sparrow broods increased with the extent of vegetation areas around nest sites, which suggests that breeding success may be relatively poor in habitats with low vegetation cover. Therefore, lack of access to vegetation is a major cause of low Tree Sparrow abundance in highly urbanized areas.

    The effect of habitat variables related to food resources and nest sites are evident in the logistic regression analysis. Vegetation has a major effect on sparrow abundance, providing both roost sites and food (especially insect larvae) for adults and nestlings (Pinowska and Pinowski, 1999). At a local scale, the presence of coniferous trees was an important positive factor on sparrow abundance during wintering and breeding periods, because they provide the major roosting sites for Tree Sparrows (Ruan and Zheng, 1991; Fletcher et al., 1992; Pinowska and Pinowski, 1999). Landscape scale analysis also indicates that the total vegetation area within both the 200 m and 400 m circles also affected the distribution of Tree Sparrows positively in both periods.

    The number of birds was negatively affected by factors of urbanization, especially the number of pedestrians and high-rise buildings. Prior to the development of high-rise buildings, Tree Sparrows commonly nested in holes within brick bungalows and on the walls of low buildings (Ruan and Zheng, 1991). Modern high-rise buildings are constructed with concrete and covered by glass and metal, substantially reducing the number of available nesting sites. Therefore, large areas of low buildings have a positive effect on sparrow abundance during the breeding season while high-rise buildings had a negative effect in both seasons. Similar results have been reported for passerine species in Colorado, where vegetation has a positive effect on the distribution of the species and urban landscape had a negative effect (Haire et al., 2000).

    Commercial centers and main roads are unsuitable for Tree Sparrows due to high volumes of people and vehicles, large areas of high-rise buildings and a lack of suitable conditions for the inhabitation of Tree Sparrows such as trees and low buildings. In contrast, suburban areas, parks and bungalow areas provide suitable living conditions for them, such as high abundance of holes and vegetation. University campuses and low building residential areas provide more suitable habitats for sparrows as compared to commercial centers and high-rise buildings. A recent plant species survey within urban areas of Beijing (Meng and Ouyang, 2004) found parks, university campuses and low building areas had the highest species diversity, containing over 50% of the total number of plant species within the fifth circle road. University campuses are suitable for Tree Sparrow requirements because these contain a high proportion of vegetation, as well as hollows in low buildings. Similarly, low building residential areas, constructed mainly in the 1980s, provide many available nesting holes and abundant vegetation for sparrows.

    Our results indicate that habitat factors on both local and landscape scales affect the distribution of urban Tree Sparrows. During the winter, landscape factors within a 200 m radius play an important role, while during the summer a 400 m radius is more crucial to the distribution of this species. This pattern follows an increased level of living resource requirements, i.e. food and nesting sites during the breeding periods. As living resource requirements increase, the scale of the landscape used by this bird would also increase. Pan and Zheng (2003) estimated the winter home range of Tree Sparrows be around a 100-m radius, while the summer home range is estimated to be 300 m (Field and Anderson, 2004). These data also supports the seasonal increase in scale.

    The number of Tree Sparrows declined along urbanization gradients. Highly urbanized areas, such as commercial areas, main roads and high-rise buildings are not fit for inhabitation by Tree Sparrows. With the acceleration of urban development in Beijing, available space for sparrow habitats has become severely reduced. Although Tree Sparrows show some adaptation to the human environments, they appear unable to adapt to the overly rapid speed of urban development, which results in a decline in essential resources such as vegetation. Thus in the urbanization process, the conservation of vegetation with high species diversity in newly constructed high-rise residential areas and preserving some hollows on the surface of high-rise buildings are essential ways to provide enough food and nest site resources for Tree Sparrows.

    We are grateful to Fang Gao, Danhua Zhao, Fuwei Zhao and Jiawen Zhang for their help with field work. This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 30900181) and "111 Project" (2008-B08044).

  • Bernardo CSS, Lloyd H, Bayly N, Galetti M. Modelling post-release survival of reintroduced Red-billed Curassows Crax blumenbachii. Ibis. 2011a;153:562-72.
    Bernardo CSS, Lloyd H, Olmos F, Cancian LF, Galetti M. Using post-release monitoring data to optimize avian reintroduction programs: a 2-year case study from the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest. Anim Conserv. 2011b;14:676-86.
    Biggins DE, Vargas A, Godbey JL, Anderson SH. Influence of prerelease experience on reintroduced black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). Biol Conserv. 1999;89:121-9.
    BirdLife International. Tragopan caboti. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012. IUCN. 2012. . Accessed 19 Jun 2016.
    Blythe RM, Smyser TJ, Johnson SA, Swihart RK. Post-release survival of captive-reared Allegheny woodrats. Anim Conserv. 2015;18:186-95.
    Bradley DW, Molles LE, Valderrama SV, King S, Waas JR. Factors affecting post-release dispersal, mortality, and territory settlement of endangered kokako translocated from two distinct song neighborhoods. Biol Conserv. 2012;147:79-86.
    Bright PW, Morris PA. Animal translocation for conservation: performance of dormice in relation to release methods, origin and season. J Appl Ecol. 1994;31:699-708.
    Campbell L, Croft D. Comparison of hard and soft release of hand reared eastern grey kangaroos. In: Veterinary conservation biology, wildlife health and management in Australasia, proceedings of international joint conference. Sydney: Taronga Zoo; 2001.
    Castro I, Alley J, Empson R, Minot E. Translocation of hihi or stitchbird Notiomystis cincta to Kapiti Island, New Zealand: transfer techniques and comparison of release strategies. In: Serena M, editor. Reintroduction biology of Australian and New Zealand fauna. Chipping Norton: Surrey Beatty & Sons; 1994. p. 113-21.
    Cheng SL, Wu SY, Zheng YQ. Feed behavior of Cabot's Tragopan (Tragopan caboti) in Wuyishan, Jiangxi province. Sichuan J Zool. 2008;27:432-5.
    Clarke RH, Boulton RL, Clarke MF. Translocation of the socially complex Black-eared Miner Manorina melanotis: a trial using hard and soft release techniques. Pac Conserv Biol. 2002;8:223-34.
    Davis JM, Stamps JA. The effect of natal experience on habitat preferences. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:411-6.
    Deng WH, Zheng GM, Zhang ZW, Garson PJ, McGowan PJ. Providing artificial nest platforms for Cabot's tragopan Tragopan caboti (Aves: Galliformes): a useful conservation tool? Oryx. 2005;39:158-63.
    Ding CQ, Zheng GM. A primary study on the reintroduction of Cabot's Tragopan. Acta Zool Sin. 1996;S1:42.
    Ding CQ, Zheng GM. The nest site selection of the Yellow-bellied Tragopan (Tragopan caboti). Acta Zool Sin. 1997;43:27-33.
    Dong L, Zhang J, Sun Y, Liu Y, Zhang YY, Zheng GM. Phylogeographic patterns and conservation units of a vulnerable species, Cabot's tragopan (Tragopan caboti), endemic to southeast China. Conserv Genet. 2010;11:2231-42.
    Ellis DH, Gee GF, Hereford SG, Olsen GH, Chisolm TD, Nicolich JM, Sullivan KA, Thomas NJ, Nagendran M, Hatfield JS. Post-release survival of hand-reared and parent-reared Mississippi Sandhill Cranes. Condor. 2000;102:104-12.
    Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol Conserv. 2000;96:1-11.
    Franzreb KE. The effect of using a "soft" release on translocation success of red-cockaded woodpeckers. In: Costa R, Daniels SJ, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Washington: Hancock House Publishers; 2004. p. 301-6.
    Gatti RC. A comparison of two hand-reared mallard release methods. Wildl Soc Bull. 1981;9:37-43.
    Hardman B, Moro D. Optimising reintroduction success by delayed dispersal: is the release protocol important for hare-wallabies? Biol Conserv. 2006;128:403-11.
    Hou BQ. The comprehensive investigation reports of natural resource in Taoyuandong, Ling Country, Hunan Province. Changsha: Press of National University of Defense Technology; 1993 (in Chinese).
    Islam MZ, Singh A, Basheer MP, Judas J, Boug A. Differences in space use and habitat selection between captive-bred and wild-born houbara bustards in Saudi Arabia: results from a long-term reintroduction program. J Zool. 2013;289:251-61.
    IUCN/SSC. Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations. Version 1.0. Gland: IUCN Species Survival Commission; 2013.
    Johnson MK, Wofford H, Pearson HA. Microhistological techniques for food habits analyses. Res. Pap. SO-199. New Orleans: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station; 1983.
    Jones CG, Merton DV. A tale of two islands: the rescue and recovery of endemic birds in New Zealand and Mauritius. In: Ewen JG, Armstrong DP, Parker KA, Seddon PJ, editors. Reintroduction biology: integrating science and management. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. p. 33-72.
    Kauhala K, Tiilikainen T. Radio location error and the estimates of home-range size, movements, and habitat use: a simple field test. Ann Zool Fenn. 2002;39:317-24.
    Kenward RE. A manual for wildlife radio tagging. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001.
    Li FS, Nie H, Ye CH. Microscopic analysis on herbivorous diets of wintering black-necked cranes at Caohai, China. Zool Res. 1997;18:51-7.
    Lockwood MA, Griffin CR, Morrow ME, Randel CJ, Silvy NJ. Survival, movements, and reproduction of released captive-reared Attwater's prairie-chicken. J Wildl Manag. 2005;69:1251-8.
    Lovegrove TG. Island releases of saddlebacks Philesturnus carunculatus in New Zealand. Biol Conserv. 1996;77:151-7.
    Meyers JM, Miller DL. Post-release activity of captive-and wild-reared bald eagles. J Wildl Manag. 1992;56:744-9.
    Mitchell AM, Wellicome TI, Brodie D, Cheng KM. Captive-reared burrowing owls show higher site-affinity, survival, and reproductive performance when reintroduced using a soft-release. Biol Conserv. 2011;144:1382-91.
    Parker KA, Dickens MJ, Clarke RH, Lovegrove TG. The theory and practice of catching, holding, moving and releasing animals. In: Ewen JG, Armstrong DP, Parker KA, Seddon PJ, editors. Reintroduction biology: integrating science and management. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. p. 105-37.
    Pinter-Wollman N, Isbell LA, Hart LA. Assessing translocation outcome: comparing behavioral and physiological aspects of translocated and resident African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Biol Conserv. 2009;142:1116-24.
    Poulin RG, Todd LD, Wellicome TI, Brigham RM. Assessing the feasibility of release techniques for captive-bred burrowing owls. J Raptor Res. 2006;40:142-50.
    Qian FW, Zheng GM. The study of habitat used by Cabot's tragopan. J Beijing Normal Univ (Nat Sci). 1993;29:256-64.
    R Core Development Team. R: a Language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014. .
    Roe JH, Frank MR, Gibson SE, Attum O, Kingsbury BA. No place like home: an experimental comparison of reintroduction strategies using snakes. J Appl Ecol. 2010;47:1253-61.
    Rouco C, Ferreras P, Castro F, Villafuerte R. A longer confinement period favors European wild rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) survival during soft releases in low-cover habitats. Eur J Wildl Res. 2010;56:215-9.
    Ryckman MJ, Rosatte RC, McIntosh T, Hamr J, Jenkins D. Postrelease dispersal of reintroduced elk (Cervus elaphus) in Ontario, Canada. Restor Ecol. 2010;18:173-80.
    Sarrazin F, Bagnolini C, Pinna JL, Danchin E, Clobert J. High survival estimates of griffon vultures (Gyps fulvus fulvus) in a reintroduced population. Auk. 1994;111:853-62.
    Scott JM, Carpenter JW. Release of captive-reared or translocated endangered birds: what do we need to know? Auk. 1987;104:544-5.
    Soderquist T. The importance of hypothesis testing in reintroduction biology: examples from the reintroduction of the carnivorous marsupial Phascogale tapoatafa. In: Serena M, editor. Reintroduction biology of Australian and New Zealand fauna. Chipping Norton: Surrey Beatty & Sons; 1994. p. 156-64.
    Stamps JA, Swaisgood RR. Someplace like home: experience, habitat selection and conservation biology. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;102:392-409.
    Sutherland WJ, Armstrong D, Butchart SHM, Earnhardt JM, Ewen J, Jamieson I, Jones CG, Lee R, Newbery P, Nichols JD, Parker KA, Sarrazin F, Seddon PJ, Shah N, Tatayah V. Standards for documenting and monitoring bird reintroduction projects. Conserv Lett. 2010;3:229-35.
    Tan YM, Wu ZW. Ecological status of taoyuandong national nature reserve. Sci Silva Sin. 2009;45:52-8.
    Teixeira CP, De Azevedo CS, Mendl M, Cipreste CF, Young RJ. Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress. Anim Behav. 2007;73:1-13.
    Therneau TM, Lumley T. survival: survival analysis, including penalised likelihood. R package version 2.35-8. In: The comprehensive R archive network. 2009. . Accessed 20 Nov 2015.
    Tordoff HB, Redig PT. Role of genetic background in the success of reintroduced Peregrine Falcons. Conserv Biol. 2001;15:528-32.
    Wanless RM, Cunningham J, Hockey PAR, Wanless J, White RW, Wiseman R. The success of a soft-release reintroduction of the flightless Aldabra rail (Dryolimnas cuvieri aldabranus) on Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles. Biol Conserv. 2002;107:203-10.
    Wen ZQ, Zheng GM. Artificial raising and breeding of Cabot's tragopan (Tragopan caboti). Chin J Zool. 1998;33:22-7.
    Wolf CM, Griffith B, Reed C, Temple SA. Avian and mammalian translocations: update and reanalysis of 1987 survey data. Conserv Biol. 1996;10:1142-54.
    WPA, IUCN/SSC RSG. Guidelines for the re-introduction of galliformes for conservation purposes. Gland, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: IUCN, World Pheasant Association; 2009.
    Young L, Zheng GM, Zhang ZW. Winter movements and habitat use by Cabot's Tragopans Tragopan caboti in southeastern China. Ibis. 1991;133:121-6.
    Zhang YY, Zheng GM. A population viability analysis (PVA) for Cabot's Tragopan (Tragopan caboti) in Wuyanling, south-east China. Bird Conserv Int. 2007;17:151-61.
    Zhang YY, Zheng GM, Chang CY, Chen XD, Hao R, Wang Y. A study on the artificial insemination of Cabot's tragopan (Tragopan caboti). J Beijing Normal Univ (Nat Sci). 2002;38:117-22.
    Zhang YY, Zheng GM, Li Y, Yang M. Preserve the semen of Cabot's tragopan at low temperature. J Beijing Norm Univ (Nat Sci). 2003;39:819-22.
    Zhang YY. Semen characterization and sperm storage in Cabot's Tragopan. Poult Sci. 2006;85:892-8.
    Zheng GM, Zhao XR, Song J, Liu ZX, Zhou HQ. Feeding ecology of Cabot's Tragopan. Acta Ecol Sin. 1986;6:283-8.
    Zheng GM, Wang QS. China Red Data Book of endangered animals: Aves. Beijing: Science Press; 1998.
  • Related Articles

Catalog

    Figures(3)  /  Tables(1)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (546) PDF downloads (20) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return