Born to be wild: effects of rearing density and environmental enrichment on stress, welfare, and smolt migration in hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon

With recent increases in the numbers of species reintroduction projects and reintroduction-related publications, there is now a recognizable field of reintroduction biology. Nevertheless, research thus far has been fragmented and ad hoc, rather than an organized attempt to gain reliable knowledge to improve reintroduction success. We reviewed 454 recent (1990-2005) peer-reviewed papers dealing with wildlife reintroductions from 101 journals. Most research has been retrospective, either opportunistic evaluations of techniques or general project summaries, and most inference is gained from post hoc interpretation of monitoring results on a species-by-species basis. Documentation of reintroduction outcomes has improved, however, and the derivation of more general principles via meta-analyses is expected to increase. The fragmentation of the reintroduction literature remains an obstacle. There is scope to improve reintroduction biology by greater application of the hypothetico-deductive method, particularly through the use of modeling approaches and well-designed experiments. Examples of fruitful approaches in reintroduction research include experimental studies to improve outcomes from the release of captive-bred animals, use of simulation modeling to identify factors affecting the viability of reintroduced populations, and the application of spatially explicit models to plan for and evaluate reintroductions. We recommend that researchers contemplating future reintroductions carefully determine a priori the specific goals, overall ecological purpose, and inherent technical and biological limitations of a given reintroduction and that evaluation processes incorporate both experimental and modeling approaches. We suggest that the best progress will be made when multidisciplinary teams of resource managers and scientists work in close collaboration and when results from comparative analyses, experiments, and modeling are combined within and among studies.

Given the connection between chronic stress and health, there has been a growing emphasis on identifying chronically stressed wild animals, especially in relation to anthropogenic disturbances. There is considerable confusion, however, in how to identify chronically stressed wild animals, but the most common assumption is that measures of glucocorticoid (GC) function will increase. In an attempt to determine an "endocrine profile" of a chronically stressed wild animal, this review collected papers from the literature that measured baseline GC, stress-induced GC, measures of integrated GC, negative feedback, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis sensitivity, and/or body weight in chronically stressed animals. The collected studies encompassed laboratory and field studies, numerous diverse species, and multiple techniques for inducing chronic stress. Each paper was ranked according to its relevance to wild animals and scored as to whether the measured response increased, decreased, or stayed the same after exposure to chronic stress. The analyses uncovered so much variation between studies that the literature does not support a generalized endocrine profile in how wild animals respond to chronic stress. The common predictions appear to be based almost entirely on theoretical models rather than empirical data. The three most important variables affecting GC responses were the stressors used to induce chronic stress, the potential for those stressors to induce habituation, and the taxon of the focal species. The best approach for identifying a chronically stressed population appears to be documentation of changes at multiple levels of GC regulation, but the direction of the change (increase or decrease) may be relatively unimportant compared to the fact that the response changes at all. The conclusion is that a consistent, predictable, endocrine response to chronic stress, regardless of the protocol used to induce chronic stress and the species under study, does not exist. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.