Bruno Pimenta (Museu Nacional, UFRJ)

Infelizmente há sim um grande lobby em relação à conservação ex-situ, capitaneado por americanos. Mas isso não se deve a motivos ambientalistas. O fato é que projetos desse tipo chamam muito a atenção da mídia, sendo altamente atrativos para doadores (empresas, fundações, etc.). É muito bonita uma propaganda mostrando biólogos e veterinários em seus aventais brancos criando sapinhos coloridos e libertando-os na natureza, traz um retorno de marketing espantoso a qualquer marca que se associe a isso. Mas ninguém quer investir em estudos de viabilidade, ou seja, aqueles em que especialistas devem avaliar a capacidade do ambiente de receber novos indivíduos, a capacidade de sobrevivência desses mesmos indivíduos e os efeitos da reintrodução para os animais que já residiam nesse espaço. Isso não dá retorno. A função "marketeira" desses projetos é tamanha que ele foi colocado como a grande estrela do Amphibian Conservation Action Plan, um workshop com 60 cientistas de todo o mundo ocorrido em setembro do ano passado em Washington, do qual participei. Antes das discussões científicas, os organizadores já haviam soltado press-releases dizendo que a conservação ex-situ era a ÚNICA chance de sobrevivência para CENTENAS de espécies. Isso atraiu a BBC e outras grandes agências de notícias, que mandaram repórteres para cobrir o evento. Durante o evento, porém, as divergências foram várias e a maioria dos pesquisadores foi contra a adoção dessa estratégia, notadamente os sul-americanos. Mas os organizadores não retiraram a proposta da criação ex-situ do documento final, mesmo após tantos protestos. Esses grandes planos de conservação costumam usar uma estratégia principal, mais cara, altamente capaz de atrair investimentos, para conseguir financiamento também para projetos mais baratos. A conservação ex-situ cumpre bem esse papel. O problema é que projetos desse tipo são tão caros que o dinheiro empregado neles poderia ser usado na conservação do próprio ambiente, financiando vários outros estudos. Além disso, esbarra em sérios problemas legais, pois a idéia seria levar indivíduos para os Estados Unidos quando as tentativas de criação em cativeiro fossem infrutíferas em nível local. Uma
porta escancarada para a biopirataria (aquela de verdade, não essa coisa que o IBAMA tem acusado pesquisadores sérios de fazer).

Ana Carolina Carnaval (Universidade da Califórnia, Berkeley)

O Joe e alguns de outros membros da sociedade herpetológica mundial acreditam que reprodução em cativeiro seja a única resolução a curto prazo para a questão dos declínios associados a quitrídios. Mas pelo que eu entendo, esses centros de reprodução que eles estão sugerindo seriam como consórcios, envolvendo não apenas zoológicos mas tb universidades, ONGS interessadas, órgãos governamentais, enfim, quem quiser fazer parte...Eu, como muita gente na herpetologia, acho que isso não vai resolver quase nada dada a baixa taxa de sucesso de reprodução de anfíbios em cativeiro. Não somente não sabemos muito a respeito da história natural de muitas espécies, como também não sabemos como fazer muitas espécies reproduzirem em laboratório. Além do mais não sabemos o que esse pessoal irá fazer com os bichos uma vez que consigam reproduzi-los - reintroduzir na natureza? outra área sobre a qual não sabemos quase nada...ou selecionar artificialmente algumas linhages mais resistentes ao fungo? e se o fungo for só um fator nesse cenário, agindo sinergisticamente com outros fatores tal como clima, poluentes, alteração de ambientes naturais? e por fim, ainda há a questão do que selecionar para essa "arca de noé" que eles querem estão sugerindo (e implementando com as bênçãos do governo do Panamá...). Quais as prioridades nesse caso? tudo é pano para manga e eu não estou vendo nenhuma discussão a respeito dessas questões...
Enfim, há um racha na comunidade científica hoje em dia. De um lado Joe e seus colaboradores (vc vai ver logo que eles não são poucos), do outro gente que pensa mais como eu, isto é, que reprodução em cativeiro para esse fim específico, num clima quese de desespero, não vai dar muito certo. Reprodução em cativeiro pode, sim, ter seu valor como fonte de pesquisa, ou para fins educativos....mas nesse caso o objetivo é outro, muito mais ambicioso. Sobre o caso Panamá-Atlanta, particularmente acho meio absurda a situação, que aos ouvidos de muitos soa quase como biopirataria legalizada. Será que o número de bichos naquela mala é suficiente para manter populações evolutivamente viáveis a longo prazo? Acho difícil... Eu acho que o Joe realmente acredita que está fazendo uma grande coisa pelas espécies (e o povo) do Panamá. Mas a verdade é que serão poucos os países que concordarão com uma saída aparentemente indiscriminada de sua biodiversidade tal qual o governo do Panamá fez. Meu instinto é que isso nunca aconteceria em locais como o brasil, a colômbia, argentina...Em países com sociedades herpetológicas organizadas e uma maior autonomia, tal como o nosso, a banda toca em outro ritmo...

Joe Mendelson (Zoológico de Atlanta)
How many individuals did you take of each species, on average? Is the sample big enough to preserve a meaningful sample of genetic diversity?

JM - In a perfect world, to a form survival-assurance colony that best represents the full genetic variation in the native population, the founder colonies would contain a very large number of more-or-less "unrelated" individuals. In an emergency situation, however, conservationists must face reality and address situations of conflict. For example, if population genetic theory dictates that a certain population/species would require 200 individuals to best represent itself, what does a conservationist do when only 5 individuals from that population/species remain on the planet? The argument then becomes very difficult: Conduct a conservation program the "scientifically proper" way, or do not conduct a program at all. I know this sounds rather melodramatic, but in some cases with amphibians, this is the reality. This situation literally makes one compare pure scientific methodology against moral concepts related to preventing a certain extinction event. While I certainly agree with the data-based science that underscores population genetics, I see absolutely no harm done to the world by attempting to prevent a certain extinction event with an admittedly sub-optimal genetic sample. Another point to be made: it can take substantial amounts of time to assess the genetic variation in a population (interesting research in and of itself - compare cheetahs to humans), but given a prediction of an imminent catastrophe involving populations of 40+ species (whose genetic variation has never been assessed!!), what does one do?? In the singular case of El Valle, Panama, we did the simplest thing: we collected every individual we could find of every species that fit our (admittedly crude) prediction of imminent declines. This is a very crude approach but, we argue, is the best that could have been done in that circumstance. Thus our founder colonies are based, in some cases, on 4 individuals, or perhaps 40 individuals. Is this the "best" approach? No. Was it the only possible approach, given so many contingencies? Yes.

Are you being successful in breeding them incaptivity? Did you lose any species?

JM - Of the 35 species we are working with from El Valle, Panama, we have had one species that represents a complete failure: all individuals taken into captivity have died (of unknown - but not disease related - causes). That species is Hemiphractus fasciatus. At this moment they are also being found dead in their native, perfectly intact, forest as a result of the recently arrived chytrid fungus. In this case, our attempts to save a representative sample of this population/species have failed. The end result here is that our efforts failed, and the wild populations have failed to withstand the invasion of fungus. While it was horrible to watch our intended founder-individuals perish, I don’t regret that we at least attempted to work with them. Thus, we do not see that our attempt to work with this population/species in captivity has, in any way, made worse the reality of their plight in the wild. On the other hand, of the 34 remaining species, we have seen the expectable continuum of successes: some species are reproducing like crazy, others are doing so in small numbers, yet others are attempting to breed but not quite succeeding (i.e., we likely have not yet learned the secrets of their natural history, so we can provide them with what they need). Still others are showing no signs of reproducing - given that we have been working with them for less than one year, it is unclear whether this is a situation of failure on our part, or them simply not cycling yet. A very important point to make here is that simply breeding any of these species in captivity is not the ultimate solution to the problems such as that of catastrophic emerging infectious diseases!!! These pre-emptive collections of individuals (to form survival-assurance colonies) do nothing more than technically prevent extinctions, and potentially provide animals (and genetic material) that may someday be able to be reintroduced to the wild. This is where so many people misunderstand this particular aspect of the amphibian crisis: the best-preserved habitats in the world (e.g., National Parks) and the most stringent international laws (e.g., CITES) are failing to prevent amphibian extinctions. Related to this is the misconception that simply breeding animals in captivity is a real solution to the problem - it is most definitely NOT !!! The only possible solutions to global problems affecting amphibians are continued vigilance to protect habitats (of course!!!), limit trade, curtail pollution, but most dauntingly to conduct basic research related to the genetics of disease resistance in remnant populations and/or cutting-edge research related to controlling a seemingly intractable pathogen in the wild. Simply put: captive populations can do nothing more than: 1) technically prevent a true extinction (and this is a moral battleground!!); and 2) maintain populations/ species while the requisite time for research continues - i.e., such that re-introductions are possible, after necessary research has addressed the real threats. Few people are willing to articulate the blunt fact that since 1989, when amphibian declines first became apparent, direct research efforts have not prevented many dozens of certain extinctions. Those research efforts were crucial to informing our present state of knowledge and predictive capabilities, so they do not represent any form of “wasted effort.” With my recent activities, the pre-emptive collections, I am simply moving forward - in the face of data-based realities - to make the case that when one can predict a certain catastrophic decline or extinction, one has a responsibility to at least try to “do something about it.” I have never said that captive populations are the final solution, or the best response - they simply are all we can hope to accomplish in some very specific, certain circumstances.

How did you select what to take?

JM - This is a very difficult situation. Without patronizing you or the amphibians, I’ll ask if you’ve ever seen the movie “Sophie’s Choice”? In that moral framework, the best we can do is to work with precedents that suggests which species (or species of similar ecology and/or phylogenetic relations) seem to be most affected - and then we frame our priorities. Every situation will be different, but ultimately the teams making such assessments will have to face unprecedented and difficult “life boat” moral grounds of conserving any given species vs. a single “long-branch” species of given phylogenetic or ecological distinctiveness. My real response to this question is simply: Try to save them all, if there is any suggestion that a species is in threat. There is nothing to lose, as I would gladly trade “wasted” human effort and funds on a species that ultimately maintains itself, rather that watch dozens of species go extinct while traditional research and conservation agendas, and politics, fail to prevent extinctions. My point being, what do we have to lose??? National borders, intellectual property rights, and money are purely human constructs - if we can think above such human-ego-based illusions, then we can realize that, collectively, humans may have some chance of curtailing a devastating categorical extinction currently taking place globally. I will leave to you, as author of your piece, the task of making the connection between the ability/liability of humans to CAUSE a problem and the ability/responsibility of humans to RESOLVE the same problem. So, after that long preamble, I will answer your question! In El Valle, Panama, we prioritized species based on the very clear data from Karen Lips et al., from nearby El Cope, Panama. We also tried to take into account the “bigger picture” with respect to species endemic to that particular region vs. more widespread species. This was not an easy, nor pleasant, process. Did we do it properly? No. Why? Because we had to take our own logistical limitations (and well-intended, but antiquated, laws intended to prevent overcollecting) into account. Given that the amphibian fauna of El Valle is - at this moment - experiencing exactly the catastrophic disease-driven devastation that was predicted, I would have collected tens of thousands of amphibians from that region - and placed them in captivity at any facility potentially capable of maintaining them. The balance here is to compare the risk of failure of some/all captive operations with (in this case) the certain reality of extirpation/extinction in the wild.An important point to make here, is that Panama is an unusual situation because we do know exactly where the fungus occurs, and where it is going next. No other place on the planet has that level of information (i.e., predictive ability). But, some countries such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Australia have already assumed that the fungus has devastated their fauna, so their reality (with respect to aggressive actions such as pre-emptive collections) is quite different. I will defer to our colleague Ana Carnaval, to update you on the level of knowledge of threats in Brasil that are attributable to factors other than habitat loss.

After captive breeding, are they going to be reintroduced in their original distribution area?

JM - Something like this will only be possible if pure academic research can find a solution to the real threat of this particular emerging infectious disease. Again (see above), all that we have claimed to have accomplished is to provide the POSSIBILITY that reintroductions may be possible. Multiple disease-driven extinctions in places like Costa Rica and Ecuador illustrate what can happen if nothing is done, while necessary research follows its logical course. Do not confuse these specific ex-situ conservation programs (= an emergency response) with the very real need for continued research (= the real response).

Is it possible to assess if the chytrid is gone from the affected areas?

JM - No. At this point, we can only reliably detect the pathogen from infected amphibians. Thus, if all of the individuals/species that are susceptible to the disease have been eradicated, then we have no way of determining if it is still there - or not. Multiple labs are currently working to devise an environmental assay. This is a major point of validation for maintenance of crucial ex-situ colonies, while basic questions such as this are addressed by pure research.

Has the disease already hit areas from whereyou removed animals? If so, were the effects evaluated?

JM - Yes. In February 2006, our field teams began finding sick and dead frogs in the El Valle region; all tested positive for chytrid. During our operation in 2005, we tested hundreds of frogs from this area and found zero incidence of chytrid. Simply put, this is exactly the spatiotemporal prediction put forth by Lips et al (2006), and they were absolutely correct. It was, of course, their data-driven prediction that led us to implement such an unprecedented extraction at this particular. Since February, our field teams have been finding more evidently sick frogs, and fewer frogs overall in the region. All data and precedents indicate that this site will be virtually devoid of amphibians before the end of 2006. El Valle represents the last known populations of several species that have been eradicated elsewhere by the fungus. This, truly, is our last chance to try to save these species.

Was there any resistance from Panamanianresearchers or authorities issuing permits, tohave them taken out of the country?

JM - This is a very important point that, quite unfortunately, some recent high-profile media stories did not communicate to the world (although we asked them, specifically, to do so !!!!!!). The full story (and I hope you can help communicate this to our colleagues in Latin America) is that, we made a prediction based on the data presented by Lips et al. (2006) and also on our own experiences with this pathogen. In collaboration with highly the most prominent herpetologist in Panama (RANA member Dr. Roberto Ibanez), we presented the science and the predictions to the National Minister of Wildlife (ANAM). At the end of that meeting, four precedents were made:

1. The possibility of preventing extinctions of species endemic to Panama is at hand. This must be prioritized over international politics.

2. Massive collections from a fully protected area (i.e., not threatened by habitat loss, pollution, or poaching) are warranted, in this case.

3. Given that such a “pre-emptive conservation strike” has never before been attempted, the Nation of Panama, is proud to help serve as a model for future operations of this sort.

4. Stakeholders should consider prioritizing species over national patrimony - i.e., in this case, the Panamanian officials explicitly recommended that these amphibians be exported (in this case, to Atlanta).

In 2005, it was the consensus of ANAM and all national herpetologists that no facility existed in Panama to maintain large numbers of amphibians. Meanwhile, stakeholders involved worked to develop an in-country amphibian facility (the EVACC facility of El Nispero Zoo/Houston Zoo). The grand plan here is to have viable colonies to represent the region that are physically separated, for basic biosecurity reasons, in Atlanta and in El Valle. In political terms, this is a case of addressing the threat first, and subsequently building necessary infrastructure and capacity to assure that all stakeholders can ascertain their connection to the program. To be honest: I do not want to have these Panamanian frogs to be in Atlanta. They are not on public display, no corporation is mining their skins profitable medicines…..no gringo is making an money from these frogs!!! This evacuation that we accomplished was purely driven by (now, evidently, correct) forecaset of an amphibian crisis at that site. El Nispero/Houston are working hard on the EVACC facility, but it is not anticipated to be functional and staffed until August, 2006. This is very nearly, too late to serve any purpose - I hope I am wrong about that.

Couldn't captive breeding be achieved in Panama?

JM - In 2005, it was the consensus of both Panamanian scientists and government that the answer was “no” so they explicitly proposed that the first colonies of animals be exported to Atlanta. As the EVACC facility is nearing completion, collections are being made right now to be maintained in that facility. There should be no need for further exports from Panama. Similarly, we have leveraged funding to establish such facilities also in Costa Rica and Ecuador, so that exports from those countries will never be necessary.

As knowledge advances on chytrid infections could it be possible to protect frogs on-sitem (isolating an area with fungicide, for example)?

JM - I hope this is the case, as ultimately this is one of the very few practical means by which we may really prevent further extinctions. Another possibility may be furthering our understanding of the basis of heritable resistance to the fungus in wild populations. As both of these lines of study will require time, captive populations are the only evident temporary solution to attempt to ensure that when such research is complete, some species may still exist on the planet.