Research Article |
Corresponding author: Marcos José de Oliveira ( marcosjo.oliveira@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Knud Jønsson
© 2022 Marcos José de Oliveira, Francisca Helena Aguiar-Silva, Wanderlei de Moraes, Tânia Margarete Sanaiotti, Aureo Banhos, Nei Moreira.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
de Oliveira MJ, Aguiar-Silva FH, de Moraes W, Sanaiotti TM, Banhos A, Moreira N (2022) Ex situ population of the Harpy Eagle and its potential for integrated conservation. ZooKeys 1083: 109-128. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1083.69047
|
A main priority in conservation is the protection of species in their natural habitat. However, ex situ management of threatened species is a recognised strategy of conservation. Harpy Eagles (Harpia harpyja) are removed from the wild due to illegal capture, nest tree destruction, or other conflict sources. This study presents a review of the current ex situ Harpy Eagle populations in Brazil and worldwide, including information on the origin, sex, and year of entrance or year of birth under human care. Worldwide, until 2020 there were 205 Harpy Eagles in 77 different facilities in 16 countries, with 40 institutions in Brazil and 37 in other countries. The largest ex situ Harpy Eagle population is maintained in Brazil, with 139 individuals (75 females and 64 males) in 40 institutions. Of these institutions, there were 24 zoos, seven conservation breeding centres, six commercial breeders, two wildlife shelters, and one wildlife sorting centre. In Brazil, 62% (n = 86) of the individuals were hatched in the wild and 38% (n = 53) were bred in captivity under human care; for the wild individuals, only 73% (n = 64) have a known state of origin, with the majority from Pará state. This investigation provided relevant information to establish an ex situ demographic database. These individuals may potentially constitute a genetically and demographically viable safety population for future conservation strategies, as well as a source for research and education applied to Harpy Eagle integrated conservation.
Birds of prey, captive breeding, Harpia harpyja, threatened species
Conservation actions for endangered bird populations involve the maintenance of the natural habitat, with protection of the nests and offspring until they are mature enough to disperse (
The Harpy Eagle is globally classified as a Vulnerable species (
Harpy Eagle (Harpia harpyja) ex situ population in Brazil in 2020. Regions: N–North, NE–Northeast, MW–Midwest, SE–Southeast, and S–South. Management category: Zoo, ConsBr–Conservationist Breeder, ComBr–Commercial Breeder, WSC–Wildlife Sorting Centre, WS–Wildlife Shelter. IBAMA–Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis). For state acronyms, see Materials and methods.
# | Institution keeper | Region | State | City | Administration Type | Management Category | Origin of Birth | Breeding Period |
Replied Survey |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wild | Bred in Captivity | |||||||||||
♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | |||||||||
1 | Parque Zoobotânico Getúlio Vargas | NE | BA | Salvador | State | Zoo | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | Yes |
2 | Criadouro Comercial Haras Claro | NE | CE | Caucaia | Private | ComBr | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
3 | Criadouro Comercial Sítio Tibagi | NE | CE | Guaramiranga | Private | ComBr | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2006–2018 | Yes |
4 | Criadouro Conservacionista Ararajuba do Ipê – Gilrassic Park | NE | MA | Santa Inês | Private | ConsBr | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | – | – |
5 | Parque Estadual Dois Irmãos | NE | PE | Recife | State | Zoo | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
6 | Parque Estadual Zoobotânico de Piauí | NE | PI | Teresina | State | Zoo | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
7 | Parque dos Falcões | NE | SE | Itabaiana | Private | ConsBr | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | No |
8 | Centro de Triagem de Fauna Silvestre- IBAMA | N | AC | Rio Branco | Federal | WSC | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | – | – |
9 | Parque Urbano Estadual Chico Mendes | N | AC | Rio Branco | State | Zoo | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
10 | Zoológico do Centro de Instrução de Guerra na Selva | N | AM | Manaus | Federal | Zoo | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
11 | RPPN Revecom | N | AP | Santana | Private | WS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
12 | Criadouro Fazenda Paricuiã | N | PA | Terra Alta | Private | ConsBr | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – |
13 | Fundação Zoobotânica de Marabá | N | PA | Marabá | Private | Zoo | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | No |
14 | Mantenedouro de Fauna Silvestre Santo Antonio | N | PA | Ananindeua | Private | WS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | – |
15 | Parque Zoobotânico Emilio Goeldi | N | PA | Belém | Federal | Zoo | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
16 | Parque Zoobotânico Vale | N | PA | Carajás | Private | Zoo | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | Yes |
17 | Zoológico Faculdade da Amazônia – UNAMA | N | PA | Santarém | Private | Zoo | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | No |
18 | Criadouro Conservacionista Spazen | MW | DF | Brasília | Private | ConsBr | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | Yes |
19 | Fundação Jardim Zoológico de Brasília | MW | DF | Brasília | Foundation | Zoo | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
20 | Criadouro Científico Instituto Onça Pintada | MW | GO | Mineiros | Private | ConsBR | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | – | Yes |
21 | Zoológico de Goiânia | MW | GO | Goiânia | County | Zoo | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | No |
22 | Zoopark da Montanha | SE | ES | Marechal Floriano | Private | Zoo | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | – | No |
23 | CRAX Sociedade de Pesquisa de Fauna Silvestre | SE | MG | Contagem | Private | ConsBr | 3 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 1999–2005 | No |
24 | Centro de Reprodução de Falconiformes e Falcoaria Ltda- Criadouro Cerefalco | SE | MG | Patrocínio | Private | ComBr | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | – | Yes |
25 | Criadouro Científico de Aves de Rapina Pró-Raptors | SE | MG | Brumadinho | Private | ConsBr | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
26 | Criadouro Global Falcons | SE | MG | Sete Lagoas | Private | ComBr | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
27 | Fundação Zoobotânica de Belo Horizonte | SE | MG | Belo Horizonte | Foundation | Zoo | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
28 | Zoológico Vale Verde | SE | MG | Betim | Private | Zoo | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | – | No |
29 | Jardim Zoológico do Rio de Janeiro | SE | RJ | Rio de Janeiro | County/Concession | Zoo | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
30 | Fazenda Itaoca | SE | SP | Indaiatuba | Private | ComBr | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2007–2009 | Yes |
31 | Fundação Parque Zoológico de São Paulo | SE | SP | São Paulo | Foundation | Zoo | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
32 | Parque Ecológico de São Carlos | SE | SP | São Carlos | County | Zoo | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
33 | Parque Ecológico Municipal Eng. Cid Almeida Franco | SE | SP | Americana | County | Zoo | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
34 | Parque Zoológico Municipal Quinzinho de Barros | SE | SP | Sorocaba | County | Zoo | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
35 | Zooparque de Itatiba | SE | SP | Itatiba | Private | Zoo | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2012 | Yes |
36 | Criadouro Onça Pintada | S | PR | Curitiba | Private | Zoo | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | Yes |
37 | Parque das Aves | S | PR | Foz do Iguaçu | Private | Zoo | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
38 | Zoológico Municipal de Curitiba | S | PR | Curitiba | County | Zoo | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | Yes |
39 | Zoológico Roberto Ribas Lange – Itaipu Binacional | S | PR | Foz do Iguaçu | Private | Zoo | 4 | 5 | 14 | 10 | 2006–2020 | Yes |
40 | Hayabusa Falcoaria e Consultoria Ambiental | S | RS | São Francisco de Paula | Private | ComBr | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | – | Yes |
Total | 35 | 51 | 29 | 24 | – | – |
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB 1993) and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (
‘Ex situ’ was used here as defined by the IUCN ex situ Guidelines, as conditions under which individuals are spatially restricted with respect to their natural spatial patterns or those of their progeny, are removed from many of their natural ecological processes, and are managed on some level by humans (
Some information about the ex situ population of Harpy Eagle was gathered from previous data available in environmental institutions, such as wildlife raptor centres, wildlife centres, the environmental police, animal institution keepers, and breeding centres, hereafter called ex situ facilities. Three methods were used to gather data.
A literature review took place to gather data about the ex situ facilities with records of Harpy Eagles under human care in Brazil and other countries. Moreover, three data sources were updated with information from researchers that work with this species in Brazil and had previously gathered data:
A survey form was applied to 36 institutions keeping Harpy Eagles in Brazil (Suppl. material
AC Acre;
AM Amazonas;
AP Amapá;
BA Bahia;
CE Ceará;
DF Distrito Federal;
ES Espírito Santo;
GO Goiás;
MA Maranhão;
MG Minas Gerais;
PA ParáPará;
PE Pernambuco;
PI Piauí;
PR Paraná;
RJ Rio de Janeiro;
RS Rio Grande do Sul;
SE Sergipe;
SP São Paulo.
There were another five institutions keeping Harpy Eagles that were contacted after the surveys were finished. They did not receive the survey form, but their information was included in the results.
The Species360 Zoological Information Management Software (ZIMS) database (
Twenty-nine (72.5%) institutions keeping Harpy Eagles ex situ answered the survey form, which provided institutional results to be combined with the information from other sources. Seven (17.5%) institutions do not return the survey answered (Table
Thirteen records came from documented reports from 1963 to 1983 (20-years period), referring to one individual in 1966, 1972, and 1980 and two individuals in 1963, 1973, 1975, and four individuals 1979. Of those 13 individuals, only one was still alive in 2020. In the last 37 years (1984 to 2020), it was possible to document a minimum of 122 wild Harpy Eagle entrances to facilities in Brazil, with an average of 3.2 individuals/year. The highest entrance rate was nine individuals in 2004 and 2007 (Fig.
The first record of Harpy Eagle breeding under human care in Brazil was in 1995 by the former conservation breeder Erico Albuquerque de Abreu e Lima; however, the chick did not survive (
In 2020, the Harpy Eagle ex situ population in Brazil comprised 139 individuals kept in 40 institutions (Table
Of the 86 wild Harpy Eagles, 64 (74%) individuals had a known state of origin, and 22 (26%) individuals were of unknown origin. Most Harpy Eagles came from the Amazon biome, Pará state (n = 31; 35%), followed by Rondônia state (n = 10; 11%) and Amazonas state (n = 8; 9%), Mato Grosso state (n = 4; 5%), Acre state (n = 2; 2%), and Amapá state (n = 2; 2%). In addition to the Amazon biome, other biomes were also the source of wild Harpy Eagles, including the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, Bahia state (n = 4; 4%) and Paraná state (n = 1; 1%). The Cerrado had two (2%) individuals from Goiás state (Fig.
The source of their entrance to the first facility was possible to determine for 53 (60%) individuals only due to the lack of information. Records were classified as wildlife catching (33%), wildlife rescue (17%), and voluntary handover (10%). Females were the majority in all categories (Fig.
Geographic locations for the 40 Harpy Eagle facilities in Brazil were mainly in the Southeast (n = 14) and North regions (n = 10), with seven in the northeast, five in the south, and four in the midwest (Table
Among those institutions, 23 kept one Harpy Eagle pair or more individuals, while other 17 institutions kept only single. Within the institutions with one gender, there were ten zoos (11 females and 2 males), one commercial breeder (1 female), three conservation breeding (3 females and 3 males), two wildlife shelters (2 females), and one wildlife sorting centre (IBAMA; 2 females; Table
Based only on the survey information, seven institutions had some attempt or success of captive breeding from 1999 to 2020 (Table
In 2020, there were 66 Harpy Eagles kept in 37 facilities outside Brazil, distributed among 15 countries, representing 32% of the entire ex-situ population (68% were in Brazil) and 48% of all ex situ facilities (52% were in Brazil; Fig.
Lack of data regarding the capture method and place of origin (locality) of the Harpy Eagles imposed a challenge to information collection in this study. In most cases, there was a lack of data on the records of wildlife catching and rescue centres, contributing to a high number of unknown origin localities. Additionally, much information was lost when Harpy Eagles were transferred between institutions.
The first Harpy Eagle reported in the care of a zoo in Brazil was in 1895, at the Parque Zoobotânico do Museo Goeldi, in the state of Pará, one of the oldest zoos in the country (
The compilation from 1963 to 1983 did not reflect a precise quantity due to the lack of recorded files at the majority of institutions, which were our information sources. However, the compilation from 1984 to 2020 was well recorded and revealed a high rate of individuals removed from nature (3.2 individuals/year), including bird victims from conflict between birds and humans in Brazil. In 2020, four Harpy Eagles entered Brazilian ex situ facilities; this number is four times greater than the previous two years, and it was the highest number since 2012 (Fig.
The Amazon has been the major source of Harpy Eagles that have been removed from nature, and the states of origin within the region are mainly Para, Rondônia, Amazonas, and Mato Grosso, which have experienced the world’s highest absolute rate of forest destruction (
For Harpy Eagle conservation, the return of all captured Harpy Eagles in adequate health conditions back to nature, re-establishing these individuals into the natural population, is a complex process but one that is necessary for a health and functional ecosystem. There exists a decision tree to assist the assessment of birds in Brazil at stages of the process after a rescue of injured individuals or from trades and from illegal traffic or captivity (
Captive breeding can play a crucial role in the recovery of some species for which effective alternatives are unavailable in the short term, while protecting species habitats and ecosystems (
Harpy Eagle ex situ populations outside Brazil consisted of 35 wild individuals, most in South America. An important step is to understand their characteristics as a source of genetic diversity. Currently, some of those zoos in Europe that have Harpy Eagle individuals hatched in captivity are contributing to ex situ and in situ conservation of Harpy Eagles by promoting funds for research, for example, ZooParc de Beauval (France) and Tiergarten Nürnberg (Germany).
To reach the ex situ conservation goals as required by article 9 of the CBD (
Brazil maintains the largest ex situ Harpy Eagle population in the world. Brazilian institutions played an important role in breeding for ex situ conservation of the Harpy Eagle. A great number of institutions in South and Central America keep wild individuals, while North America and Europe mainly keep individuals bred in captivity under human care. Information about ex situ individuals must be incorporated into a studbook for Harpy Eagle population management. These individuals may potentially constitute a genetically and demographically viable backup population for future conservation attempts, as well as a source of research and education applied to Harpy Eagle conservation. The Harpy Eagle ex situ population must be used in integrated planning to support in situ population conservation.
We thank the Binational Itaipu for support. Funding support was obtained from the Cleveland Zoo, Fundação O Boticário de Proteção à Natureza, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito Santo (FAPES), Beauval Nature, Tiergarten Nürnberg, Instituto Internacional de Educação do Brasil (IEB), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA), and Projeto Harpia. An FHAS post-doc Grant was obtained from CNPq-PDJ152371/2019–2. We thank the Harpy Project Ex Situ Coordinator Yara Barros for her technical support. Additionally, we thank the institutions that shelter and/or breed Harpy Eagle in Brazil for their participation by providing answers to the survey and/or receiving the Projeto Harpia team at their facilities between 2001 and 2020, as listed in table 1. We also thank the institutions that are no longer Harpy Eagle keepers but received the Projeto Harpia team: CRAS – Campo Grande – MS; Criadouro Erico A de Abreu e Lima-DF; Criadouro Tropicus; Parque Zoológico Sapucaia do Sul-RS; Parque Zoobotânico Gavião-real (Capitão Poço); Zoológico de São José do Rio Preto – SP; Zoológico da UFMT-Cuiabá; Fundação Museo de Ornitologia and IBAMA – Cetas (Manaus e Parintins-AM, Guarantã do Norte-MT, Macapá-AP, Goiânia-GO, Belém-PA); Cetas UHE Santo Antonio-RO; and Cetas UHE Belo Monte – PA. A number of researchers and experts helped to complete the database for this study: from South America, José Hidasi, Nicolas Neumann, Andrea Mabel Morales Vargas, Mario Daniel Zambrana Lopez, Raul Rojas, Claudia Venegas, Alex Ospina, Sandy Zangen, Joep Hendrix, Ruth Muniz López, Olivier Bongard, José Antonio Otero, Tatiana Rivarola, Jorge Mauricio De la O Castro, Antonio Fernandini Guerrero, Pilar Alexander Blanco, and Andrea Echeverry; from Central America, Karla Aparicio and Angel Muela; from North America, Eduardo Alvarez-Cordero, Alan Monroy Oyeda, and Frank Camacho; from Europe, Lorenzo Von Fersen. This is publication #13 of the Harpy Eagle Project (Projeto Harpia). This study is part of MJO’s Master’s degree at the Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR). We are grateful to Israel Schneiberg for the updates to the figures. The images of harpies in Figs
Table S1
Data type: docx. file
Explanation note: Survey form sent to 40 Harpy Eagles (Harpia harpyja) ex situ facilities in Brazil.
Table S2
Data type: docx. file
Explanation note: Harpy Eagle (Harpia harpyja) ex situ population outside Brazil in 2020. SAm-South America, CAm-Central America, NAm-North America, EU-Europe.