**Abstract**

Conservation translocation is frequently used to conserve the threatened fauna by releasing individuals from the wild or captive populations into a particular area. This approach, however, is not successful in many cases because the translocated populations could not self-sustain in the new habitats. In this chapter, I reviewed the concept of translocation for conservation and the factors associated with the success rate. I used example problems from several cases involving different insect taxa. With its often high potential to mass rear in captivity, captive breeding can be a powerful tool by assuring large population size for insect translocation, which can result in a high success rate. However, genetic consequences from inbreeding and genetic adaptation to captivity can reduce the fitness of the captive population to establish successfully in the wild. Additionally, as the evidence in Japanese fireflies shows, the genetic differences between the translocated and local populations should be considered for a sustainable translocation program. A case study involved genetic and behavioral evaluation of *S. aquatilis* populations to assess the possibility of including the species for the firefly translocation program in Thailand. Although the results revealed no genetic variation among populations, examination of the variation in flash signals showed that the long-distance population had a longer courtship flash pulse than other populations in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region. With no geographical barrier, the light pollution and urbanization are probably important fragmented barriers causing adaptation of flash communication to increase the fitness. As a consequence, firefly translocation should consider flash variation between populations to prevent this potential pre-mating isolation mechanism from resulting in probable lower translocation success rates.

**Keywords:** Lampyridae, aquatic firefly, *Sclerotia aquatilis*, flashing behavior, population genetic, intraspecific variation, TiLIA software

## **1. Introduction**

Fireflies have long been attracted the attention of people because of their fascinating flashing communication behavior [1]. In the past, firefly flashes on mangrove trees along the river were used as landmarks for boat navigation in the nighttime; while nowadays firefly habitats become "firefly tour sites" for nighttime activity and for supporting economic benefit to local communities [2]. Unfortunately, firefly populations decrease or disappear from many areas

worldwide due to habitat loss from growing of city developments, light pollution, water pollution and pesticide uses, which cause habitat destruction or fragmentation [3–7]. This same situation is faced by other insects [8]. In addition, firefly tourism without proper management could result in decreased firefly populations [2, 9, 10]. The problem has, thus, led to increased public awareness of firefly conservation.

Firefly conservation by reintroduced captive populations into the wild has received much attention. The successful captive breeding of some firefly species has intrigued numerous naturalists and conservationists including tourism stakeholders to plan to introduce captive breeding firefly populations into many areas to create firefly conservation sites, environmental learning centers and firefly tourism spots. The firefly mass rearing has been successful in some aquatic species, including *Aquatica leii* [11], *A. ficta* [12], *A. hydrophila* [13], *A. lateralis* [14], *S. aquatilis* [15, 16], and *S. substriata* [17]. A few of them have been used for conservation translocation. Many parks in Taipei, Taiwan were restored for suitable habitat and captive bred *A. ficta* fireflies were released [18–22]. In Korea, *L. lateralis* habitat (both running water and lentic water areas) was artificially created for releasing the mass reared populations of the species for ecotourism purposes [23]. As a symbol of nature in Japan, many firefly reintroduction and restoration projects of *L. cruciata* and *L. lateralis* have been done over the centuries, but not all of them have been successful [24]. Unfortunately, there are many cases showing strong ecological impact of introduced firefly populations on the native populations, which might eventually lead to the loss of the native populations in Japan [25]. This problem occurs where there is geographical isolation, based on examined differences of flash rate and genetic studies [26]. Therefore, the study of the impact of firefly translocation is essential prior to implementation of the program. Such impact studies have been lacking in Thai firefly translocation projects. Background information on genetic and behavioral variations among populations is necessary for development of a sustainable firefly reintroduction programs.

### **2. General aspects of translocations for conservation**

Conservation translocation (population restoration) or called "ex situ conservation." Under the definition of the IUCN this is the intentional movement of released organisms from one to another site for conservation benefits [27]. That consists of two terms: (i) "reinforcement" which is augmenting a species where it already exists and (ii) "reintroduction" which is returning a species back to where it has disappeared [28]. With the increasing of habitat loss and fragmentation resulting in high species extinction rates and reduction of overall biodiversity, translocation of species may become an important management tool for recovery of the diminished or lost populations.

Many translocation programs have been carried out in many rare, threatened and keystone species to conserve species and genetic diversity. For example, European bison [29], Lake Sturgeon [30], Persian wild ass [31], green and golden bell frog [32], red wolves [33], and a few insects, (i.e., damselfly [34], field cricket [35] and fireflies [25]). Most of them have involved vertebrates, especially mammals and birds [36]. Consequently, translocation became an important conservation technique for birds in New Zealand [37]. However, as mentioned above, little work has been done in insect taxa.

The success of translocations was defined as resulting in self-sustaining populations in the release area. The success rate is affected by many factors. For example, species, habitat quality of the release areas, location of the release point, origin of

#### *Firefly Translocation: A Case Study of Genetic and Behavioral Evaluation in Thailand DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97455*

animals (captivity or wild), food habit (carnivore, herbivore and omnivore), clutch size, population density and competitors [36]. The research analyzed from translocation studies of 134 bird and 64 mammal projects concluded that the keys for high translocation success rate were releasing wild-caught animals, having herbivore food habits, releasing a large density, releasing in excellent quality habitats and releasing at the center of the area. In addition, the reproduction rate and generation length might affect the population sizes, chances of survival and genetic diversity of the target [38].

Many problems of population establishment from translocation were investigated. The small released populations might result in demographic and genetic consequences, for example, inbreeding depression [38]. Moreover, in the cases of releasing of a captive breeding population, the captive-born individuals provided from benign and stable breeding environments frequently have reduced fitness and high extinction rates after release into the wild. The physiological, behavioral and ecological problems from inbreeding depression, mutation accumulation, loss of genetic diversity and genetic adaptation to captivity were considered [39–43]. These could affect success of translocation programs through low adaptive potential to environmental changes [44]. Thus, many recommendations for dealing with the genetic issues are as follow: (i) minimizing numbers of generations in captivity, (ii) maintaining isolated captive populations with different genetic strains to reduce genetic load, (iii) allowing half-sib mating in captivity to reduce genetic adaptation to captivity and preserve genetic variation, (iv) minimizing kinship by equalizing family sizes and crossing, (v) observing the behaviors that might be lost in captivity, (vi) creating a rearing environment similar to the natural habitat to minimize the artificial selection, (vii) evaluating other risks (i.e., diseases), (viii) and collecting and analyzing long-term monitoring data routinely [39, 41–42, 45–47]. Although returning a lost species might not be same as the outcome of ecosystem restoration, the species perform ecosystem functions and generally relate to the other species. Polak and Saltz [48] suggested that the study on the effects of reintroductions on ecosystem functions should be integrated into the programs. Further, an overlooked issue of genetic impact is genetic contamination by maladaptive genotypes from reproductive crossing between genetically differentiated populations. That could push the recipient population toward extinction [49]. Therefore, the introgression with the population having local genetic makeup could result in a well-adapted population with similar morphological and ecological characters to local types.
