T he threats to biodiversity resulting
from human activities, and the understandable
reluctance to perturb their
study subject, often prevent ecologists
from developing their own large-scale experiments.
Therefore, long-term monitoring
or experiments on model species are
often used, but this may limit the range of
testable hypothesesi-3. Meanwhile, faced
with the increasing numbers of translocation&
s, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (now IUCN - The
World Conservation Union) proposed in
1987 to define reintroduction as the introduction
of a species in a previously occupied
area in order to improve the conservation
of the species. Reintroduced individuals
may come from captive breeding programs
or be translocated from natural
populations. The IUCN also recommended
that reintroduction programmes incorporate
feasibility studies and preparatory,
introduction and monitoring period@.
Moreover, restoration of the original habitat
and amelioration of causes of extinction
were considered as essential conditions
for these projects. Unfortunately, the
monitoring period that should follow re
introductions often remains neglected4JJ
or is documented only in ‘grey’ literature.
Our purpose is to show that, in order
to combine the recommendations of the
IUCN and the Sustainable Biosphere
Initiativeg, reintroduction programs should
systematically include ecologists who are
proficient in population biology and genetics,
behavioural ecology and evolution.
They could then generate a fruitful approach
for testing hypotheses in basic
ecology, and particularly in population
biology (Box 1). Without overlooking conservation
issues, reintroduction programs
could provide important opportunities for
474 0 1996, Elsevier Science Ltd
real-scale hypothetico-deductive experiments
in ecology.