Chapter 37: Ex-situ conservation of wild pigs and peccaries431
number of founders, and thus experience increasing inbreeding
and low retention of gene diversity. If this species is deemed an
important exhibit species, this situation holds risks in terms of
inbreeding depression and loss of evolutionary potential. The
high management level might be unexpected for a population
without a direct conservation role, but at least in EAZA it is
there to make the best use of what little gene diversity is present
and to help limit population growth in this very popular exhibit
species (Figure 37.4) in order to reduce space competition with
other, more threatened, tropical wild pig species (Reiter 2012).
Likewise, AZA aims to keep the population stable at its current
level and does careful genetic management of breeding combi-
nations (Holland et al. 2014). EEP and SSP work well together
and have exchanged individuals to maximize the meagre
genetic potential (Reiter 2012). Due to veterinary restrictions
it is extremely doubtful that more founders can be added to the
populations from Africa. To date, this beautiful, group-living,
very popular exhibit species has been insufficiently utilized to
spread conservation messages (for example, concerning bush-
meat trade, rainforest loss, etc.) and to garner conservation sup-
port for threatened species in the same habitat.
Zoo Populations of Other Wild Pigs
and Peccaries
In total, eight wild pig species and all three peccary species are
held by Species360 member institutions (Table 37.3). Three pig
species, the Eurasian wild pig (Sus scrofa), Sunda bearded pig (Sus
barbatus), and bushpig (Potamochoerus larvatus), do not have
managed programmes. The latter two are only present in very
small numbers. However, it is striking that the most numerous
taxon held is the Eurasian wild pig with 855 individuals living
in 122 institutions spread over five regions. The overwhelming
majority of these are not determined to subspecies level, likely
due to a combination of the large and varying number of subspe-
cies described (e.g. Genov 1999; Groves 2008; Groves & Grubb
2011; Chapter 1 of this volume) and the uncertain origin of indi-
viduals. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the majority rep-
resents the non-threatened ‘western races’ or the ‘scrofa g r o u p ’.
Replacing these individuals with those of more threatened taxa
that are the subject of conservation breeding efforts is not as
straightforward as it may seem. For example, Eurasian wild pigs
are cold-tolerant, whereas the tropical taxa need heated indoor
enclosures and many European zoos have European sections
where they showcase local species. Nevertheless, holders are
encouraged to replace Eurasian wild pigs with programme spe-
cies as much as possible. It is also noteworthy that the next most
numerous wild pig species are the non-threatened red river hog
and common warthog (although half of the latter population
lives in two institutions in the African region). There are rec-
ommendations in EAZA and AZA to limit holdings of these
two species to the benefit of Visayan warty pigs and Sulawesi
babirusa, but again, this is not a straightforward replacement.
It is taking time to pull the babirusa EEP population out of the
demographic crisis it is currently in, thus limiting the short-
term availability of babirusa. In addition, a good proportion of
these African pigs is being held in African-themed exhibits in
the zoos (Figure 37.4) and cannot easily be replaced with Asian
species. Furthermore, the red river hog is an extremely beauti-
ful species that can be held in larger groups and is therefore a
very popular exhibit species. Less pretty – and I acknowledge
that this is subjective – more threatened species sometimes loseFigure 37.4 Red river hogs
(Potamochoerus porcus) sharing a
savanna exhibit with giraffe (photo by
Emmen Zoo/Rob Doolaard). (A black
and white version of this figure will
appear in some formats. For the colour
version, please refer to the plate section.).03913:02:26