Reintroduction success depends in part on the release strategy used. Benefits are attributed to particular release strategies but few studies have tested these assumptions. We examined the effect of delayed release (a form of so-called soft release) on the survival of a threatened passerine, the New Zealand hihi Notiomystis cincta, for up to 7 months after translocation. Birds were captured at the source site and then held in captivity for disease screening. They were then taken to the release site, where 30 were released immediately and 28 were held for a further 2–4 days in an on-site aviary. Twenty-four birds were fitted with radio-transmitters. A 1,300 ha area around the release site was searched fortnightly, and survival was analysed using a multi-state model that accounted for the effect of transmitters on detection probability. Our results indicated that delayed release had a negative effect on long-term survival, but no effect was apparent in the first 6 weeks. Survival probability from 6 weeks to 7 months post-release was 0.77 ± SE 0.20 for immediate-release birds and 0.04 ± SE 0.06 for delayed-release birds. Our results suggest that there is a misconception about the benefits of delayed-release strategies during translocation of wild animals. Studies that have demonstrated a benefit of delayed release in other bird species used captive-bred individuals, and we suggest that wild individuals perceive captivity differently. We recommend that biological context is considered before delayed release is used in translocations.

Awareness of parasite risks in translocations has prompted the development of parasite management protocols, including parasite risk assessment, parasite screening and treatments. However, although the importance of such measures seems obvious it is difficult to know whether the measures taken are effective, especially when working with wild populations. We review current methods in one extensively researched case study, the endemic New Zealand passerine bird, the hihi Notiomystis cincta. Our review is structured around four of the 10 questions proposed by Armstrong & Seddon (Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2008: 23, 20–25) for reintroduction biology. These four questions can be related directly to parasites and parasite management and we recommend using this framework to help select and justify parasite management. Our retrospective study of recent disease and health screening in hihi reveals only partial overlap with these questions. Current practice does not focus on, or aim to reduce, the uncertainty in most steps of the risk assessment process or on evaluating whether the measures are effective. We encourage targeted parasite management that builds more clearly on available disease risk assessment methodologies and integrates these tools within a complete reintroduction plan.