It’s not a new topic and in fact it is one that I recently discussed in “A Silent Mass Extinction”.  I also doubt that I’m treading on novel ground by incorporating spiders, centipedes, insects, invertebrates, bugs, or whatever you prefer to use as an everyday descriptive term, in my definition of wildlife.  I guess to make things simple, wildlife is the Animal Kingdom no matter the taxa; at least as far as I’m concerned when picking appropriate subjects for this blog. 

So why the disclaimer?  Well, in the throes of a rather innocuous business conference call my mind was wandering through the sphere of scientific publications and I discovered yet another report that highlighted the lack of attention given to our invertebrate brethren.  Which as I have stated before is both surprising since insects are the majority  of animal species (estimated between 2.5 and 10 million species) and not surprising because of their overall deficiency in the cuteness factor.  As opposed to repeating  the number of insects in jeopardy of extinction, the researchers explored a unique approach that involved…crayons.

We have all heard the songs, quips, and philosophies that tell us children are tomorrow’s leaders, our hope for conservation, our future, and our world.   And all of that is based on the fact that childhood experiences can influence lifelong perceptions.

“Children’s perceptions of animals and the natural environment can be diverse, although their ideas are based around isolated facts and misconceptions are common.  Forest habitats and definitions of the environment are usually characterized as wild places and a habitat for animals.”

“Familiarity and aesthetics are important factors governing children’s connections with animals, exemplified by the popularity of mammals and birds. Of all animals, invertebrates are least understood…”

“Despite children’s awareness of rainforest biodiversity, several taxa, particularly social insects, insects and annelids, are still under-represented compared to their contribution to rainforest biomass and global biodiversity. Such a finding supports previous studies, and may be driven by a variety of factors. Two likely explanations for this are that children are more aware of larger taxa or that children prefer larger taxa. An additional factor in the latter point could be that children drew larger taxa because they felt that this would give them a better chance of winning the competition (perhaps because they deem them to be prettier). Either of these explanations reveals that children’s perceptions focus on mammals and birds and undervalues the true importance of invertebrates.”

The proportion of different rainforest fauna divided by taxa drawn by different age-classes of primary children.

Snaddon, J., Turner, E., & Foster, W. (2008). Children’s Perceptions of Rainforest Biodiversity: Which Animals Have the Lion’s Share of Environmental Awareness? PLoS ONE, 3 (7) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002579

In a previous incarnation of the site back in mid-2008, I posted the following picture from Oro Verde: The Rainforest Foundation in a constantly revolving section I called rants.  Thus, I thought I’d bring it back and set it in blogger stone commonly called archives.

Literally since the dawn of man, the quest for survival has resulted in the need for wildlife management and conservation.  As man and man’s habits (nomadic, sedentary) evolved, so too did wildlife management and conservation techniques; taking us from a point of pure anthropocentricity to a place where the health of the system is directly related to the health of our own species…all species.

Stan Rowe (1918-2004), Professor Emeritus at the University of Saskatchewan and lifelong ecologist, presented a fairly radical view of the world that may well differ from wildlife management officials, but makes scientific sense to me and perhaps for you as well.  The basis of his contention is that the world has established an organizational hierarchy based on complexity: cells contained in tissues, tissues contained in organs, organs contained in organisms, and organisms contained in ecosystems.

Earth before organisms. Ecosystems before people. Ecosphere not biosphere. Ecocentrism not biocentrism. Ecodiversity not biodiversity.
-The Trumpeter (2001), From Shallow To Deep Ecological Philosophy, Stan Rowe

Expanding on Rowe’s organizational hierarchy, I believe this truly is the way to view the Earth system.  For instance, I can grow a single cell in a tissue culture plate that requires a set of minimum conditions to ensure survival.  However, these minimum conditions are not going to make “happy” cells. By adjusting media concentrations, incubating at optimal temperature, adjusting the carbon dioxide levels, and other biotic and abiotic factors, etc., that single cell will not just survive but thrive, which is what I believe to be the ultimate goal of wildlife conservation. We need to understand not only what the minimal conditions are, but we need to know what the optimal conditions are on a hierarchal basis. That is the only way to ensure true ecosystem sustainability.

I am a firm follower of the need to preserve the health of the entire system as a means to manage and conserve individual species (i.e. salmon) and resources (i.e. water quality). Plus, I am also quite partial to conserving resources simply on the basis of aesthetics.  Thus, you could say I adhere to the ecocentric view.  However, the pragmatist in me realizes that not all individuals that constitute our global society feel the same way and many actually, and some quite adamantly, attest to the fact that nature is a resource to serve mankind.  To these segments we must use key words like value, money, and cost-benefit to ensure conservation and sustainable management practices are instituted.

To that end, fisheries and wildlife conservation is even more complex than many people believe. So I’ll leave you with a quote in the realm of deep ecology and one that sums up the sheer complexity of this issue is: “In other words, to successfully conserve natural resources, you must be a biologist, psychologist, anthropologist, sociologist, economist, and a philosopher all at once.”

On an existential side note, cannot all human action, including conservation and management practices, be reduced to an anthropocentric view?  Especially since we must come to realize that human actions and environmental modifications can and will result in negative responses unto ourselves.

Just happened to do some browsing over at Wild Light (http://www.bugdreams.com)  and came across some incredibly photogenic  insects that got the wheels turning.  At first I was wondering if we have forgotten about this heavily weighted class of biomass, but then I realized a few buzzing pollinators have occupied the headlines over the past few years in regards to declining numbers…you know the story.  And their [insects] importance to a fully functioning ecosystem is utterly undeniable so here’s the spin.

As populations continue to cross the globe with non-native animals and plants in tow we have indirectly introduced foreign invaders and under the guise of agro-science, for instance, have unleashed directly a host of other exoskeleton intruders throughout the past.  But remember the native insects; those evolutionarily adapted to certain habitats and prey and kept in balance by predators?

As native plants are ousted by competitive invasive species, it is not only the birds and mammals that have to contend with a changing habitat but those so-called pesky insects we are always trying to avoid. So what effect does encroaching invasive plants have on insect abundance, and the food web?  Against my initial best guess, according to researchers at the University of Bristol, oddly enough insect abundance was not driven lower with the decline of native plant species.  However, a happy ending it was not as biodiversity suffered greatly.

In one study, larger, specialized, native and more diverse insect species were replaced by smaller invasive generalists that effectively balanced out the biomass load. This change in biodiversity limited the range of species available for predators, and introduced seasonal shifts.  Thus, predators that relied on a once predicted insect emergence were unable to find food at pivotal times such as the breeding season.  It is not just about quantity but quality when it comes to insects, at least as seen by birds, bats, and all the other creatures that depend on this class for sustenance.

As per Ruben Heleno, University of Bristol, “Given that all insects are not equally useful as prey, insect biodiversity is likely to provide a more meaningful picture of the impact of alien plants on higher trophic levels.”

The ripple effect from plant to insect to animal travels the food web and can ultimately create an ecosystem-wide transformation from which we, and especially native wildlife, cannot recover .  By the way, besides changing insect dynamics, increasing non-native plants can also result in the introduction of different seed patterns that may or may not coincide with the lifecycle’s of native wildlife.

Well after a week of battling a hosting issue, I am finally back online and able to access my account.  However, I think the headache will be worth it as the updates made to JournOwl.com will increase site usability , especially enabling visitor comments that I hope will spur discussion and continue to link ecologically minded individuals.

Now getting back to the hybridization question I started a few weeks back, I wanted to explore the role it has as an evolutionary tool.  Interspecific hybridization has been described as a window into the evolutionary process because they [hybrids] are a culmination of genetic material from previously isolated gene pools. Publications routinely recognize the importance of hybridization and introgression in the plant community, but as it turns out the implications in animal species is less defined. 

With the reduction of natural barriers and wildlife population numbers, I wonder if we are on the verge of witnessing an increase in the interaction of species that at one time practiced genetic separation.  I’ve already mentioned some newsworthy specimens such as blue/fin whale and polar/grizzly bear hybrids in the previous post, and there are many more especially in fish of the U.S. Southwest, but where do these genetic middlemen fit in as far as diversification and evolution?

Typically speaking, hybrids  have a combination of genes that have not withstood the test of time and as such have not been evolutionarily fine-tuned.  Thus, hybrid individuals often display biological differences like faster or slower growth and reproductive inefficiencies, behavioral proclivities that make it difficult to find mates, and physiological traits that may increase predation.  Because of the repercussions, hybridization usually finds itself as a dead end, but not always.

There have definitely been successful species produced as a result of hybridization, and perhaps as habitats continue to undergo rapid changes and populations diminish sharply we will encounter more and more hybrids that have suddenly become ecologically efficient and filling new niches.  After all, species are not in a position to wait for gene combinations to be fined-tuned through evolution.  Maybe it is time to update the age old species adage “Adapt, Migrate, Die” and add Hybridize as a fourth option.

According to J. Mallet in 2005, “Phylogenetic hotspots, where approximately 25% of animal species hybridize, include British duck and game bird species, and American warblers and butterflies, but overall, 6–12% of bird, butterfly, and mammal species hybridize naturally.”

Not quite as exciting to the average person as hybrid mammals, a recent study has provided evidence that hybridization amongst corals has contributed to reef diversity and resilience, and has been “instrumental in their diversification on evolutionary timescales. Evidence that coral hybrids colonize marginal habitats distinct from those of parental species’ and that hybridization may be more frequent at peripheral boundaries of species’ ranges supports a role for hybridization in range expansion and adaptation to changing environments. We conclude that outcomes of hybridization are significant for the future resilience of reef corals and warrant inclusion in conservation strategies (Willis, BL. 2006. The role of hybridization in the evolution of reef corals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:489–517).”

Picture: Mallard Hybrid, FWS (2006)

Who you gonna call? Raccoons! Well, that’s what a new study in Biological Conservation is suggesting in regards to threatened loggerhead turtles. Conservation plans typically call for raccoon management tactics as they are notorious sea turtle egg harvesters. At face value it makes sense to control sea turtle egg predation by keeping such nest raiders at bay, but researchers have actually found that lower instances of nest predation occur in areas where there are more raccoons.

It turns out that raccoons have a taste for ghost crabs in addition to turtle eggs, and by removing them from the ecosystem the natural balance of the food web is upset. A low population of raccoons leads to an increased population of ghost crabs, which ultimately results in higher turtle egg predation.

Besides the obvious point that over time nature has established a functioning system reliant upon biodiversity, it also attests to the notion that if the food web changes at a faster rate than the population, then the population may not be able to recover (i.e. extinction); effectively upsetting the sustainability of the lower systems that depend upon the more complex systems for survival. In this case raccoons, ghost crabs and sea turtles are important in each other’s continued existence. There is a cause and effect that flows both ways and the effects may or may not be seen immediately.

By rapidly altering the ecosystem and increasing the state/structural change faster than that at the population level, wildlife within the system are unable to cope. In order to have a long-term management plan for sea turtles, officials must work to ensure that the ecosystem remains intact and functional. Thus, short-term actions aimed at population recovery must be supported by ecosystem preservation plans that ensure support of the entire community, which by the way includes all the species that comprise the loggerhead’s food web.

Wildlife management is a very intricate concept or process that is easily stated in the phrase “Protection of the ecosystem”, but is extremely difficult to implement when the complexities of wildlife populations, food webs, habitats, human presence, and politics are involved.

I guess I was not paying that much attention as it was only within the last two weeks that I discovered 2008 had been designated the Year of the Frog.  Well, with a little more than a month to go I thought I would make a contribution to the plight of our amphibian cohabitants.  In the early days of mining, canaries were used as indicators of the presence of poisonous gases.  Acting as an early warning system, miners were alerted to the existence of undetectable noxious gases when the canary died or passed out in its cage.  Upon this observation, the miners would flee the underground cavern to avoid asphyxiation.  Although we have all heard these stories at some point in our lives and through life have been trained to recognize warning signs, our society seems to be overlooking another undetectable danger.

Just like the mine canaries of the past, today’s amphibians are providing an early warning system of the health, or lack of health of their environments.  Frogs, salamanders, toads and other amphibians are quite sensitive to the contamination that is steadily increasing and being released into the environment.  Fertilizers, herbicides, detergents and pesticides, etc. are wreaking havoc on their populations and exponentially increasing the presence of deformities and abnormalities.

Because amphibians breathe, in part, and absorb water through their skin, pollutants are easily entering their bodies.  In addition to the susceptibility of adults to environmental hazards, eggs and larvae are at an even greater risk.  As described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Exposure to contaminants during development can lead to frogs with many different types of malformations, including frogs without eyes, with extra or missing legs and, in some cases, the malformations may be deadly.”

As indictor species, scientists and conservationists are scrambling to determine the cause and effect relationship between the increased number of amphibian malformations and deformities, the health quality of the environment and those species dependent on amphibians for survival; simply stated, the preservation of biodiversity and sustainability of the ecosystem. 

What can you do to protect amphibians?

1. Avoid the use of herbicides and weed killers.  Try mulching and pulling weeds
2. Minimize the use of fertilizers.  Over fertilizing is a common urban problem that results in excesses being carried away by water runoff (as well as pesticides and herbicides) and pollutes critical habitats.  Researchers at Oregon State found low levels of nitrates are enough to kill some species of amphibians (U.S. FWS 2003). 
3. Reduce the use of pesticides.  Homeowners use approximately 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on their crops.
4. Plant native species, they are often tolerant to the pests and diseases found in your region.
5. Avoid pesticides that contain DEET (a chemical very harmful to amphibians)
6. Dispose of household products, paints, auto fluids and detergents properly.  Dumping them into sewers and drains often results in contamination of waterways.

Before we completely asphyxiate our wetlands, estuaries, ponds, streams, and environments, let’s take the time to recognize the warning signs currently on display. Promoting responsible actions and working to protect the wildlife and habitats of our communities will ensure survival, rehabilitation and healthier, cleaner environments that benefit all residents who share this planet.

More than 60% of Americans believe global warming is already wielding change with its hot hand (Gallup, April 21, 2008), and things get a little bit stickier when one tries to nail down whether the green house effect is manmade, a natural climate cycle, or a combination of the two. My personal take is that there is something to be said for natural variability, but much like Newton’s 3rd law of motion, common sense dictates that flooding our oceans, waterways, atmosphere, and environment with pollutants is not an “effect-less” practice.

But, I do not necessarily want to rehash the current state of the global warming spat. Instead I found a new article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which climate change “may also help to explain the seemingly nonrandom pattern of species loss among certain plant groups (Phylogenetic patterns of species loss in Thoreau’s woods are driven by climate change, 2008).”

According to the findings, over the last 150 years in Concord, MA 27% of plant species have gone extinct and the populations of 36% have decreased by such an enormous extent that extinction appears to be forthcoming. Additionally, the author found that certain evolutionarily related groups are more vulnerable to temperature increases and will definitely decline.

Yes, this site is dedicated to wildlife and as such I can’t help but extrapolate the implications to our fauna with the loss of phylogenetic plant groups. Invariably, some animal species are more directly and indirectly susceptible to climate change and we will witness their downturn. Specialization is a perfect example that has allowed certain species (panda bear, karner blue butterfly) to fill a niche, but presents problems as habitats and ecosystems change rapidly.

If entire groups of plants have already been rendered extinct in Concord because of global warming then it is safe to say that this is not a regional trend, but a national development that will ultimately affect biodiversity.

Arriving at my doorstep sometime within the last few weeks was the latest volume of the Journal of Conservation Biology.  After shuffling it around from room to room, I finally peered inside and was struck by a new publication addressing the issues surrounding sun grown coffee.  I thought this was a subject that had already been settled, and one in which coffee drinkers worldwide should be thoroughly familiar, but perhaps I was wrong.

I didn’t consider myself sheltered, but after reading the manuscript I discovered that there was actually a movement working to convince the masses that coffee farms were actually vehicles for preserving rainforest flora and fauna.  The exact quote stated, “Coffee agroecosystems have received substantial attention for their apparent capacity to protect biodiversity.”  Thus, I seem to have underestimated coffee bean denial and realized that we still need to disseminate data showing the affect of forest clearing on species diversity.

The publication continued to inform that although there are more than 100 papers on the subject, none adequately compared biodiversity and coffee system management intensity.  After data collection, site classification, and vegetation studies, etc., the authors quantitatively concluded what we have declared all along, that a decline in biodiversity is correlated to coffee management intensification; sun grown coffee farms representing the least amount of biodiversity and shade grown or rustic coffee farms having the most diversity. Additionally, the environmentally friendly shade-coffee system was still guilty of decreasing the presence of forest species as harvesting and management on the rainforest floor restrain regeneration of native plant species.

Yes, I am a realist and understand that coffee will continue to be the breakfast of champions, but all I am looking for is a little consumer responsibility and initiative.  Let’s band together and exercise our right to only buy sustainable products and increase the demand for shade-grown coffee.

If the pharmaceutical companies are betting future profits and products on natural rainforest derivatives, maybe we should also see the benefits of maintaining biodiversity.

Reference: Biodiversity Loss in Latin American Coffee Landscapes: Review of the Evidence on Ants, Birds, and Trees. Conservation Biology. 2008.