A plea for biodiversity
By Lucia Maria DeChurch
A walk through the Ralph Perkins II Wildlife Center and Woods Garden at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History overwhelms the heart with the biodiversity native to the state of Ohio and concern for nature’s fate and future. Small children trace the path of the otter, Linus, along the plexiglass wall while he does laps back and forth in his enclosure. A group of teenagers in front of the owl exhibit take turns saying ‘shhh’ and uncontrollably laughing because, for whatever reason, when the owls hear that noise, they shimmy. Captivated by the story of the three coyotes and how they were rescued in an emergency cesarean section on a deserted highway in the middle of the night, a young married couple dream of starting their own wildlife sanctuary. An elderly gentleman sits in his wheelchair in front of a bird that can no longer fly and, relating to the bird, says, “I know what it is like to have a big part of your life taken away from you.”
While the variety of live animals appeals to all ages that venture through the gardens, visitors are haunted by the cold, dark, steel cut-outs of animals that no longer graze the land, depicting the irreparable losses of extinction.
Historically, life on the planet and the evolution of animals were shaped by five major extinction events, identified by the leading biology textbook, Campbell Biology: the Ordovician 439 million years ago, the Devonian 363 million years ago, the Permian 245 million years ago, the Triassic 206 million years ago and the Cretaceous 65 million years ago.
A sixth major mass extinction event is underway today, since humans have become the top predator and are the domineering evolutionary force in the Anthropocene, according to Telmo Pievani, a biology professor at the University of Padua. Due to habitat destruction and fragmentation, displacement of species, overharvesting and pollution, just to name a few of the reasons offered in an article published in February 2016 in Landscape Ecology, biodiversity is shrinking at an alarming rate.
Fearful that destruction is past the point of no return, scientists are exploring alternative options. Oliver Ryder, director of genetics and founder of the “Frozen Zoo” at the San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, is one of the many scientists searching for solutions to biodiversity loss. In 2012, Ryder wrote an article for Genewatch, in which he stated that his Frozen Zoo “encompasses gametes, embryos, and cell cultures from over 9,000 animals, comprising more than 1,000 species” — potentially the largest and most diverse collection of frozen life forms in the world. He ends his article by acknowledging that sustaining and conserving species in the wild is the ideal choice, but if new strategies are not explored, biodiversity will continue to be lost.
According to an article published by Park Science in 2014, “synthetic biology” is a fusion of biology and genetic engineering, either to redesign what already exists or create new. Yet, the understanding of this is not at the level it should be. Recent technological advancements in synthetic biology have been very controversial, as stated in an article published in 2017 by Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Traditional conservation approaches, like protection of species and the ecosystems in their natural habitats, are best.
In order to fully understand the importance of biological diversity, the three levels must all be considered. Bruce Stein, associate vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, explained these levels as ecosystems, species and genes in Precious Heritage, a book he co-wrote with Lynn S. Kutner and Jonathan S. Adams.
“The existence value of a species is essentially unmeasurable” — Piotr Skubala
Ecosystems are places where species interact and work together, relying on each other. Like a highly specialized machine or assembly process, the loss of one part messes up the whole system. Piotr Skubala, professor in the department of ecology at the University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland, wrote an article published by the journal Environmental and Socio-Economic Studies, in which he said, “The existence value of a species is essentially unmeasurable.”
Individual species are often the first thing that comes to people’s minds when they think of biodiversity because scientists traditionally focused on preserving specific species. This is also the way the Endangered Species Act of 1973 classifies animals in need of help. However, no single species lives in isolation — its loss will often put others at risk.
Megan Seymour is a fish and wildlife biologist for the Ohio Ecological Services Field Office branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. During an interview, she explained that her job is to implement the Endangered Species Act.
Much of what she does focuses on “preventing species from becoming listed as endangered or threatened, restoring populations of species that are already listed as endangered (at risk of becoming extinct) or threatened (likely to become endangered), or coordinating with other entities to make sure that their actions are not going to further harm endangered or threatened species,” she said. Specifically, she does this by reviewing developmental projects and evaluating the impacts on wildlife. She and her team “look at not just preserving the endangered species, but preserving the ecosystem in which it occurs.”
Like Seymour, veterinarian Dr. Paul Mechling feels that it is important for scientists to concentrate on entire ecosystems and really look at the whole picture. “Why we lose certain animals is because we’ve lost something else in our system,” notes Mechling. Perhaps they both encourage ecosystem-focused plans because Seymour and Mechling both said that habitat destruction is the greatest threat to animal biodiversity.
Recipient of the National Hunting Heritage Award in 2008 for private land conservation, Mechling explained in an interview that he has been involved with conservation groups for most of his life. Growing up on a farm, Mechling says he has “always had an interest in conservation,” crediting his parents and grandparents for instilling in him to “leave the world a better place than you found it.”
After earning his doctorate of veterinary medicine at Ohio State University, he became co-owner of two veterinary practices in Ashtabula County. Now that he is retired, Mechling spends his time managing the 236-acre Snowy Oak Farm with his wife. Their farm is all about conservation of plants, soil, water and animals. Additionally, he is serving his second term as the chair of the Wildlife Council for the Ohio Division of Natural Resources, a position to which he was appointed by the governor.
Guided by the research and recommendations of a team of biologists, Mechling says that he and the council “vote on all of the hunting, fishing, and trapping regulations for Ohio,” along with voting “on endangered species and threatened species in Ohio.” From the data they have analyzed, Mechling and the other members almost put monarch butterflies and honeybees on the endangered list because their counts were so low. However, the council gained the support of the federal government, which is promoting pollinator habitats with plants like milkweed and flowers favored by these insects, to help restore the populations. Just the small act of having people share and distribute their milkweed plants helped save the monarch butterflies, according to Mechling.
Similar to Mechling’s success story of the monarchs, Seymour also shared an uplifting story about a species of water snakes on the shores of Lake Erie that were almost endangered. She and her team were able to save this species by “partnering with a lot of different groups.” Seymour says combining efforts is the best way to efficiently save species.
“If everyone can do a small piece of the work, then I think you can have a ripple effect of benefits,” experienced by all life in that species’ habitat, she said.
Shifting to the microscopic level, an organism’s genes can help them adapt to the rapid, ongoing fluxes in the environment. According to an article published by the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, species that have the highest adaptability will have the highest survival rates. High adaptability is correlated with genetic variability: that is, the more genetic variability, the greater chance a species has to adjust to changes in the environment. This, in turn, helps them live longer. Despite this helpful mechanism, the article provides evidence that evolutionary adaptations cannot keep up with the rapid and distressing rate of change.
If the current tactics for maintaining the genetic variability of species are insufficient, is there perhaps another strategy? Some scientists are trying to figure that out now, according to a 2016 article published in Functional Ecology. Through genetic engineering, scientists are trying to achieve “de-extinction.”
Through genetic engineering, scientists are trying to achieve “de-extinction.”
De-extinction methods pose new questions, such as whether species that have not walked on earth for many years will be able to survive on the planet the way it is today, or in the future, and what kinds of threats these animals might pose to life that exists when they are re-introduced. The article outlines three specific areas of change that would decrease the chances of the animal surviving and prospering: (1) biotic changes since the species went extinct, some of which are the result of (2) human-induced changes and (3) changes to compensate for the loss of the species.
Not to mention the fact that once brought back to life, the adaptability of these animals might remain extinct. Evolution will not work on species that have already gone extinct in the same way that it does on existing organisms, that is, the way that it is supposed to. Paul Ehrlich, professor and president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, sheds light on these and other concerns he has about de-extinction in his counterpoint argument on Yale’s “Environment 360” website.
“It is much more sensible to put all the limited resources for science and conservation into preventing extinctions, by tackling the causes of demise,” Ehrlich says. “Spending millions of dollars trying to de-extinct a few species will not compensate for the thousands of populations and species that have been lost due to human activities.”
On the other side of this issue, Steward Brand, a past advisee of Ehrlich’s at Stanford, takes the stance that de-extinction is a powerful tool to combat biodiversity loss. His response is on Yale’s “Environment 360” website as well. Co-founder of the Long Now Foundation and its de-extinction project, Revive and Restore, Brand says the mission of this project is “to enhance biodiversity through genetic rescue of endangered and extinct species.” Moreover, Brand believes that “de-extinction will attract significant new sources of funding and interest for conservation.”
Still, some people believe it’s most important to make extinction issues more important to the public and convey the need to protect biodiversity by giving them a way to connect with animals one-on-one. Bryan Wise and his wife, Terri, both have careers of their own, but together, they founded Our Zoo to You, a traveling exotic petting zoo. A majority of the animals they have are rescues, or were surrendered over to the family by people who no longer wanted their exotic pets.
Every animal becomes a family member in the Wise household, loved and properly cared for, Bryan Wise explained in an interview. When they are out on the road traveling to bookings, he said they “try to show people the animals with the hopes that they’re going to say, ‘Wow those are some amazing beautiful creatures, and I want to preserve that for the next generation.’ ”
Humans have forever needed and relied on the natural world in one way or another, but there was a time when the natural world did not need humans. In his book Biophilia, well-known biologist, researcher, theorist and author Edward O. Wilson explains that, “because species diversity was created prior to humanity, and because we evolved within it, we have never fathomed its limits.”
Wilson’s claim is apparent in the Anthropocene Age. Humans are the leading force on the planet today, and have all the responsibilities that come with that. The natural world needs humans now more than ever — all life forms beg humans to use their power for good. The advice of Aldo Leopold, widely considered the father of wildlife ecology, is, “Obey the law, vote right, join some organizations, practice what conservation is profitable on your own land,” and above all, be humbly aware of the impacts that human beings are having on the land.
References
Apostolopoulou, E., & Adams, W. M. (2015). Biodiversity offsetting and conservation: reframing nature to save it. Oryx, 51(1), 21–31. doi:10.1017/S0030605315000782
Bean, M. J. (2009). The Endangered Species Act. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 11623. 69–391. doi:10.1111/j.1749–6632.2009.04150.
Brand, S. (2014, January 13). The case for de-extinction: Why we should bring back the woolly mammoth. Retrieved from http://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_for_de-extinction_why_we_should_bring_back_the_woolly_mammoth
Bull, J. W., & Brownlie, S. (2016). The transition from no net loss to a net gain of biodiversity is far from trivial. Oryx, 51(1). 53–59. doi:10.1017/S0030605315000861
Can, Ö. E., & Macdonald, D. W. (2017). To protect everything, please click here: does a revolution in data collection guarantee one in conservation? Animal Conservation, 20(1), 1–2. doi:10.1111/acv.12285.
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., … & Kinzig, A. P. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59–67.
Colléony, A., Clayton, S., Couvet, D., Saint Jalme, M., & Prévot, A. (2017). Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biological Conservation, 206, 263–269. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.035.
Donaldson, L., Wilson, R., & Maclean, I. (2017). Old concepts, new challenges: adapting landscape-scale conservation to the twenty-first century. Biodiversity & Conservation, 26(3), 527–552. doi:10.1007/s10531–016–1257–9.
Ehrlich, P.R. (2014, January 13). The case against de-extinction: it’s a fascinating but dumb idea. Retrieved from http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_case_against_de- extinction_its_a_fascinating_but_dumb_idea/2726/.
Heise, U. (2016). Extinction. In Adamson J., Gleason W., & Pellow D. (Eds.), Keywords for Environmental Studies (pp. 118–121). NYU Press.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2015). IUCN Red list of threatened species [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/iucn-red-list-threatened-species
Johnson, D. (1999). The frozen zoo. Futurist, 33(7), 10.
Kerr, R. (2001, December). Paleontology — Paring down the big five mass extinctions. Science, 294(5549), 2072–2073.
Leopold, A. (1968). A Sand County almanac, and Sketches here and there. New York : Oxford University Press, 1968, c1949.
Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Chornesky, E., Collins, S., Dobson, A., Duke, C., & … Turner, M. (2004). Ecology. ecology for a crowded planet. Science, 304(5675), 1251–1252.
Piaggio, A. J., Segelbacher, G., Seddon, P. J., Alphey, L., Bennett, E. L., Carlson, R. H., & …Wheeler, K. (2017). Is it time for synthetic biodiversity conservation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32(2), 97–107. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.016.
Pievani, T. (2014). The sixth mass extinction: Anthropocene and the human impact on biodiversity. Rendiconti Lincei: Scienze Fisiche E Naturali, 25(1), 85. doi:10.1007/s12210–013–0258–9.
Pimm, S. L., Alibhai, S., Bergl, R., Dehgan, A., Giri, C., Jewell, Z., . . . Loarie, S. (2015). Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(11), 685–696. doi:10.1016/J.TREE.2015.08.008.
Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., & Jackson, R. B. (2014). Campbell biology (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Redford, K. (2014). Synthetic biology offers extraordinary opportunities and challenges for conservation. Park Science, 31(1), 30–32.
Robert, A., Thévenin, C., Princé, K., Clavel, J., & Sarrazin, F. (2016). De-extinction and evolution. Functional ecology, 31(5), 1021–1031. doi:10.1111/1365–2435.12723.
Rolston III, H. (2004). Caring for nature: from fact to value, from respect to reverence. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 39(2), 277–302. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9744.2004.00574.
Ryder, O. (2012). The frozen zoo. Genewatch, 25(3), 19–20.
Schulz, J., Otis, D., & Temple, S. (n.d). 100th Anniversary of the passenger pigeon extinction: Lessons for a complex and uncertain future. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38(3), 445–450.
Skubala, P. (2016). The most important message in the history of mankind. Environmental & Socio-Economic Studies, 4(2), 26–3. doi:10.1515/environ-2016–0009.
Staudinger, M. D., Carter, S. L., Cross, M. S., Dubois, N. S., Duffy, J. E., Enquist, C., & … Turner, W. (2013). Biodiversity in a changing climate: a synthesis of current and projected trends in the US. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, 11(9), 465. doi:10.1890/120272.
Stein, B. A., Kutner, L. S., & Adams, J. S. (2000). Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Vitousek, P., Mooney, H., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. (1997). Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494–499.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Wilson, M., Chen, X., Corlett, R., Didham, R., Ding, P., Holt, R., & … Yu, M. (2016, February). Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landscape Ecology, 31(2). 219–227. doi:10.1007/s10980–015–0312–3.
