What happens when humans meddle with nature?

News Feed
Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Seven ways in which our destruction of the natural world has led to deadly outcomesIn the early 1990s, vultures across India started dying inexplicably. Long-billed, slender-billed and oriental white-backed vultures declined to the brink of extinction, with the number of India’s most common three vulture species falling by more than 97% between 1992 and 2007. Six other species were in sharp decline too. Scientists started testing the dead birds and worked out they had been exposed to diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory drug routinely given to cattle in south Asia at the time. The vultures fed on the carcasses of cows and were poisoned. Continue reading...

Seven ways in which our destruction of the natural world has led to deadly outcomesIn the early 1990s, vultures across India started dying inexplicably. Long-billed, slender-billed and oriental white-backed vultures declined to the brink of extinction, with the number of India’s most common three vulture species falling by more than 97% between 1992 and 2007. Six other species were in sharp decline too. Scientists started testing the dead birds and worked out they had been exposed to diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory drug routinely given to cattle in south Asia at the time. The vultures fed on the carcasses of cows and were poisoned. Continue reading...

Seven ways in which our destruction of the natural world has led to deadly outcomes

In the early 1990s, vultures across India started dying inexplicably. Long-billed, slender-billed and oriental white-backed vultures declined to the brink of extinction, with the number of India’s most common three vulture species falling by more than 97% between 1992 and 2007. Six other species were in sharp decline too. Scientists started testing the dead birds and worked out they had been exposed to diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory drug routinely given to cattle in south Asia at the time. The vultures fed on the carcasses of cows and were poisoned.

Continue reading...
Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Orange-bellied parrot shows there's more to saving endangered species than captive breeding

New research shows that if captive breeding stopped tomorrow, orange-bellied parrots would soon become extinct. So we’re locked into breeding programs until we can solve the underlying problems.

Captive breeding of threatened species for release into the wild is an important conservation tool. But where threats to wild populations remain unresolved, this tool may not guarantee population recovery in the long term. Our new research on one of the most endangered birds in the world shows we need to tackle underlying threats to survival if we are to save species from extinction in the wild. Captive breeding and release is sustaining the population of orange-bellied parrots, holding extinction at bay. But most of the young born into the population each year die during their migration and winter. Our modelling shows that if captive breeding and release stopped tomorrow, orange-bellied parrots would soon become extinct. The natural birth rate is too low to compensate for the high death rates of juveniles. So we’re locked into releasing captive-bred parrots until we can solve the underlying problems afflicting the wild population. Unfortunately, it’s not clear exactly what those problems are. Read more: Regent honeyeaters were once kings of flowering gums. Now they're on the edge of extinction. What happened? No guarantees when threats remain Globally, captive breeding has prevented the extinction of iconic species such as the California condor. However, despite the benefits of captive breeding, success is not guaranteed. This is especially so when captive-bred animals are released into habitats where threats remain unresolved. In such cases, captive-bred animals will succumb to the same threats as their wild counterparts. For some species, identifying and correcting threats is straightforward. For example, removing introduced predators from islands may be a way to eliminate a threat and optimise the benefit of releases from captivity. But the exact nature of threats is often not clear-cut, especially for species that move over large areas. This can create uncertainty about what the threats are, where they occur, and how to resolve them. Inability to mitigate threats may result in lost opportunities for released animals to learn crucial behaviours such as migration or song, and ultimately, the decline of wild populations. Conservationists may sometimes need to “buy time” and prevent extinction in the wild by releasing animals to ensure the continuity of animal cultures in landscapes where threats persist. Orange-bellied parrots are among the most endangered birds in the world, and they are dependent on intensive conservation efforts to prevent extinction. Dejan Stojanovic Locked into a cycle of dependency The orange-bellied parrot is one of the most endangered birds in the world. In 2016, just four females returned to Tasmania from migration, and only one of them produced a surviving descendant. (The species migrates from its summer breeding ground in southwestern Tasmania to the coasts of southeastern mainland Australia, but these movements take a toll on the population.) Fortunately, despite ongoing uncertainty about reducing threats, intensive conservation efforts have grown the population. More than 30 females have returned from migration annually over the past two years. Despite this success, most juvenile parrots (both captive-bred and wild-born) that leave Tasmania on their northward migration die. Overcoming the unresolved threats that drive this high mortality is crucial for making this population self-sustaining. Unfortunately due to the practical limitations of studying a small, scattered population across remote areas, it is unlikely that this knowledge gap can be addressed in the short term. In the meantime, there are several options available. We used simulations to compare the benefits of different management scenarios on the orange-bellied parrot. We showed that of all the potential intervention options available to the recovery project, releasing captive juveniles in autumn – to learn from wild adults, and increase the size of migrating flocks – was the most beneficial. However, none of the interventions available to managers can directly address the underlying problem of high juvenile mortality, so their benefits were temporary. When we simulated stopping captive releases, the populations rapidly went extinct. Without addressing the underlying threats faced by the species, we found the natural birth rate too low to compensate for high juvenile mortality rates. Until a solution is found for high migration and winter mortality rates, orange-bellied parrots will remain dependent on captive breeding and release to prevent extinction and grow the population. Orange-bellied parrot ‘red red D’ is a descendant of the last truly wild born lineage of mothers, and was one of the longest-lived mothers in the contemporary population. Dejan Stojanovic Lulled into a false sense of security Orange-bellied parrots provide a stark reminder that there is no “quick fix” for most threatened species. Although captive breeding for release can effectively prevent extinction in the short term, long-term self-sustaining populations in the wild depend on finding solutions for the threats that caused their decline in the first place. Until solutions can be found, management agencies may be locked into a cycle of conservation dependency aimed at preventing extinction, but struggle to address the threats that cause the underlying problems. Read more: Australia’s red goshawk is disappearing. How can we save our rarest bird of prey from extinction? Given the global popularity and visibility of captive breeding programs, it is easy to be lulled into a false sense of security that they are a quick fix for the extinction crisis. However, identifying the threats to wild populations early is crucial because re-establishing “extinct in the wild” species from captivity is extremely difficult, albeit not impossible. In the case of the orange-bellied parrot, we hope preventing extinction of the wild population through releases of captive-bred birds may buy enough time to identify and mitigate the causes of high juvenile migration/winter mortality. But we also hope our study is a reminder to policymakers that conservation of wild populations should focus on identifying and preventing threats, negating the need for captive breeding in the first place. Read more: Get the basics right for National Environmental Standards to ensure truly sustainable development Dejan Stojanovic received funding for this project from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, via NRM South. Carolyn Hogg receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and was a member of the Orange-bellied Parrot recovery team from 2011 to 2021.Rob Heinsohn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

De-extinction is all the rage, but it’s not really ‘resurrecting’ species

It’s no secret that human activities have put many of this planet’s inhabitants in danger. Extinctions are happening at a dramatically faster rate than they have over the past tens of millions of years. An estimated quarter of all species on Earth are at risk of being lost, many within decades. What can scientists possibly do to stop that trend? For some, the answer is to “de-extinct.” Colossal, a biotechnology company that garnered headlines for its plan to “de-extinct” the woolly mammoth, is now attempting to “bring back” the famously dead dodo bird. The company says its goal is to create a population of undead dodos to put on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, where the hefty, flightless creatures lived before humans drove them to extinction in the late 1600s. As environmental humanists, we study the morality of different conservation interventions, and are interested in how de-extinction might change the ways people think about their responsibilities toward nature. One of us, Ben, is a professor of environmental ethics who explores the ethics of de-extinction in his 2018 book “The Fall of the Wild.” The other, Risa, is a doctoral student researching how de-extinction might change public perceptions about extinction, especially its emotional impact. What de-extinction is and isn’t De-extinction is not exactly what it sounds like. Rather than “bringing back” lost species, it’s more of a process to create their high-tech look-alikes. Scientists would edit the genomes of the dodo’s closest living relative—the Nicobar pigeon, which contains the pigeon’s full set of DNA—and add some of the most important dodo genes, taken from preserved dodo remains. Then they could put that genome into an egg cell, and let that egg develop into an organism that should look like a dodo. But that organism wouldn’t be genetically identical to the dodo. Nor would it have any other dodos to teach it how to act like and, well, actually be a dodo. Colossal hasn’t successfully created any de-extinct creatures yet. Nor have any other scientists, unless you count the team that cloned the Pyrenean ibex in 2003—but that clone died within minutes. And yet Colossal seems confident, saying it hopes to de-extinct Tasmanian tigers by 2025 and woolly mammoths by 2027. They’re certainly amassing a fortune to make it happen: Since its founding in 2021, Colossal has raised over US$225 million from tech investors, Paris Hilton and even a CIA-backed venture capital firm. Possibilities, or pitfalls? Supporters have argued that de-extinction will eventually help restore ecosystems. “Bringing back” passenger pigeons could help restore forests in the northeastern United States, for example, while woolly mammoth proxies could help restore the Siberian steppe and keep permafrost frozen. Some de-extinction advocates have also positioned their projects as potential long-term solutions to combating mass biodiversity loss in general. But many ecologists and ethicists have highlighted the uncertainty around introducing these novel creatures into the wild. Even if the de-extinct dodos did act more or less like their extinct counterparts, it’s hard to know how a habitat that hasn’t had any dodolike birds in it for 350 years would be affected by this new species. Opponents have pushed back even more strongly against claims that de-extinction could be a widespread solution, pointing out how bringing back one species at a time would not be enough to curb the Earth’s losses. Other issues include how to decide where all these de-extinct creatures would live, as well as animal welfare concerns: for potential surrogate animals that would be impregnated, and the de-extinct creatures themselves, which never asked to be “brought back.” More than science To us, one of the more interesting questions about de-extinction has to do with how it changes the way people think about extinction. Some de-extinction boosters have argued that de-extinction could create a more hopeful story about humans’ ability to combat mass extinction. Many others share the desire for more inspiring conservation stories, too. Some conservationists and psychologists have argued that environmentalists need more positivity to get people engaged with environmental issues. Others, however, say de-extinction isn’t hopeful, but misleading. Many worry that de-extinction actually risks making humans less inclined to care about ongoing extinctions. After all, why care about preventing extinction if we can eventually reverse it? It’s hard to rally the troops with a message of unrelenting guilt and despair. But reckoning with those difficult emotions can be useful for reflecting on humanity’s responsibilities—especially considering that extinction is our fault to begin with, and since de-extinction isn’t really “resurrecting” anything. In fact, some scholars argue that what humans really need is to learn to grieve extinct species. Grief, they say, is a transformational process that helps people recognize the value of what’s been lost and appreciate what’s left. Grief will never be enough without action. But we believe learning how to grieve together can be a more responsible and honest way to cope with extinction than pretending it can simply be undone. So which is better at motivating care for the environment: positive or negative stories? There are still no sure answers, and testing their impact on audiences today is a key part of Risa’s research. Perhaps it can help conservationists at large learn how to tell more motivational stories—but it will take some time to get there. In the meantime, we suggest that de-extinction scientists and advocates call de-extinction what it really is: not resurrecting extinct species, but creating their replacements. Risa Aria Schnebly is a PhD student in biology and society at Arizona State University. Ben A. Minteer is a professor of environmental ethics and conservation at Arizona State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s no secret that human activities have put many of this planet’s inhabitants in danger. Extinctions are happening at a dramatically faster rate than they have over the past tens of millions of years. An estimated quarter of all species on Earth are at risk of being lost, many within decades. What can scientists possibly do to stop that trend? For some, the answer is to “de-extinct.” Colossal, a biotechnology company that garnered headlines for its plan to “de-extinct” the woolly mammoth, is now attempting to “bring back” the famously dead dodo bird. The company says its goal is to create a population of undead dodos to put on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, where the hefty, flightless creatures lived before humans drove them to extinction in the late 1600s. As environmental humanists, we study the morality of different conservation interventions, and are interested in how de-extinction might change the ways people think about their responsibilities toward nature. One of us, Ben, is a professor of environmental ethics who explores the ethics of de-extinction in his 2018 book “The Fall of the Wild.” The other, Risa, is a doctoral student researching how de-extinction might change public perceptions about extinction, especially its emotional impact. What de-extinction is and isn’t De-extinction is not exactly what it sounds like. Rather than “bringing back” lost species, it’s more of a process to create their high-tech look-alikes. Scientists would edit the genomes of the dodo’s closest living relative—the Nicobar pigeon, which contains the pigeon’s full set of DNA—and add some of the most important dodo genes, taken from preserved dodo remains. Then they could put that genome into an egg cell, and let that egg develop into an organism that should look like a dodo. But that organism wouldn’t be genetically identical to the dodo. Nor would it have any other dodos to teach it how to act like and, well, actually be a dodo. Colossal hasn’t successfully created any de-extinct creatures yet. Nor have any other scientists, unless you count the team that cloned the Pyrenean ibex in 2003—but that clone died within minutes. And yet Colossal seems confident, saying it hopes to de-extinct Tasmanian tigers by 2025 and woolly mammoths by 2027. They’re certainly amassing a fortune to make it happen: Since its founding in 2021, Colossal has raised over US$225 million from tech investors, Paris Hilton and even a CIA-backed venture capital firm. Possibilities, or pitfalls? Supporters have argued that de-extinction will eventually help restore ecosystems. “Bringing back” passenger pigeons could help restore forests in the northeastern United States, for example, while woolly mammoth proxies could help restore the Siberian steppe and keep permafrost frozen. Some de-extinction advocates have also positioned their projects as potential long-term solutions to combating mass biodiversity loss in general. But many ecologists and ethicists have highlighted the uncertainty around introducing these novel creatures into the wild. Even if the de-extinct dodos did act more or less like their extinct counterparts, it’s hard to know how a habitat that hasn’t had any dodolike birds in it for 350 years would be affected by this new species. Opponents have pushed back even more strongly against claims that de-extinction could be a widespread solution, pointing out how bringing back one species at a time would not be enough to curb the Earth’s losses. Other issues include how to decide where all these de-extinct creatures would live, as well as animal welfare concerns: for potential surrogate animals that would be impregnated, and the de-extinct creatures themselves, which never asked to be “brought back.” More than science To us, one of the more interesting questions about de-extinction has to do with how it changes the way people think about extinction. Some de-extinction boosters have argued that de-extinction could create a more hopeful story about humans’ ability to combat mass extinction. Many others share the desire for more inspiring conservation stories, too. Some conservationists and psychologists have argued that environmentalists need more positivity to get people engaged with environmental issues. Others, however, say de-extinction isn’t hopeful, but misleading. Many worry that de-extinction actually risks making humans less inclined to care about ongoing extinctions. After all, why care about preventing extinction if we can eventually reverse it? It’s hard to rally the troops with a message of unrelenting guilt and despair. But reckoning with those difficult emotions can be useful for reflecting on humanity’s responsibilities—especially considering that extinction is our fault to begin with, and since de-extinction isn’t really “resurrecting” anything. In fact, some scholars argue that what humans really need is to learn to grieve extinct species. Grief, they say, is a transformational process that helps people recognize the value of what’s been lost and appreciate what’s left. Grief will never be enough without action. But we believe learning how to grieve together can be a more responsible and honest way to cope with extinction than pretending it can simply be undone. So which is better at motivating care for the environment: positive or negative stories? There are still no sure answers, and testing their impact on audiences today is a key part of Risa’s research. Perhaps it can help conservationists at large learn how to tell more motivational stories—but it will take some time to get there. In the meantime, we suggest that de-extinction scientists and advocates call de-extinction what it really is: not resurrecting extinct species, but creating their replacements. Risa Aria Schnebly is a PhD student in biology and society at Arizona State University. Ben A. Minteer is a professor of environmental ethics and conservation at Arizona State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia’s red goshawk is disappearing. How can we save our rarest bird of prey from extinction?

The first comprehensive population assessment of the raptor affectionately known as The Red reveals a species in trouble. Australia’s rarest bird of prey needs our help.

Patrick Webster, Author providedAustralia’s red goshawk once ruled the skies. But now this almighty raptor, affectionately known as The Red, has become our nation’s rarest bird of prey. Concern for the species prompted our new research. We completed the first comprehensive population assessment of the red goshawk using a dataset of all known records (1978–2020). The results were even worse than expected. We were shocked to discover The Red had completely disappeared from more than a third (34%) of its range. The species is almost certainly extinct in New South Wales and the southern half of Queensland. This bird is declining – and probably just barely hanging on – in a further 30% of its range, spanning northern Queensland from the Gulf to the Wet Tropics. The rest of northern Australia is the last stronghold for the species. Although nationally listed as vulnerable, we argue this species requires urgent uplisting to endangered. High priority must be given to conservation action now, before it’s too late. Adult female red goshawk with kookaburra prey. Chris MacColl A striking bird of prey The red goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) is an evolutionary oddity, with no near relatives in this country. It is a top predator, with rainbow lorikeets, sulphur-crested cockatoos, and blue-winged kookaburras its preferred quarry. Remarkably, the average female is nearly twice the size of the average male, with this relative size difference making it one of the most dimorphic raptors in the world. This striking bird first came to the attention of Western scientists around 1790, when a specimen was found nailed to an early settler’s hut near Botany Bay. Since then, it has captivated birdwatchers with its rich rufous (red) plumage, sharp gaze, and immense feet and talons. Historically, it was found along Australia’s eastern and northern coastal fringe, from Sydney, north to Cape York Peninsula, and across to the Kimberley region of Western Australia. But over the years, keen observers noticed their occasional glimpses of this almighty hawk became rarer. Then suddenly people were no longer seeing them, in certain regions. Slipping towards extinction Recording the extinction and ongoing loss of the red goshawk over two thirds of its known range in our lifetime was shocking. Map showing assessment of the red goshawk’s breeding status across its range. Chris MacColl, Author provided While the destruction of habitat through land clearing, which is still rampant in both New South Wales and Queensland, is a key reason for this loss, other factors must be at play. We know that degraded forests, like those that are logged or suffer from inappropriate fire regimes, lose many of their species, particularly those higher up the food chain. However, this doesn’t aptly describe the loss of red goshawk from seemingly large areas of intact habitat, such as Shoalwater Bay or Conondale National Park. More research is needed to unpick why this species has disappeared so quickly and over such an immense area. Current efforts focus on potential disease threats, poor breeding, low juvenile survival rates, and developing a better understanding of how they use the Australian landscape. The Red’s last refuge Our research reveals northern Australia is the last stronghold for this species. Cape York Peninsula supports the last known breeding population in Queensland. The Top End, Tiwi Islands, and Kimberley regions also sustain vital breeding populations. This is unsurprising given northern Australia supports the world’s largest intact tropical savanna ecosystem. Yet, despite limited broad scale habitat loss to date, these northern savannas are under threat from inappropriate fire regimes, weeds, cattle, and the onset of climate change. These threats can interact and compound one another, posing increasingly complex challenges for land managers trying to save species like the red goshawk. For example, the fire-intensive gamba grass, an invasive weed, is spread by livestock. Climate change may extend the fire season, through lengthier dry spells. Hot treetop fires incinerate nests and the chicks inside them. The intensity and seasonality of storms is also increasing, as well as thermal extremes, threatening young during the nesting season. Two small red goshawk nestlings, the maximum this species can have. Chris MacColl Tropical savannas may be increasingly compromised through large scale vegetation clearing and fragmentation. Preparing land for crops such as cotton or mines for minerals such as bauxite can remove big swathes of habitat. Efforts to obtain other natural resources such as timber and gas also fragment otherwise intact landscapes. Land clearing remains rife in Queensland, undermining efforts to conserve wildlife and reduce carbon emissions. Kerry Trapnell/The Wilderness Society The Red deserves better protection Australia is blessed with unique bird life. Nearly half of our birds are found nowhere else on Earth. But the nation’s rarest bird of prey is in trouble. The red goshawk deserves better protection. At the very least, the species needs to be uplisted from vulnerable to endangered by the federal government. This will more accurately reflect current extinction risk and prioritise conservation action. And there’s no time to waste, because red goshawk habitat continues to be cleared – permission was granted to clear a total of 15,689 hectares of red goshawk habitat between 2000 and 2015, which is more than any other threatened species had to contend with. The Red needs to be recognised as a flagship species for northern Australia, to promote conservation of its remaining habitat. Intervention would benefit many other threatened species, because what’s good for them is good for many others. In this way, the red goshawk is one of the most cost-effective ‘umbrella species’ for conservation action. To secure the longterm survival of this beautiful bird, we need better protection across the tropical north, expanding both Indigenous Protected Areas and national parks. These areas can be managed directly for conservation, but working with the agricultural and extractive industry is also critical. Low numbers of red goshawks are distributed across a vast area, covering multiple tenures, so all parties need to work together if this species is to persist in the north. We must not repeat past mistakes and allow habitat in the tropical north to be fragmented, rendering the landscape unable to support native predators like the red goshawk. This means rigorously assessing developments and implementing protections commensurate with the large areas that The Red requires. If we can’t look after such an ecologically important, charismatic, and iconic species such as The Red, what hope do we have for Australia’s many other threatened species? Read more: Native birds have vanished across the continent since colonisation. Now we know just how much we’ve lost Christopher MacColl receives funding and support from Rio Tinto Weipa, the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, the Queensland Department of Environment and Sciences, and the University of Queensland. James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council and National Environmental Science Program and receives funding from South Australia's Department of Environment and Water. He serves on scientific committees for Bush Heritage Australia, SUBAK Australia, BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with the Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland Government's Land Restoration Fund's Investment Panel.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.