BioQuakes

AP Biology class blog for discussing current research in Biology

Tag: endangered

More Than One Type of Giraffe?

It has recently been found that there are four distinct types of giraffes when we only thought there was one. This was found through an analyses that used several nuclear marker genes of more than 100 animals. The giraffe population has decreased by over 35% in the last 30 years so these animals are becoming endangered. And as it turns out these 4 species of giraffes only mate with giraffes of the same species. These giraffes are primarily located throughout Africa. This recent study has proved that we don’t know everything about these animals. In order to help increase the giraffe population people who mate giraffes now need to know that there are 4 distinct species of giraffes and that these 4 species only mate with the same species. hopefully this new data will help improve the population size of giraffes and help prevent them from becoming endangered.

 

The Dangers of De-Extinction

uploaded by: FunkMonk
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Woolly_mammoth.jpg

Our once ludicrous dream of resurrecting our dead animal friends, like the wooly mammoth, is transforming into a real possibility! According to David Schultz’s article on Sciencemag.org, due to human advancements made in the study of genetic engineering, scientists at Harvard University were able to reach new heights in the efforts to tackle de-extinction. However, now that it is almost within man’s capability to actually bring back extinct animals, there is a spark of skepticism sweeping the scientific world. “The conversation thus far has been focused on whether or not we can do this. Now, we are progressing toward the: ‘Holy crap, we can—so should we?’ phase,” states ecologist Douglas McCauley. McCauley shines light on the sudden realization of how resurrection may be exciting, yet also very demanding and potentially harmful. Due to tight funds, it is believed that resurrection of one extinct animal can harm the life that is already struggling to be sustained on earth.

In order to reach this financial conclusion, researchers sought out databases in New Zealand, Australia, and New South Wales that are responsible for tracking the cost of conserving endangered animals. With this information from the databases, the researcher team believed that it would cost just as much, if not more, to maintain a resurrected species as it would an endangered species. What this means is, that the already tight funds that conservationists have to support endangered animals would be stretched immensely in order to fund the conservation of a newly resurrected wooly mammoth species, for example. Schultz writes, “The result, the team calculates, would be an overall loss of biodiversity—roughly two species would go extinct for every one that could be revived.” Because of the world’s budget for species preservation, and as author and biologist Joseph Bennet says, “It’s better to spend the money on the living than the dead.”

With that being said, it appears that our excitement around bringing the dead back to life has been faded by the the reality of our world’s finances. Though the study of extinction is still vast, perplexing, and amazing, the application of our resurrecting abilities may not happen anytime soon. Would you like to someday walk on the earth with our old prehistoric animal friends or would you rather save the world’s endangered species first?

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-resurrecting-extinct-species-terrible.html

 

SAVE THE BEES!

What is happening to bees?

The media has been buzzing lately about bees! Pesticides and fungicides have long been thought to be problematic for our yellow, fuzzy, pollinator friends, but never more-so then now; 7 species of bees have been officially placed on the US Endangered Species List. In fact, a UN sponsored report revealed that over 40% of pollinator species such as bees and butterflies are facing extinction. This is an incredibly dangerous statistic, as 75% of the world’s food supply depends at least partly on pollination.

This rapid decline is forcing scientists to reexamine the use of pesticides on crops and bee colonies, and begin to think holistically. It’s a concept reminiscent of cancer research, calculating the “exposome,” or the net amount of pesticides an organism is exposed to over its lifetime.

When investigating the health of bees it is important to consider the colony as a single “super-organism” led by the queen bee, rather than individuals. On average, a queen bee will live for around two years, but lately queens haven’t been making it through a single season. Sometimes, the colony is able to replace her, but often they cannot. The loss of a queen can end in death for the entire colony.

Why is this happening?

After following almost a hundred colonies owned by three different beekeepers, for a full agricultural season, researchers from the University of Maryland found a total of 93 different pesticide compounds that came in contact with the bees. Some of these accumulated in wax, pollen and even the bodies of Nurse Bees. After further tests, they found between 5 and 20 different pesticide residues in every sample that exceeded the “hazard quotient”, or amount of a toxin an organism can handle. One surprising finding concerns fungicides, an alternative long thought to have been bee-friendly. In fact, these fungicides tended to have even more deadly effects on Queen Bees.

What can we do?

Ultimately, these findings, coupled with the rapid decline of bee population nationally shows us that we as humans are undeniably at least partly responsible for the decline of bee population. Bees are crucial to our way of life, and we should do everything we can to protect them. By supporting sustainable agriculture practices, and farms that use alternative forms of pest and fungus control, you too can do your part to save the bees.

 

The Moral Roots of Trees

By Richard Sniezko

By Richard Sniezko

Recently in Southern Utah it has come to the attention of many ecologists that the tree species, whitebark pines, is on the cusp of becoming an endangered species due to climate changes and droughts in the south. As a quick solution, some members of the scientific community have suggested “assisted migration” whereas humans would restore the whitebark pine population by dispersing its seeds from areas of the hot south to more adaptable, cooler weather up north.

To put this proposition to the test, graduate student, Sierra McLane, under Dr. Sally Aitken of the University of British Columbia, conducted a study and spread the seeds of whitebark pines throughout much cooler and consistent weather of the British Columbian mountain ranges. As a result, 20% of the seeds germinated and continue to grow here, allowing McLane to affirm that whitebark pines would successfully grow in the colder climate.

Despite her evidence, McLane, along with many other scientists’ “assisted migration” is bound more by an ethical dilemma than biological. Although it is clear that these whitebark pines are a crucial species to provide animals, like bears and birds, with food and shelter, some scientists are skeptical over how easily these animals will be able to adapt to the change in their location and others are morally conflicted over whether humans should interfere with nature thus changing the future. While assisted migration continues be deliberated by scientists as a possible solution to the threatened whitebark pine tree population, what is your attitude on the subject? Do you believe it is our moral responsibility to “take care” of the environment or should we not interfere with the natural selection of wildlife?

Original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/science/under-theat-flight-may-be-best-response-for-trees.html?ref=science&_r=0

 

Koala Chlamydia

Photo Credit: Jonathon D. Colman

For generations the koala bear has been a cuddly mascot from down under, bringing in approximately $1 billion in tourism to the Australian economy a  year, but the species is being plagued by a heinous disease: Chlamydia. Yes, that’s right, Chlamydia. Studies show that between 50 to 80% of koala bears are infected with the bacterial infection which causes conjunctivitis, incontinence, prostatitis, infertility, and kidney damage.

According to recent reports, the sexually transmitted disease has caused serious population damage over the last decade. In 2003, studies showed that the koala population was at approximately 100,000, but the 2009 survey reported a drop to as few as 43,000 koalas in the wild. Experts fear that if these numbers continue to fall at the current rate, the koala will reach extinction within a mere 30 years.

And, with the disease spreading faster than ever, there is little conservationists can do to treat the infected population due to the absence of a vaccine. Unfortunately, however, a small percent of koalas is being treated with long-term antibiotics and anti-inflammatories in order to provide temporary relief to the suffering animals. But as the disease continues to run rampant, there seems to be little hope for the koala bear’s survival, which raises the question: why now?

Some experts believe for the combination of climate change and human development of koala bear natural habitat have increased the disease’s ability to spread among individuals. Climate change has caused heat waves and drought to sweep across much of the eucalyptus forests where koalas live and has resulted in the overall weakening of many koala populations unable to cope with such temperatures. In recent years, the species has also lost inordinate amounts of their habitat to human development which pushes them into a smaller and smaller region. This encroachment forces koalas into closer quarters, which, along with their already weakened state caused by climate change, results in the extremely rapid spread of Chlamydia among individuals.

But if the extinction is so pressing and the situation is so bad, why hasn’t the Australian government stepped in? Well until recently Australia officials have been avoiding taking action, but just this summer the Australian senate has finally agreed to address the problem and evaluate whether or not the koala bear should be an endangered animal under the protection of national law. Unfortunately, the process is taking longer than anticipated. A decision was supposed to be in by August, but here we are in mid-October and the koala bears are still unprotected by the government. How many more koala’s will have to die before the Australian senate takes action? And if they do take action, will it be too late to save the iconic marsupial from down under?

 

For more information on the current situation go to:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/6537179/Koalas-extinct-within-30-years-after-chlamydia-outbreak.html

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/17/koala-population-ravaged-by-chlamydia/

http://www.worldcrunch.com/climate-change-and-chlamydia-may-be-too-much-australia-s-koalas-bear/3267

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/koalas-chlamydia-climate-change_n_876937.html

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~koalas/factsprobs.html

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel-outdoors/chlamydia-deforestation-australia-koalas.html

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Skip to toolbar