Hunting - A Bear Necessity?

A nasty note on which to start the new year, but the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has announced that their intend to remove protection from Yellowstone's grizzly bear population in the coming year. As someone who has had a grizzly bear themed calender for the last two years, my immediate reaction to this is one of shock and disgust. For a moment, however I will attempt to step back from my bear loving self and take a look at the reasons behind this decision.

Adorable animal which should clearly not be hunted; Source.

For the past 40 years, the bears of Yellowstone have been protected by hunting and have enjoyed population increases and range expansion under this protection from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This protection was not undue, the grizzly population suffered huge losses from excessive hunting during the 1900s which earned them a place on the IUCN red list. The recovery of their population, however, has put pressure of the US FWS to revoke their special status, from state officials. The proposed new system would involve handing over the management of bear population to state level, after the delisting would remove federal protection. The agreement places no limit on the hunting of bears outside of the central Yellowstone management area, and within that splits the bears between the three states which share the region - Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. There are some loose pledges to maintain the bear population in the management area above 600, but nothing concrete except an apparent need to shoot at things.

Arguably, the new laws would promote, rather than limit the killing of bears. There are underlying societal and economic reasons why there is such animosity towards bears, and other large carnivores. Whilst states would plead that bears area threat to humans, the reasoning is more likely to do with their role as competitors for big game. However, the problems of hunting these animals also have multiple dimensions. Culturally, they hold high significance for many native people who also live in the Yellowstone management area and have not been consulted in the decision to delist bears. Ecologically, there are many issues in play. Bears are, arguably, still in a very vulnerable position in Yellowstone and are dying in disproportionate numbers each year even with the protection of the ESA. For example, climate change induced drought and invasive species have extirpated one of the bears main food sources, the cutthroat trout, as well as damaging other food sources including Whitebark pines and elk. Grizzlys have very low reproductive rates, with huge amounts of parental investment, meaning that they are very slow to react to changes in the environment and colonise new territories. This means that they will feel the pressures of climate change more than most, causing their population to suffer alongside hunting.

My personal bias aside, I feel that there is not a great case for delisting the grizzly bear from the ESA protection. There is a very real chance that hunting would lead to extirpation outside of the Yellowstone management area, where there are no limits in place. Isolating the population within Yellowstone, whilst hunting them as well, could have disastrous impacts on then stability of the population as their numbers dwindle and their genetic diversity lessens. Let me know your thoughts below, but I feel that there is no necessity behind this law change, simply a demand for blood.

Could the removal of the 'ESA Safety Net' mean extirpation for Yellowstone's grizzlys?; Source.

Look Deeper: Extinction Risks to Soil Biota

Earlier this week, we celebrated World Soil Day (4th Dec). One of the key themes in this years festivities was to highlight the need to increase research into soil ecology and underground ecosystems. In particular, to warn of the potential underground extinction risks that we have an very limited understanding of. A new collection of papers has been published in Nature as part of World Soil Day to highlight these issues among other soil related discussions. So, in accordance, I will be bringing these issues to my blog to give us all an education about soil ecology, as despite the relative neglect compared other areas of ecology, the soil and its biota are fundamental components of all terrestrial ecosystems.

In order to form conservation approaches for underground ecosystems, we need a clearer understanding of the diversity and functionality of them. We know that soils provide vital ecosystem services, particularly for agriculture, so there is clear motive for conservation action - regardless of a lack of moral motive, as concern for things small and dirty tends to be less. The extent of biodiversity below ground is hugely unknown, partially due to the impracticalities of studying these organisms due to their size and inaccessible habitat.  As shown in the graph below, taken from one of the new papers, the vast majority of what lives in the soil is under 1mm in size. What the graphs also shows, however, is the extreme abundance of these organisms - over 1kg of bacteria per meter squared is an insane amount of individuals! Aside from our poor understanding of the diversity, other challenges for understanding potential extinction risks include the lack of suitable models, the complexity and density of microhabitats within the soil and uncertainty about temporal and spatial scales. I'm not going into these here, but they are all detailed here if you're interested!

Soil biota, shown by coloured crosses, are generally very small and very abundant ; Source. 

The most important extinction risk factors for soil organisms are not dissimilar to those faced by their terrestrial counterparts. Habitat loss, a concept we are all familiar with in relation to aboveground organisms, can cause equal disruption for soil ecosystems, for example through the fragmentation of the soil surface via urbanisation. This has been shown to link to declines in abundance of nematodes and other soil biota. Equally, climate change and global warming pose a threat just as they do to terrestrial and marine biomes. Extreme drought events can cause devastation of soil based habitats, for example. Climate change is also thought to have some more complex impacts on soils which can be equated to habitat loss, due to the degree to which the soils are changed. It has been shown that the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to a reduction of nematode diversity due to the loss of pore spaces in the soil which are required by the organisms. Soil habitats are also impacted by agricultural practices, such as tilling, irrigation and fertilization which impact both soil structure and composition. It is thought that these factors drive constant habitat loss for components of the subterranean community. Although it is difficult, as mentioned above, to know the extent of these impacts, we do know that many of the susceptible species, such as earthworms and mycorrhizas, are of major functional importance to their own ecosystems and ours. There are also potential risks from invasive species, but at a microbial level more than invertebrate, which have likely been spread as a result of travel and tourism. Many of the soil biota are highly specialized in their niche, which is commonly considered to make them more vulnerable to both invasions and extinctions.

So there are considerable risk factors stacked up against soil ecosystems, much as there are against the terrestrial. There has, unfortunately, been very little conservation action in comparison. Some studies have already documented local extinctions of earthworms and various fungi due to the factors discussed above. So perhaps we should start taking some action? This, if any, is a good time to start. 2015 is the International Year of Soils, as declared by the UN General Assembly, after-all. This declaration was made with the intent to raise awareness of the life-supporting functions of soils and to promote the importance of soils in achieving a number of the new 17 Sustainable Development Goals. I hope that you've learned something about the oft-neglected but important goings on beneath our feet, and that in future you might give them a thought in conservation discussions.

Happy World Soil Day! 

Invaders: A Response to Thomas and Palmer, 2015

Recently, a number of studies have highlighted that whilst we are suffering global biodiversity losses, local diversity is actually relatively stable, or in some cases increasing. This is due to a number of reasons, including increasing habitat heterogeneity and crucially the spread of strong generalist competitors. In the analysis conducted by Vellend et al., they found that whilst post disturbance was the only truly positive driver of vegetation change (as we would expect in accordance with the intermediate disturbance hypothesis, on which much of our conservation practice is based), invasion was the only factor which stood out as driving a decline in diversity.

Postdisturbance promotes diversity, whilst invasion seems to limit it. Source: Vellend et al., 2014

However, it is arguable that as the error margins cross zero, it is weak evidence for the derogatory effect of invasive species. Indeed, recent thinking has been that the impacts of invasions are not as significant as we have traditionally thought. Often primary production can be enhanced, and resident species do not always decline, overall less than half of the impacts were found to be statistically significant.  The study which this post focuses on, published earlier this year, focuses on the impact of invasive plant species in Great Britain. Across 479, sites, Thomas and Palmer found that diversity had actually increased, and that the negative impacts of invasive plants on British biodiversity had arguably been exaggerated.

Increased diversity of native species with non-natives, Source: Thomas and Palmer, 2015

Whilst their data is sound, I am inclined to disagree with their sentiment. Invasive species, particularly fauna but some flora as well, have had well documented negative impacts on native British ecosystems. Overall diversity can be a very crude measure of the health or success of an ecosystem, the composition is far more important - particularly if we are looking to safeguard our native biota. Yes, there may have been an increase in biodiversity, but is it the biodiversity we want? These patterns are not unexpected, invaders are particularly successful in frequently disturbed areas, which are also likely to be diverse areas due to the variety of niches to be exploited by fast growing colonisers. Indeed, if these areas are regularly disturbed, it will likely prevent competitive exclusion by the invaders and maintain diversity. This kind of ecosystem is far removed from our native climatic community of oak woodland. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I believe that our goals in conservation should be to maintain these native conditions as much as possible, rather than simply to maximise diversity.

Many examples of invaders, outside of the infamous grey squirrel, exist and are key issues in current British conservation.  The American Mink, which has all but wiped out our native Water Voles - diminishing populations by up to 94%. The signal crayfish, larger and more aggressive than to our native white clawed crayfish, are estimated to have reduced native numbers by 95%.  The aptly named Killer Shrimp spreads rapidly throughout freshwater ecosystems and has been shown to drastically decrease invertebrate and fish diversity, leading to simplification of food webs. Plants, as well, have had severe ecological consequences as invaders. Top of the most wanted list is Japanese Knotweed, which overruns fluvial ecosystems as well as much of our urban environment. There is even an invasive mouse which eats the chicks of a critically endangered Albatross species alive, documented in the British Overseas Territory Gough Island. The list goes on. The point is that there are many, many species which have and will have severe impacts on our native biota. The local lens must focus on what is actually happening in these local ecosystems, and we should be aware of what is happening to British wildlife before accepting sweeping generalizations that invaders have "no negative consequences for native diversity".

Purposefully evil looking pictures of invasive species