Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
BIOC63 Final
| Term | Definition | I.E. |
|---|---|---|
| Conservation genetics | Application of genetics to preserve species as dynamic entities capable of coping with environmental change. | |
| 5 sources of RANDOM DNA change (individual level) | 1. Spontaneous mutation (errors during mitosis and meiosis) 2. Radiation (i.e. UV) 3. Virus 4. Mutagenic chemicals 5. Crossing over (NOTE. 1-4: induce mutation, 5: secondary source of mutation) | |
| Most important source of random DNA change | 1. Spontaneous mutation (errors during mitosis and meiosis) | |
| 3 traits of mutations | 1. Most mutations are SILENT 2. Many are DELETERIOUS 3. Only very few are ADVANTAGEOUS | |
| 4 non-mutation factors of genetic diversity (population level) | As each factor increase: 1. Genetic drift 2. Gene flow 3. Non-random mating 4. Change in population size (T:stochastic events -> loss of population - decrease) | 1. decrease 2. increase 3. decreases 4. increases |
| Genetic drift | RANDOM change in allele frequency IN a population over several generations. Random loss of alleles as individuals die or do not reproduce. | |
| Gene flow | Dispersal of genes AMONG populations through immigration/emmigration | |
| Non-random mating | UNEQUAL contributions to reproduction possibly due to ASSORTATIVE mating or female CHOICE | |
| Assortative mating | Where individuals with similar phenotypes/genotypes mate with each other more frequently (i.e. similar body size) | |
| Gene | Unit of heredity that determines a certain characteristic. | |
| Locus | Location of a gene on a chromosome. | |
| Allele | Variant of a gene. | |
| 3 fundamental levels of genetic variation | 1. @ WITHIN an individual 2. @ WITHIN a population 3. @ AMONG populations (global scale) | Note: evolutionary change is a function of genetic diversity at large scale level. |
| Within individual diversity measurement | Heterozygosity | Fraction of heterozygous genes in an individual. |
| Heterozygosity; two benefits. | Two different alleles at a given locus; 1. One of the two versions of a gene may be a better fit in a CHANGING environment. 2. Some DELETERIOUS genes are only lethal when homozygous and may even be beneficial when heterozygous. | Shown to benefit fitness components and benefit reproduction/survival: individual (breeding success) and population (persistence) |
| Within population diversity measurement | Heterozygosity Allele diversity | Fraction of heterozygous genes in a population. Difference between individuals. |
| Among population diversity measurement | Heterozygosity Allele diversity | Global pool of genetic diversity. Fraction of heterozygous genes among populations. Difference between and within populations. |
| Genetic model for among population diversity | HT = HP + DPT HT = total genetic variation (heterozygosity) HP = average diversity within populations DPT = average differentiation among populations (how different populations are from each other) | Ht = total genetic diversity Hp = average WITHIN population diversity Dpt = average divergence AMONG populations |
| Importance of genetic variation | WITHOUT genetic variation, there would be no basis for evolution. WITH genetic variation, individuals with the best alleles tend to leave more offspring. Leading to an increased number of good alleles in the next generation. "Survival of the fittest" | |
| Example of genetic diversity correlating with evolutionary change IN a POPULATION. | Peppered moth (Biston betularia) in England GB: 1850-1970 -air pollution->little lichen = melanic fraction up Recently (1996)-cleaner air->more lichen = typical fraction up | If there hadn't been a mixture of the two forms, the species may have gone extinct. Note: Lichen grows on trees in good air conditions. |
| How is genetic diversity assessed? | By a multitude of genetic markers. | i.e. comparing genes of different individuals |
| How is population size measured? | Nc = Census N Ne = Effective N | |
| Effective population size | Number of individuals actively contributing genes to the next generation. | |
| 5 reasons why Ne < Nc | 1. Age structure 2. Sex ratio 3. Family size 4. Non-random mating 5. Fluctuating population size due to environmental/demographic or human factors. | 1. mature vs. immature 2. a) males vs. females b) social structure (i.e. walruses) 3. variation in # of offspring 4. choosing specific mates, assortative mating etc. 5. Ne = Harmonic mean. Reduces Ne to below average number of adults. |
| 4 reasons for lower GENETIC variation in SMALL population | 1. Genetic drift: a) Founder effect b) Bottleneck 2. Lower incidence of mutation 3. Sometimes more isolated leading to less gene flow. | 1. Higher chance alleles will be lost. 2. A new mutation is less likely to show up in more than one individual. 3. Population eventually gets homogenized. |
| Founder effect | Where a new population is founded by a few individuals; a SUBSAMPLE of original population's genetic diversity. | |
| Bottleneck | ENVIRONMENTAL stochastic event/human activity leading to sharp decrease in population numbers. Leaving behind a SUBSAMPLE of original population's genetic diversity. | i.e. earthquake, flood, walking |
| 3 Genetic threats to small populations | NATURAL SELECTION NO LONGER WORKING AS STRONGLY. 1. Small populations adapt much less well than large ones due to GENETIC DRIFT. (Slow) 2. Recessive deleterious alleles can accumulate more easily. (Slow) 3. Inbreeding and inbreeding depression. (Fast) | 1. Driven by demographic stochasticity. Ne decrease -> increased genetic drift: a) rare allele loss rate UP b) heterozygosity DOWN 2. Major cause for inbreeding depression. 3. (i.e. California condor, pets, royal families) |
| California condor | Inbreeding depression. Studbooks. Chondrodystrophy - recessive mutation dD: health, dd: fatal. Frequency of 'd' in 349 condors = 9% | |
| Inbreeding | Mating among CLOSE relatives. Different degrees of inbreeding lead to different degrees of inbreeding depression, can affect all parts of life cycle. | Close relative = similarity of background and therefore similar deleterious alleles. |
| Inbreeding depression | Decreased FITNESS as a result of increased HOMOZYGOSITY NOTE: happens in ALL small populations | I.e. Survival of Field Gentian I.e. Outbred vs. inbred White footed mouse I.e. Florida Panther |
| Genetic effects of fragmentation | 1. Drift towards different genetic make ups; potentially incompatible subspecies. 2. No/limited rescue from gene flow (immigrants). | i.e. European deer |
| 3 ingredients of extinction vortex | Pushes species to be rarer and rarer. 1. Genetic drift 2. Build up deleterious alleles 3. Limited gene flow between populations | |
| Outbreeding depression | When the offspring of two highly divergent populations have decreased FITNESS. Causes: 1. Loss of local adaptation (intermediate genotypes disfavoured) AB/AB + ab/ab -> AB/ab 2. Loss of co-adapted gene complexes AB/ab -> aB/Ab | i.e. Tatra Mountain Ibex |
| CONSERVATION: Two cases of genetic rescue (one successful, one not successful) | 1. Florida Panther 2. Tatra Mountain Ibex | |
| Species and POPULATION approach to conservation | ||
| Units of evolution | Population (biodiversity) | |
| Life history characteristics of ANIMALS as predictors of extinction likelihood | A) Primates B) Carnivores C) Birds D) Fish (fresh vs. marine) | A) -geographic range, +body mass, -population density B) -geographic range, +trophic level, +gestation period C) +habitat specialization, -thermal maximum D) FRESH = null. MARINE = +body size |
| Life history characteristics of PLANTS as predictors of extinction likelihood | 1. Pollinator 2. Seed disperser 3. Sexual system 4. Compatibility 5. Seeds/clonal reproduction 6. Seed bank 7. Reaction to disturbance/coppice --------------------- 1/2. single, specialist, generalist, wind 3. monoecy, dioecy, hermaphroditism | 4. non-self (apple), self-compatible (raspberry) 5. seeds (sugar maple, palm) -> runners/shoots (trembling aspen, golden rod) 6. big (oak, chestnut) -> small (garlic mustard) 7. none (sugar maple) -> resprouts and can reproduce (trembling aspen) |
| Demography; Equation and factors | Intrinsic factors contributing to population fluctuation. Nt = N(t-1) + B - D + I - E Birth, Death, Immigration, Emigration (BIDE) | |
| Density dependent limitations | 1. abiotic/biotic resources 2. predation/herbivory 3. disease | 1. |
| Florida key deer | Density independent mortality: Sex specific - #1 cause of mortality are car collisions, especially during mating season Density dependent mortality: 1. Resources (habitat, food) 3. Dear-to-dear spread of disease | Therefore underpass tunnels to decrease collisions. BUT populations in FL are near K. Mortality reduction will -> population size up -> disease transmission may incease THEREFORE: habitat is the limitation. |
| CONSERVATION: What 4 demographic features are measured for educated conservation? | 1. Critical Life stages 2. Sex-specific survival 3. Limiting factors 4. Population growth | |
| Source-sink dynamics | SOURCE: High quality habitat where B>D --> OFFSPRING EMIGRATE because habitat is at K --> SINK: Low-quality habitat where B<D. Resources allow survival but not reproduction. Immigration prevents extirpation. | THEREFORE: Protect SOURCES To maintain sinks: Protect MIGRATION CORRIDORS. i.e. Grizzly bears in YSNP i.e. Florida Grasshopper Sparrow |
| Grizzly bears in YSNP | A. Source sink dynamics B. Minimum viable population. Dwindling total species area and population sizes BECAUSE they are top carnivores and need a lot of land (350km2). | Survival parameters: 1. Gender 2. Size of undisturbed habitat 3. Harshness of winter 4. Abundance of unprotected roads 5. Density of human settlement 6. Elk hunting |
| Florida Grasshopper Sparrow | Source sink dynamics Grassland birds have sharpest decline of NA birds a) Distance from edge (sink) up -> survival up. b) Replanting of habitats -> only works for some species. | |
| Metapopulation dynamics | Habitat is good quality at a given time. Populations eventually extirpated and repopulated. | i.e. Beetles feeding on decaying aspen Finland: Plantations of aspen are prevented from dying (Paper) VS. Russia: Mix of young/old growth - beetles find habitats here. i.e. General dynamics in forests (mosaic of different age (light) classes) |
| Spring ephemerals fitness curve | Metapopulation dynamics. Gap creation -> light levels reach the ground, they need a lot of light -> 1. Colonization (seeds) 2. Growth and persistence 3. Fitness decline 4. Eventual local extirpation | i.e. Cowslip |
| Source sink vs. Metapopulation dyanmics | Difference = LONGEVITY SS: Long lived MP: Often short lived BOTH: Migration is key, moving through time and space. | |
| CONSERVATION: Of population dynamics | 1. Keep/reinstall landscape dynamics 2. Protect not just the habitat where species CURRENTLY are located. | Many (semi)-open habitats are disappearing due to human activity. i.e. Human fire suppression -Black savannah oaks, alvars, ponderosa pine i.e. Flood suppression - floodplain forest, mud plains |
| 2 types of population persistence assessments and comparison. | 1. Minimum viable population 2. Population viability analysis | PVA based on MVP assessment MVP: What we need NOW to survive into the future. Based on population parameters. Looks at PAST data. PVA: PREDICT How a species will FARE into the future. Based on lambda (<- MVP). Over SPECIFIED time period. |
| 1. Minimum viable population; looks at 4 things | Minimal # of individuals needed for the PERSISTENCE of the population into the future. (sustain catastrophes) MEAN MVP: ~8500 BREEDING adults (Ne) Looks at: Natural catastrophe Genetic factors Environmental uncertainty Demographic stochasticity | i.e. Refer to grizzly bears of YSNP i.e. Florida (West Indian) manatee i.e. American ginseng and wild leek |
| Events affecting SMALL populations | 1. Density independent: catastrophes, resource fluctuation 2. DD: Pests, herbivory 3. DD: Genetics - drift, deleterious alleles, inbreeding 4. DD: Demographics - sex ratio, age structure, family size, non-random mating, population fluctuation (Ne) | |
| 2. Population viability analysis | Probability that a population will go extinct WITHIN a given number of years. Based on MVP assessment (i.e. 4 factors). Provides population growth (lambda). | Each species/population specific risk assessment is unique. Therefore COST and LABOUR INTENSIVE. i.e. Florida (West Indian) manatee i.e. American Ginseng and wild leek |
| 6 Application uses of PVA | 1. Extinction risk 2. Land space/configuration requirements 3. Demographics (i.e. life stage) in need of management 4. How many individuals needed for re-introduction? 5. How many individuals can be harvested SUSTAINABLY? 6. Guide future research | 1. Probability of population decline in a given time period. 2,3. To protect species from extinction 4. Species in to protect population viability. 5. Species out to maintain population viability. |
| Florida (West Indian) Manatee | Population viability analysis. Mortality = 5.3% due to boating with 50% of carcasses being reproductively mature female. Lambda = 0.997 < 1 Modify PVA model with 10% reduction in mortality. --> Lambda > 1 THEREFORE: Speed control zones | |
| American Ginseng and wild leek | Population viability analysis. 1. PVA without harvest: @ Currently both probabilities ~0.2-0.3 over next 100 years 2. Find harvest rate 3. % Population harvest vs. lambda: a) rotation length b) busy vs. choosy | 1. more initial population, less probability of extinction. 3. Busy = young and old Choose = mainly old Note: Oldest plants = most reproductive T: you are removing the whole plant |
| Can American Ginseng and wild leek be harvested sustainably? | YES, if 1. population > MVP 2. lambda > 1 BUT, no/few populations in reality meet these requirements. so, NO. | |
| CONSERVATION: Species and LANDSCAPE approach to conservation | For a target species/population: 1. Distribution and biology 2. Habitat needs 3. Distribution of suitable habitat patches. 4. Successional fate of habitat patches. 5. Find who MANAGES of habitat patches 6. Implementation | Most meaningful but hardest to implement because there are so many stakeholders involved. i.e. Refer to grizzly bears of YSNP - does not observe "boundaries" i.e. Antarctica is being fought over by many countries i.e. Bachman's sparrow |
| Landscape; properties of patches | A mosaic of patches that interact and feed back into one another. Patches differ in ecologically important properties: 1. Size & 2. shape (influence edge effects) 3. Distribution of patches (influence gene flow) | SCALE DEPENDENCE of landscape mosaic; who's using it. |
| 3 landscape parameters | 1. Succession regime 2. Disturbance 3. Population dynamic models a) Source-sink dynamics b) Meta-population dynamics | |
| History of mapping (tool) in LANDSCAPE approach to conservation | 1. Ground 2. Airplanes -then-> reconstruct crude composition of landscapes 3. Satellite: a) Large and small scale resolution pictures b) Infrared remote sensing 4. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) | 3. a) crude level of detail but you get high level of resolution of HABITATS b) temperature images 4. laser technology |
| Infrared remote sensing | Satellite sensors detect INFRARED radiation emitted differentially from Earth's surface as SUN hits landscape. TEMPERATURE dependent. These temperature images can be then translated back to types of vegetation. | |
| Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) | Airplane emits lasers, which bounce off landscape surface. Detection devices integrate how long it takes the beam to get back. 3D: HORIZONTAL and VERTICAL community structure | |
| Geographic Information System (GIS) | The merger of cartography and technology. Captures, stores, analyzes, manages and presents land cover data linked to a location. Include all information (infrared, satellite etc.) | |
| Best basis for conservation planning | Good land cover data (i.e. GIS). | Allows for: 1) Information management through time. 2) Planning 3) Great way to inform stakeholders of their choices. |
| Bachman's sparrow | 1. METAPOPULATION dynamics 2. OPEN and LIGHT habitat - Old growth pine stands OR very young pine clear-cuts. 3. By GIS of the 50km2 reserve 4. Succession after fire. 5. US Forestry Service 6. YAY | 1. patch location changes relative fast (4-5 bird generations = 20years) |
| Suitability of NPs for conservation | Many species occur ONLY in parks. Case studies: 1. Giant panda in Woolong National Park - 1973 7000km2 2. Bison in YSNP 3. Forest elephant, great apes in Nouabale-Ndoki National Park | |
| Location of National Parks: Canada vs. USA | Canada: Up North= More&bigger parks, lower human density NOTE: Further south= More biodviersity; therefore Ontario is Canada's biodiversity hotspot. BUT luckily, CORE of these species are actually in US. OUR special species are up North. NOT BAD. | USA: NOTE: Florida pan-handle & West Cost are biodiversity hotspots. Other than ONE, there is no overlap between hotspot and NP. PROBLEM. |
| 1. Giant panda in Woolong National Park (china) | 1965 to present, huge decline in (high, med, low) suitable habitat. 1973: Increase eco-tourism -> improve local economy -> increase population -> increase DEFORESTATION for agriculture, fire, souvenirs etc. | PROBLEM: #5. Successful management. Conflict between people's needs (poverty) and conservation. |
| 2. Bison in Yellowstone National Park (usa) | YSNP contains some of the last free-ranging bison=protected species. Some bison are carriers for brucellosis; surrounding farmers are worried; To appease farmers, rangers force bison back in, but if they don't move, are SHOT. BUT: elk=game speces | 1996/7: 1/3 of all YSNP bison shot. PROBLEM: 1. Seasonal migration: In harsh winters, they migrate partially into private/public land. 1. Species interaction: BRUCELLOSIS 6. Human pressure: a) dairy farmers (economic disaster), b) hunting community |
| Brucellosis | Symptoms: Swollen legs, decreased milk production Transmission: spreads quickly. Cow to bison but has never observed to move from bison to cow. Affects: Cows, bison, elk | |
| Part 1 - 3. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Forest elephant in Nouabale-Ndoki National Park (northern congo) | Largest remaining African tropical forest & E,G,C populations. 1. non-invasive mapping; record in transects the DISTRIBUTION of E dung piles, G ground nest, C tree nest 2. Test hypotheses on what are important factors to E,G,C (food, habitat) | 3. A) Vegetation map for GIS B) Enter coordinates of current E,G,C distributions into GIS C) Feed strength of predictors into GIS B) GIS statistical model predicts and maps best habitat fit for E,G,C |
| Part 2 - 3. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Forest elephant in Nouabale-Ndoki National Park (northern congo) | 4/5. 4 types of management: i. NNNP ii. Forest management iii. No land management iv. Community reserve Management -affects-> vegetation/succession -affects-> species [Management/succession * best habitat fit] | 6. Implementation is a challenge: A) different needs per species (E,G vs. C) B) now need to protect outside of NNNP (i.e. low-key deforestation) C) control of management plans D) local development and poverty effect on land use |
| Bais | Creek running through land; very muddy thereby giving open access to soil. E,G eat mud to get a full range of nutrients that they may not get from plants. | |
| Alternative-futures analysis | Is a impact/risk assessment where: A) TWO or more alternative considered B) Alternative represented SPATIALLY C) OUTCOMES of alternative compared (i.e. water/land use, effect on biodvirsity, money) | Case studies i. Mule deer in Wyoming ii. Willamette River Basin in Oregon iii. Greenbelt Ontario |
| i. Mule deer in Wyoming | *Habitats in Wyoming are under pressure for hydrocarbon extraction. Alternative sites? Seasonal migration = 50-100km 1. GPS monitor 57 adults; record level of usage and migration 2. Overlay onto GIS landscape map, summer/winter range & proposed sites | Hard to entire area of migration. Proposed alternative Three pronged landscape approach: Conserve wintering grounds, summering grounds and migration corridors By: Minimize human interference at major migration routes. Protect stop-over sites. |
| ii. Willamette River Basin in Oregon | *Vegetation map has greatly changed with increasing population pressure. Where to plan development? Consider species vs. human need 3 proposed alternatives: 1. Conservation 2050 2. Plan Trend 2050 3. Development 2050 | 1. Space/water for biodiversity -> minimize human affect Note: floodplains, at cost of agriculture land, add patches of land cover 2. Business as usual -> mix of growth in cities & countryside 3. Short-term economic gain -> sell land -> urban SPRAWL |
| CONSERVATION: Alternative-futures analysis process. Ex. ii. Willamette River Basin in Oregon | A Trajectory of change i. Current vs. historical landscape ii. Demographic trends B Scenario development 1. Conservation 2050 2. Plan Trend 2050 3. Development 2050 +Stakeholder C Scenario evaluation Organisms, habitats, people +Stakeholder | C. Habitat: Effects of land change differ between species & their habitats Socio-economic: agricultural land is lost Note: conservation at cost of farmland BUT development takes away even more. Species: Will only increase with more conservation. |
| iii. Greenbelt of Ontario - 7200km2 | PURPOSE: NOT a nature reserve. -Driver: Maintain agriculture land (50% of greenbelt) & drinking water sustainability (i.e. Oak ridges moraine). Protects: 2165km2 of natural habitat. Rule: Cannot build new houses unless on footprint of old. | Therefore proposed alternative: Channel into the center of the city. Therefore we need to adapt for increased density. |
| Design of reserves | ||
| HISTORY of reserve creation | 1. Recreation - "Monumentalism" by 19th century painters ignited interest in American West's scenery/new NPs. 1872 - YSNP = World's first NP. | 1. Made for pleasure of people rather than protection of environment. |
| 4 CATEGORIES of reserves | i. IUCN protected area categories ii. Biosphere reserves iii. Ramsar wetlands iv. World heritage sites | |
| i. 6 IUCN protected area categories | I. Strict nature reserve/WILDERNESS area II. National park III. National monument IV. Habitat/species management area V. Protected landscape/seascape VI. Managed resource protected area | |
| I. Strict nature reserve/wilderness area | Area with some outstanding ecological, geological or physiological features and/or species. Availability: Scientific research, environmental monitoring | "put humans on the sideline" i.e. Polar Bear Pass Nationa Wildlife Area (Nunavut) |
| II. National park | Area designated to: a) Protect ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY of one/more ecosystems b) exclude EXPLOITATION c) provide foundation for SPIRITUAL SCIENTIFIC EDUCATIONAL RECREATIONAL VISITOR opportunities, while being ENVIRONMENTALLY and CULTURALLY compatible | i.e. Yellowstone National Park - restricted paths i.e. Ontario's 5 National Parks NOTE: largest category |
| Ontario's 5 National Parks | 1. Peelee NP 2. Bruce Peninsula NP 3. Georgian Bay Islands NP 4. St. Lawrence Seaway NP 5. Puskaskwa NP | |
| III. National monument | Area with specific NATURAL or CULTURAL feature(s) of outstanding or unique value due to its inherent rarity, representative of AESTHETIC quality or CULTURAL significance. | i.e. Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe |
| IV. Habit/species management area | Area subject to ACTIVE intervention for management purposes: a) to ensure MAINTENANCE of habitats and/or b) meet requirements of specific SPECIES | active intervention to keep things as they are. i.e. Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania) - anti-poaching measures |
| V. Protected landscape | INTERACTION between PEOPLE and NATURE over time has produced an area of distinct character (significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value), often with high BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. | i.e. Dartmoor (UK) - deforestation, grazing of sheep blocked secondary succession; shaping the landscape |
| VI. Managed resource protected area | Predominantly unmodified NATURAL system. Managed to provide: a) Long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity b) WHILE providing SUSTAINABLE flow of natural products and services to meet community needs. | i.e. Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo Reserve (Peru) NOTE: least conflict |
| ii. Biosphere reserves | Runs under UNESCO and biosphere program. Objective: Research, monitoring, training, demonstration, conservation DIFFERENT ZONES. Structured: Core, buffer, transition. Human settlement. Research, Education/training, Tourism/recreation | Protected areas can ALSO be classified as biosphere reserves. i.e. Georgian Bay NP i.e. Long Point |
| iii. Ramsar wetlands | Wetland of INTERNATIONAL importance. | i.e. Long Point i.e. Point Peelee i.e. St. James Bay |
| iv. World heritage sites | Areas of outstanding UNIVERSAL value to the WORLD (CULTURAL & NATURAL heritage) Runs under UNESCO: Track/record state of area (monitoring). Train professionals for preservation (education) Provides emergency assistance. | |
| Basic reserve FEATURES | 1. Degree of protection 2. Size 3. Fragmentation 4. Number 5. Connectivity - corridors 6. Connectivity - stepping stones 7. Habitat diversity 8. Shape 9. Reserve composition 10. Management 11. Human presence | 1. ENTIRE system > partial 2. Size UP 3. Fragmentation DOWN 4. Number UP 5. YES > no 6. YES > no; 5>6>no 7. Habitats UP= more species protected 8. A:P UP 9. Diverse UP 10. Types DOWN 11. Selective barrier > no trespassing (income/education) |
| Basic reserve FEATURES: SLOSS several small(5) vs. single large (5) | Several small: A) easier to manage B) good for non-migratory species (SESSILE animals/plants) C) less likely to be affected by huge disasters D) diverse habitats (i.e. choose geological features) E) adjustable to specific needs | Single large: A) healthier genetics due to gene flow B) good for top predators who need a lot of space C) less edge effects D) more biodiversity due to species-area relationship E) preserves COMMUNITIES of independent species |
| CONSERVATION: Systematic reserve PLANNING; realistic base conditions | i. Compile data on biodiversity ii. Identify conservation TARGETS iii. Review EXISTING conservation areas iv. Select ADDITIONAL reserve v. IMPLEMENT conservation actions vi. MAINTAIN required values of selected areas | Realistic base conditions: 1. Total biodiversity unknown (don't know where it is) 2. Limited resources 3. COMPETING land use |
| i. Compile data on biodiversity | Assessing all biodiversity is NOT feasible (time, money, power). Surrogates?: 1. Flagship species 2. Umbrella species 3. Biodiversity indicators 4. Habitat types | 1. Charismatic species-garner support to leverage conservation 2. Wide ranging species whose requirements include those of many other species-good health indicator 3. Indicators of areas with high species richness 4. Land systems or vegetation classes |
| 1/2. Flagship/umbrella species approach | Columbia Plateau - 211 vertebrates with known distribution. A) Protect all sites of 9 F/U species Species protected: 50% Sites required: 40% B) Protect all sites of 10 RANDOM species Species protected: 40% Sites required: 12% | PROBLEM: flagship/umbreall species are expensive and is it really that much more effective? |
| 3. Biodiversity indicator approach | Two studies: i. UK (temperate region)- A: birds, butterflies, dragonflies P: liverworts, aquatic plant ii. Uganda (tropical region)- A: birds, butterflies, large moths, small mammals P: woody plant 3000/15000km2 forest reserve-> strict reserve | i. Is a hotspot for 1 taxon a hotspot for many taxa? Mapped out distributions. NO there is no clear overlap between all indicators. ii. Correlation of diversity between taxa. NO. No negative correlation, but only few are significantly correlated. |
| 4. Habitat type approach | Two studies: i. Limpopo Nature Reserve (SA) - 9 land types based on topography, geology, soil profile ii. Cape Floristic Region (SA) - UNESCO World Heritage site - 102 habitat types - 122000km2: > 6000 endemic species | Does biodiversity vary with land type diversity? i. YES. Birds and dung beetles vary with land type. ii. KIND OF. Approach effectively protects 79% of proteas (plant). BUT only 35% of fish, amphibia, reptiles (vertebrates) |
| i. What surrogate should be used to compile data on biodiversity? | All had mixed effectiveness. THEREFORE: combine inexpensive habitat type information with other surrogates. | |
| ii. Identify conservation targets. | A. Targets: a) 10-12% land area for conservation b) Target species c) Target vegetation types B. Therefore: Set quantitative targets (minimum size, connectivity) Set qualitative targets (disturbance regime) C. NOTE: take BIOLOGY into account. | C. i.e. species area curve edge effects population dynamics (metapopulation, source-sink) |
| iii. Review existing reserves | Have targets already been achieved? Tool: GAP ANALYSIS (GIS-based method) 1. Map existing "biodiversity" (step i) 2. Map existing reserves 3. Identify gaps 4. Prioritize gaps to be filled/protected | i.e. Gap analysis of Italy - many species are found inside and outside reserves. Also observed gaps. |
| iv. Select additional reserves | Fill gaps to meet targets. A) Tool: Computer search ALGORITHMS B) Reality check +Stakeholders +Alternative site search through IRREPLACEABILITY assessment | A) Next card B) +Include stakeholders Optimal solution: what sites are actually available +focus on irreplaceable ecosystem containing species that are rare or not found in other areas. |
| iv. TOOL:Computer search algorithm | Tool: Computer search ALGORITHMS 1. Random patchwork of reserves 2. Add/remove reserves 3. Check if conservation targets are met 4. Initial search algorithm 5. Later search algorithm Benefit: reliable, flexible, unbiased decision making. | 1. To see what protects the species the best 2. --- 3. Observe if addition/removal benefits, same, or worse. 4. Keep good AND bad, enlarge search parameter space 5. Keep only good |
| iv. TOOL:Computer search algorithm 2 goal settings | Goal settings: A. greedy algorithm B. rarity algorithm | 1. sites that add the MOST unprotected species 2. a) sites that represent rare species first b) sites that protect the MOST unprotected species |
| v. IMPLEMENT conservation actions | Treat most vulnerable/irreplaceable sites first. Slow, complicated, tedious process: Fine tune targets Fine tune boundaries Decisions on management | |
| vi. MAINTAIN required values of selected areas; problem/solution | LONG-TERM COMMITMENT is key. Take into account needs of species & humans: A) Internal dynamics B) External disturbance C) Human use PROBLEM: Underfunded Unplanned Threatened by illegal use for: -Basic human subsistence -Commercial activities | A) succession, disturbance regime B) invasive species, altered precipitation, water flux SOLUTION: Integrate LOCAL stakeholders Regular monitoring |
| CONSERVATION: 3 types of Ex situ conservation | A. Ex situ conservation of animals B. Ex situ conservation of plants C. Managed relocation Future plan: A) ALLEVIATE causes for extinction B) REINTRODUCTION into wild | IUCN Categories: --NE--DD--LC--NT--VU--EN--CR--EW--EX--> |
| A. Captive breeding (ANIMALS) | Define: Conserving a species that is INCAPABLE of surviving in the WILD. Purpose: Increase NUMBERS in a safe haven WHILE maintaining genetic DIVERSITY and minimize inbreeding. NOTE: A last resort. | i.e. Zoos i.e. Game farms i.e. Aquaria NOTE: Almost always linked with problems, therefore best to save species in NATIVE habitats - but this is often done too little too late |
| A. 3 methods of ex situ ANIMAL conservation | 1. Zoos - non-natural 2. Game Farms - SEMI-NATURAL 3. Aquaria - non-natural | 1. A)Captive breeding center B)Public education 2. A)Propagate GAME for hunting to reduce pressure in the wild B)Excess animals: Reintroduction & restock breeding programs 3. Success with small fish and SOME mammals (dolphin). Less with others (orca). |
| A. Captive breeding (ANIMALS) in US zoo success | EX SITU SUCCESS: reintroduction into the wild Successful breeding in captivity: 19% of all mammals, 10% of all birds 90% of mammals, 74% of birds added to U.S. zoo collections since 1985: born in captivity | Success overall is not high, but the one's we do know, we have become pretty good at it and don't need to restock from the wild. |
| A. Rule for successful REINTRODUCTION | 1. Sustainable captive population 2. Good genetic management 3. Suitable habitat for re-intro 4. Prepare animals for re-intro 5. Post-release monitoring and evaluation of success 6. Public and professional education 7. Sufficient long-term funding | 4. behavioural, social skills 6. to get cash flow 7. keep habitats in good, SUSTAINABLE condition |
| 1. Self-sustaining captive population | Need: Enough space Enough breeding stock GOAL: provide surplus | |
| 2. Good genetic management | Tool: Studbooks Goal: Cross LEAST related and MOST vigorous animals. Method: Exchange UNRELATED & FIT specimens. OR. artificial insemination. | i.e. California condor |
| Studbooks | Starting with the founders (the original wild-caught animals), a compilation of genealogical data of individual animals. | |
| 3. Suitable habitat for re-introduction | Before: Determine AMOUNT and TYPE of habitat needed During: RESTORE proper habitat After: PROTECT from whatever caused previous decline. | During: i.e. restore disturbance regime |
| 4. Prepare animals for re-introduction | Basic skills: Find and handle food. Find/build shelter. Social skills: Predator avoidance behaviour. Interaction with conspecifics. | i.e. mimicking predator/bird of prey |
| 5. Post-release monitoring and evaluation | Evaluate and modify programs. | i.e. GPS tracking i.e. local site managers i.e. watching |
| 6. Professional and public education | Professional: partnerships provide opportunities for education of professionals Public: create local support to sustain reintroduction efforts | |
| 7. Sufficient long term support | Long term money Long term commitment by agencies/individuals | |
| A. Captive breeding (Animals) - 3 EXTREME MEASURES | 1. Artificial incubation 2. Artificial insemination 3. Cross-fostering | |
| 1. Extreme measures - artificial incubation | Goal: "Head Start Program" Problem: High juvenile mortality Solution: Rear to beyond CRITICAL stage prior to RELEASE | Problem: i.e. many bird, turtles, fish species Solution: hand rearing, slow cooker |
| 2. Extreme measures - artificial insemination | Goal: Breeding Problem: Unsuccessful/insufficient breeding Solution: Collect sperm from donor males. Can be processed/frozen for long-term storage for world wide distribution | Problem: i.e. panda, rhino, hippo |
| 3. Extreme measures - cross-fostering | Goal: Raising young Problem: Some species breed successfully in captivity BUT do not raise their young Solution: closely RELATED species raise their young | Problem: i.e. don't know what to do with them Solution: Found by trial and error. i.e. transferring baby from Brush-tailed wallaby to tammar wallaby. ISSUES: i.e. may not be attracted to own species |
| 3 examples of successful Captive Breeding Programs | 1. Przewalski horse 2. Whooping crane (US <-> Canada) 3. Giant panda in Woolong National Park | 1. Were hunted for their meat. Now captive breeding in 2 major locations: A) Khustain Nuruu NP, Mongolia B) Chernobyl, Belarus |
| 2. Successful captive breeding - Whooping crane | Almost extinct in the 1940s due to hunting and draining of wetlands - 22 caught. Now endangered. But at numbers allowable for reintroduction. ISSUE: Migratory animals Summer: Wood Buffalo NP Winter: Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. | SOLUTION: Migration: connect machine noise to parental love Food: In both seasonal grounds Still a long way to MVP. NOTE: as little human contact as possible during captive breeding |
| 3. Successful captive breeding - Giant Panda | Now endangered. ISSUE: Female is only receptive for 12-24 hr/year. Low sex skills/drive in captivity. | SOLUTION: Collect daily urine sample to find suitable mating time. OR. Artificial insemination. ISSUE2: Raising young is okay. BUT if twins, mom will abandon one. SOLUTION: hand rearing. NOTE: little human contact |
| A. 7 CRITICISMS of captive breeding | a. Focus on FEW, CHARISMATIC species b. Loss of genetic diversity c. Domestication (behaviour) d. Disease transmission | e. What if native habitat cannot be expected to EXIST/be RESTORED in reasonable time frame? f. Cost vs. effectiveness g. False sense that battle against extinction is being won |
| a. Focus on FEW, CHARISMATIC species | 1. Threatened non-mammals > threatened mammals. BUT threatened non-mammals with breeding programs < threatened mammals with breeding programs 2. Larger mammals most represented. | Therefore, skewed towards a small population of species that are actually threatened. |
| b. Erosion of genetic diversity | Population UP -> genetic drift DOWN | i.e. Red wolf has been part of captive breeding programs since 1970 and is facing inbreeding depression through biparental breeding |
| b. i.e. Red Wolf (CR in US) | 1. Nc has increased BUT Ne is still decreasing 2. Inbreeding coefficient increasing 3. Mean litter size decreasing | Inbreeding compromises fitness (i.e. outbred vs. inbred) |
| c. Change of behaviour (domestication) | 1. Food finding and handling abilities DOWN 2. Social interactions | 1. i.e. Bank vole can't open nuts 2. i.e. Butterfly splitfin more agressive probably due to density in captivity vs. wild - NON-NATURAL SELECTION |
| d. Transmission of disease | Zoo: dense living quarters 3 routes: A) Within zoo: within species B) Within zoo: between species C) Reintroduction: between zoo and wild | B) under normal conditions would not interact i.e. Whooping crane got disease from a horse |
| e. What if native habitat cannot be expected to EXIST/be RESTORED in reasonable time frame? | ISSUE: Habitat loss = main threat to PRIMATES and many CARNIVORES -> leading to small chance for successful relocation -> living dead. | |
| f. Cost vs. effectiveness | A) SIZE: 1. Size UP -> Instrinsic growth rate DOWN. 2. Size UP -> per capita maintenance UP B) IN SITU vs. EX SITU 3. Generally, growth rate in situ > growth rate ex situ (study: LARGE mammals) 4. Cost in situ < cost ex situ (study: mammals) | Therefore: A) Larger mammals are HARDEST to increase numbers and are more EXPENSIVE. B) Ex situ LESS effective and MORE expensive |
| g. False sense of positive achievement | Look at data; extinctions still increasing exponentially. | |
| B. 3 methods of Ex situ PLANT conservation | 1. Living collections - inside - outside 2. Seed banks 3. Cryopreservation | 1. i.e. botanical garden 2. i.e. Millennium Seed Bank i.e. Svalbard Global Seed Vault (focus: food plants) |
| B. 1. Living collection - botanical gardens | GOAL: Recreational Pharmaceutical PROBLEM 1: Small Ne -> inbreeding PROBLEM 2: SKEWED selection of species. Limited range of species and limited distribution of gardens to colonial powers. Greatest plant biodiversity is in the tropics. | |
| B. 2. Seed banks | Storage of seeds: one of the most WIDESPREAD and COST-EFFECTIVE ex situ approaches to conservation Goal: Plant long-term conservation through storage. METHOD: Test and replenished for viability regularly | i.e. Millennium Seek Bank i.e. Svalbard Global Seed Vault (focus: food plants) |
| 2. 4 benefits and 4 problems of seeds for storage | CONVENIENT means for LONG-TERM storage: a) small -> large collections -> diversity b) remain viable for long periods of time (i.e. non-fleshy seed) c) low maintenance d) easy to handle | Problem: a. Not all species are suited b. At risk from power failure, war, disaster c. Need to regularly germinate to renew stock d. NO evolution |
| 2. Millennium Seed Bank | Goal: Bank all wild plant species. Currently: >24000 wild species International Conservation Project coordinated by Royal Botanical Gardens (GB) | |
| 2. Svalbard Global Seed Vault | Goal: Safe-guard crop plant diversity. Currently: >90000 crop species Funded by government of Norway. Acts as insurance in case of global crisis. | SOLUTIONS: b. Permafrost maintains low T even in event of power failure. Highly protected Duplicates held in gene-banks worldwide |
| B. 3. Cryopreservation | Method: Liquid N: -196C 1. Cells in tissue culture 2. Embryo 3. Seeds 4. Meristem 5. Buds 6. Twigs 7. Pollen | SOLUTION: a. Stores a VARIETY of tissues c. Physical/metabolic processes stop; suspended animation: Therefore no genetic mutation no pathogenic activity |
| C. Managed RELOCATION | Problem to be solved: Climate change 1. Barriers to migration 2. No where to go CONFLICT: Has been shown to work BUT may become invasive BUT if we don't move them they may become extinct | Problem to be solved: i.e. Sugar Maple 2. i.e. Gelata baboon Conflict: Proof: Marbled white and small skipper |
| Assisted Migration | Moving endangered species to future 'correct' climatic conditions | i.e. Florida Torreya |
| Species as an economic engine | Big and/or dangerous. Cash cows: Money brought in to fund conservation of many species. | i.e. Maldive sharks |
| Maldive Sharks | Shark steak ($32) vs. Shark photo ($3300). Problem: Shark decline. Solution: Marine protected areas (shark, fish, ray). Communicate with locals. Prohibit ray skin export. | |
| 5 types of tourism | 1. Mass tourism (S,S,S,S) 2. Nature tourism 3. Wildlife tourism 4. Adventure tourism 5. Ecotourism | 5. Beyond nature tourism. |
| Ecotourism | The overlap of profit, locals (who see incentive to conserve), conservation and education. To respect and benefit protected areas AND locals. | #2 source of income in the world after waste disposal. |
| Ecotourism vs. Mass tourism | E: More growth. Visitors spend more. Eco-lodges hire and purchase locally whereas all-inclusive package tours 80% goes to international companies. | |
| CONSERVATION: 8 Guiding principles for ecotourism | 1. Tourism must respect the intrinsic value of natural resources. 2. Tourist activities cannot degrade resource. 3. Tourism cannot overtax resource supply. 4. Visitors should get educational first hand experiences. | 5. Involve all stakeholders. 6. Stakeholders must be encouraged to form partnerships. 7. Revenue must provide conservation/scientific/cultural benefits to the resource/local community/industry. 8. Benefits should be long term. |
| Problems with ecotourism | 1. control/reinforcement often weak 2. Increase revenue-> increase population-> degradation of resources (i.e. potable water). | |
| Costa Rica | Has kept intact largest amount of lowland and upland tropical rain forest. Contains 4% of world diversity YET makes up 0.01% of earth's landscape. Highest fraction of protected land: 25.2% (benchmark is 10-12%) | Revenue: > 1 billion Visitors: > 1 million A) Motivated by natural sightseeing. B) Make local arrangements C) Stay for long time D) Spend more |
| 5 of Costa Rica's selling points | 1. Geographical proximity to US 2. Safety and stability 3. High standard of living 4. Small but high diversity of habitat 5. Strong environmental lobby | 1. Close to consumer population 3. Don't feel as bad i.e. Haiti |
| Costa Rica's Motto | Know it <-> Use it <-> Save it KNOW: where biodiverse sites USE: in a sustainable way SAVE: for future generations | Economic justification for conservation |
| National Biodiversity Institute (INBio) | Private research and development center in Costa Rica. Goal: Promote awareness of the VALUE of biodiversity -> ensure its CONSERVATION -> improve human quality of living Method: Sustainable use and commercial application of biodiversity resources. | i.e. Bioprospecting - INBio acts as a biocontractor |
| Bioprospecting | Customers: industrial, academic clients. Systemic search of new sources of chemical compounds, genes, proteins, microorganisms with potential economic value present in Costa Rica's biotic resources. | Research budget (paid up front, irrespective of if they find anything): 90% INBio, 10% Protected Area Payoff (if successful): 95% client, 2.5% INBio, 2.5% Protected Area |
| Bioprospecting Process | 1. Negotiation with business clients. 2. Collect and ID samples of commercial interest. 3. Chemical analysis 4. Plant & microbial biotechnology | 3.- analyze medicinal plants - develop phytodrugs/extracts - analyze active organic compounds - production of tincture/essential oils 4. - in vitro propagation of plants - bioassay - molecular taxonomy |
| Sustainability (old definition) | Meet the needs of the PRESENT without compromising the ability of FUTURE generations to meet their OWN needs. - Gro Harlem Bruntland @ Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro 1992 | |
| 4 Major Human Impacts on Earth | Population growth exponentially increasing: Land use change -> HANPP UP (Ho-(Hact-Hh) Temperature UP -> change NPP as more biomass will grow in the north BUT hurts adapted species -> OCEAN: loose reefs-> diversity Large scale local N OVERLOAD | |
| Drivers against sustainability | Predisposition: encoded in human behavioural ecology, REINFORCED by cultural fcators. Fitness through possession substitutes for natural selection. | i.e. Easter Island |
| Human population pressure exerted via 2 pathways. | Human population pressure: 1. use of NON-renewable energy 2. UNSUSTAINABLE use of RENEWABLE resources. | 1. i.e. fossil fuels 2. i.e. air, water, soil, common species (passenger pigeon, bison) |
| 1. Key to power | Energy through FOSSIL FUELS. | Great energetic leap coincides with expansion of human population. |
| 1. Maximum Power principle | Maximize energy use -> selective advantage | |
| 1. 16x increased energy use driven by 4 factors | 1. Structure of economies 2. Nature of technologies 3. Geopolitics 4. Quality of human life | |
| 2. Tragedy of the commons | A) “If I do not use this resource, someone else will.” B) “The little bit I use or pollute is not enough to matter.” Benefits reaped by INDIVIDUAL Cost shared by COMMUNITY | i.e. Depleting Northern Cod fisheries Fishermen try to get the best of the resources before others get them, thereby further depleting fisheries. |
| Ecological Footprint | Measure of "load" IMPOSED by given entity. NOTE: Includes land/water necessary to sustain resource consumption (IN) and absorb waste discharge (OUT) | |
| 4.5 parts of the ecological footprint | 1. Fossil fuel consumption (energy land) 2. Built environment (consumed land) 3. Food consumption (farm land) 4. Forest products (forest land) INCLUDING Land to absorb and recycle WASTE | PROBLEMS: Global average = 2.3 ha/person Eco-productive land area = 1.5 (.25 arable) We are using more than we have. We are exceeding carrying capacity without a big bang. OVERSHOOT. Accounting for at least 12% biodiversity = 2.0 ha/person |
| CONSERVATION: Ultimate Solution - 5 factors | 1. Stop and revert human population growth 2. Solve the energy crisis 3. Live sustainably 4. Reserve land for non-humans ~12% 5. Redefine progress/re-writing cultural software: fair earth-share Large scale solution Small scale solution | 2. Renewable energy to get us off fossil fuels 3. "Three Daly Rules" 5. Less is more; Individualism & self interest --> community and cooperation |
| 3 Daly Rules | 1. Renewable resources used sustainably (<replinishment rate) 2. Non-renewable resources used no faster than renewable SUBSTITUTE implementation 3. Pollution & waste must be emitted no faster than NATURAL systems can absorb/recycle/render them harmless | |
| 4 Large scale solution measures | 1. Renewable energy technologies 2. Environmentally sound agricultural technology 3. Energy efficiency 4. Population size and consumption most be compatible |
Created by:
collie