We are living in a biodiversity crisis, with many species shrinking in numbers and at risk of going extinct. To put a stop to, or at least slow down this seemingly inevitable fall into the abyss for many of the world’s species, one action that is considered effective is establishing protected areas.
“A protected area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.” IUCN Definition, 2008
When we imagine a protected area, we typically picture a pristine natural environment with gorgeous landscapes, thriving diversity of wildlife, and no human beings. The reality, however, is strikingly different, especially in Europe where very few locations have never been used by humans. In fact, most protected areas are under pressure from human activities.
The pressure comes in different forms: from farming to roads, from urbanization to hunting, from mining to logging etc.. We may expect that some of those threats are more harmful than others. We may also expect that some of those threats are more “central” than others. In other words, that some threats may be sources of other types of pressures. A classic example is roads, which favour the spread of invasive species and increase hunting. New roads make it easier for hunters to access more land to hunt on. If we want to reduce hunting, we could well reduce access to areas that host endangered species.
In the European Union (EU), protected areas are managed through an integrated network called Nature 2000, which includes over 27,000 land and marine protected areas and covers over 1.1 million square kilometres, an area almost four times the size of Italy. The EU collects an impressive amount of information about its protected areas. For example, data on protected species, habitats, what management actions are carried out, and importantly human activities. Remarkably, all this data is made openly available (it can be downloaded here)!
We used this data and we tried to identify relationships between human threats, hoping to provide guidance for a better management of these sites.
Map of the terrestrial Natura 2000 sites used in the study, shown in dark green colour.
By analysing the data from the EU, we found that many of the human threats recorded within the Natura 2000 network are related with each other. For example, as introduced earlier, we observed that the presence of ’roads, paths and railroads’ is strongly related with ’hunting and collection of wild animals’. We also observed that ’Urbanised areas, human habitation’ is related threats such as ’Fire and fire suppression’, ’Introduced genetic material, GMO’, and ’Taking/removal of terrestrial plants’, among others. In these examples, roads and urban areas are likely acting as sources of the other types of threats. Generally, we found that threats related to agriculture and urbanization are more frequently related with other threats. In practical terms, it means that if we are going to eliminate, or at least reduce the presence, of those types of human activities we will be more likely to also reduce other threats that are associated to them. We can kill two birds with one stone, but now the birds are nasty human activities that harm ecosystems and biodiversity. Minimizing threats that are strongly related with others should be prioritized.
The full article “Examining the co-occurrences of human threats within terrestrial protected areas“, published in Ambio, can be accessed here.
All references to the color green are impossible to avoid if we want to preserve or improve the environment. It is clear that “going green” is in, but which shade of green should we look at? There is the ‘bright electric green’, commonly posed on renewable energy advertisements and infographics. There is also the ‘deep forest green’ often pledged in biodiversity conservation campaigns. However, the question is, can we generate an environmental plan that actually delivers an appealing blend of both ‘electric’ and ‘deep forest’ green?
In our recent work, we set out to determine what the optimal shade of green for Ireland’s future is. Like many countries, Ireland recognizes the need to urgently transition to a low-carbon economy to avoid the devastating impacts of unimpeded climate change. To meet our decarbonisation goals, Ireland has developed a Climate Action Plan 1. The goal of the Climate Action Plan is to achieve a net zero carbon energy system for Irish society by 2050. Specific actions include increasing the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources from 30% to 80% by 2030, establishing 8,000 hectares of newly planted trees per year, and funding the restoration and rehabilitation of peatlands. So it seems that the solution is quite straightforward – convert all current land uses to renewable energy infrastructure, new forests, and peatlands. Problem solved?!
Not so fast… In addition to the climate crisis, we are also facing an equally urgent biodiversity crisis. These two green problems can’t be solved independently. The biodiversity and climate crises are entwined in a complex system of feedbacks, with biodiversity part of the Earth system regulating climate, and climate in turn determining biodiversity patterns and trajectories. Ireland is a trailblazer in acknowledging that a synergistic solution is needed, and in May 2019, became the 2nd country worldwide to declare a climate and biodiversity emergency (Dáil Éireann, 2019). However, recognizing that climate and biodiversity require a coordinated response is only a first step. Implementation is going to be far more complicated. We need a plan, and we need it fast.
To come up with the plan that would be the best for both climate and biodiversity, we went through the major goals of the Climate Action Plan and reviewed the scientific literature to determine how to meet those objectives in the most biodiversity friendly way possible. We identified the major threats that climate actions, such as increased renewable energy infrastructure, could impose on biodiversity (Figure 1) 2.
Figure 1. Mechanisms for climate actions which impact biodiversity. We outline major mechanisms that could impact biodiversity during the three primary life stages of renewable energy facilities: construction, operation, and decommissioning. From Gorman et al, 2023.
Along the way, we also found that many of the proposed climate actions can be implemented in ways that don’t harm biodiversity, but actually promote biodiversity: our “win-wins”. For Ireland, these include increasing offshore wind capacity, rehabilitating natural areas surrounding onshore wind turbines and limiting the development of solar photovoltaics to where humans have already erected structures, the so-called “built” environment (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Some examples of Ireland’s 2 “win-wins” for climate action and promoting biodiversity.
Ultimately, biodiversity-friendly renewable energy can be achieved by prioritizing renewables that are the least damaging and ensuring that infrastructure development is carried out as sensitively as possible in order to protect, restore, and enhance biodiversity. This could look different depending on where in the environment we are talking about, which is why choosing an appropriate site for each method is critical – we need a plan!
We hope that this work can form the basis for that plan for Ireland and stimulate broader discussions on what this looks like for other countries. By synergistically mitigating both our climate and biodiversity crises, we can ensure that Ireland’s future is Emerald Green.
About the author: Courtney Gorman is a postdoctoral researcher and project manager for the Nature+Energy project at Trinity College Dublin. She has a PhD in Biology from the University of Konstanz in Germany.
References:
1. Government of Ireland. Climate Action Plan. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ccb2e0-the-climate-action-plan-2019/ (2021).
2. Gorman, C. E. et al. Reconciling climate action with the need for biodiversity protection, restoration and rehabilitation. Science of The Total Environment 857, 159316 (2023).
Blog amended from first publication on Campus Buzz.
The media love to brand cloning as an apocalyptic threat that involves mad scientists, evil doppelgängers, and mutated monsters like Frankenstein. Thanks to such misconceptions, cloning discussions highly focus on the idea of human clones and what this means for our individual identity. However, much like the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, life is more than mankind. This human self-entitlement draws away from the fact that cloning can be a tool used to right our wrongs, as cloning has the potential to save species that we have endangered or even resurrect species that we have driven to extinction. But before Jurassic Park and Ice Age fans get too excited, I’m here to convince you that we should focus our cloning resources on reverting species decline rather than de-extinction. Read on with an open mind and look past the assumptions that the media have distilled in how we think and understand the science of cloning.
To demonstrate how cloning can successfully save a dying species, I am going to take you on a journey as we explore the life, death and rebirth of a clone named Elizabeth Ann. Elizabeth Ann is a black-footed ferret whose species is native to the United States. In the 1970s, this species was thought to be extinct after farmers and ranchers destroyed the main food source of black-footed ferrets, the prairie dogs.
However, a ranch dog named Shep surprised the world when he uncovered a remaining population in 1981. These surviving black-footed ferrets were monitored intensely and the population seemed to be thriving, up until they were nearly wiped out by canine distemper and sylvatic plague. The very last 18 black-footed ferrets were rounded up and taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service before it was too late. Of the remaining 18 black-footed ferrets, only 7 were successful in breeding and passing their genes onto offspring. As a result, all newborns arose from the same 7 founders, meaning all black-footed ferrets alive today are related. This incestuous existence creates a population with little genetic diversity which can wreak all sorts of havoc on the success and maintenance of a population. You see, differences and variations in genes are what enable a species to fight off diseases and better adapt to their surroundings. Without this diversity, a species is less likely to survive on this ever-changing Earth.
The black-footed ferret cloning process began when forward-thinking conservationists at the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish suggested that the cells of a female black-footed ferret, named Willa, be sent to the Frozen Zoo within the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance (SDZWA) when she died in 1988, as Willa had a particularly diverse genome. These cells became one of the 1,100 cryopreserved (frozen) cells of rare, endangered, and even long-dead species who are silently waiting for technology to enable their return. 30 years later, Willa’s frozen cells were used to make Elizabeth Ann, along with the collaborative help from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ViaGen Pets & Equine, Revive & Restore and the SDZWA.
The cloning process involved taking eggs from sedated domestic ferrets (a related species) and replacing the nucleus and genetic material of the eggs with the contents of Willa’s cells (picturing a yolk transplant between a chicken and a duck egg helps me make sense of it). The resulting embryos were implanted into a surrogate domestic ferret and, lo and behold one embryo took and a black-footed ferret foetus was conceived. On the 10th of December 2020, Elizabeth Ann was born via C-section with tests on her 65th day revealing that she is, in fact, of the black-footed ferret species and a clone of the pre-existing Willa. The arrival of Elizabeth Ann brings new hope for the species as a broadening of the gene pool may help black-footed ferrets reproduce more easily and become more resilient to disease and environmental stressors. Therefore, cloning can aid in overcoming the genetic limitations that are disrupting the recovery of the endangered black-footed ferrets. If Elizabeth Ann successfully breeds and provides greater genetic diversity, this will legitimise cloning as a reproductive technology for the conservation management of black-footed ferrets and other endangered species.
Although cloning can be a successful way of saving living species from dying out, cloning specialists at Revive & Restore continue to work towards resurrecting extinct species such as the passenger pigeon and the woolly mammoth. But take note, bringing an extinct species back to life is very expensive, much more complicated, and highly controversial. There’s no knowing if an extinct species could even survive in the climate we have created today. So, let’s stick to what we know can work and clone to save our existing species first.
References: 1. Maio, G. (2006). Cloning in the media and popular culture: An analysis of German documentaries reveals beliefs and prejudices that are common elsewhere. EMBO reports, 7: 241-245 2. Ryder, O.A. and Benirschke, K. (1997). The potential use of “cloning” in the conservation effort. Zoo Biology: Published in affiliation with the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, 16: 295-300.
Based on the ideas discussed in: Shapiro, B. (2017). Pathways to de-extinction: how close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species?. Functional Ecology, 31: 996-100.
A herbarium contains collections of dried, pressed and therefore preserved plant material. Herbaria are amassed primarily for the purposes of understanding plant evolution, biogeography and systematics but are also useful in very many other domains including, for example, pharmaceutics, climate change, ecology and conservation.
The interior of the TCD herbarium (on the left and in the middle) and a typical set of cabinets in the TCD herbarium (on the right) showing the array of preserved specimens in presses. Those specimens in red covers are type specimens – specimens which are the reference specimens for the species.
Whilst the TCD herbarium is internationally renowned it is perhaps not as well know as it should be inside the walls of TCD.
At the start of each year we ask the EcoEvo contributors to share their favourite scientific publications from the past year and why they found them interesting, inspiring, or otherwise worthy of inclusion in the Hall of Fame. Keeping with tradition, here are the EcoEvo Hall of Fame entries for 2020! And if you enjoy reading about our favourite papers from 2020, remember you can also check out our favourites from 2017, 2018 and 2019, too!
I really enjoyed this paper because it tackles a really difficult topic at the intersection of poverty, human rights, development, conservation, and sustainability. It is important to remember that conservation will never meet its objectives without considering how people depend on nature for their needs and livelihoods. The areas of richest biological diversity (and therefore conservation potential) are usually in developing countries with communities experiencing poverty. This paper collects responses from conservation practitioners to examine their viewpoints on poverty in the context of their work.
They found some areas of agreement such as the poorest people should not be expected to shoulder the costs of preserving a global public good (the conservation of biodiversity). However, they also identify differences between responses: Is the focus placed on meeting the needs of people or more closely aligned with the “do no harm” principle? Is poverty a driver of nature’s decline, or is it the over-consumption that drives environmental degradation? This paper was a great opportunity to question my own views on these very complex ideas and to appreciate the wide diversity of thought going on across the world of conservation.
Fisher, J.A., Dhungana, H., Duffy, J., He, J., Inturias, M., Lehmann, I., Martin, A., Mwayafu, D.M., Rodríguez, I. and Schneider, H. (2020). Conservationists’ perspectives on poverty: An empirical study. People and Nature, 2 (3), pp.678-692.
This paper is based on a truly colossal undertaking: to collect their data on dispersal ability, Sheard et al. measured the wings of 10,338 bird species, i.e. 99% of all bird species on Earth. They used the Hand-Wing Index, a measure that correlates with aspect ratio and basically tells you how long and pointed the bird’s wing is. The higher this number (i.e. the pointier the wing), the better the bird will be at dispersing and flying long distances.
This is important for evolution, as the more birds that are able to fly between distant populations the more gene flow there will be and the less likely the populations are to diverge. Sheard et al. found important links between dispersal ability and geography and ecology, as tropical and territorial birds, had lower Hand-Wing Indices and migratory species had higher ones. It’s fascinating to see how these traits affect the ability of a species to move around, which in turn dictates where that species will be found in the world. The authors have made this incredible dataset freely available and it is sure to inform new insights into bird ecology and evolution for years to come.
Sheard C., Neate-Clegg M. H. C., Alioravainen N., Jones S. E. I., Vincent C., MacGregor H. E. A., Bregman T. P., Claramunt S. & Tobias J. A. (2020) Ecological drivers of global gradients in avian dispersal inferred from wing morphology. Nature Communications, 11 (2463).
The COVID-19 pandemic has been extremely challenging for many, so it was great to see some excellent science coming from the ‘natural experiment’ offered by COVID-19 movement restrictions. The authors show that during the COVID-19 restrictions anthropogenic noise (from vehicles etc.) in the San Francisco Bay Area reached a 70-year low, characteristic of the mid-1950s. They use a long-term dataset of White-Crowned Sparrow recordings to show that during the COVID-19 lockdown, when human noise pollution was minimal, Sparrows exploited the emptied acoustic space (usually occupied by human-related noise) by producing higher-performance songs at lower amplitudes, to maximise song distance. The authors highlight the rapidity with which behavioural traits (song characteristics) adapted to changes in human activity, suggesting incredible plasticity and potential resilience to pervasive anthropogenic pressures like noise pollution. To me, this study is a perfect example of nature’s resilience, and also on finding opportunity from tragedy (research made possible by a global pandemic).
Derryberry E.P., Phillips J.N., Derryberry G.E., Blum M.J., Luther D. (2020). Singing in a silent spring: Birds respond to a half-century soundscape reversion during the COVID-19 shutdown. Science, 370, 575-579.
This paper looked at the human behavioural responses to a blanket ban on thresher shark fisheries in Sri Lanka and fisher’s perceptions of different aspects of the ban. A blanket ban means a complete prohibition on exploitation of a species, and Thresher sharks are considered to be the most vulnerable species of pelagic sharks. A blanket ban might therefore seem like a straightforward and easy conservation measure to protect them. But this study looked at the human impact behind such a drastic policy decision. A ban like this has consequences for the livelihoods of fishers – particularly smaller fishermen who rely highly on thresher shark landings to provide for their families. The study clearly shows the disparity in the impact this conservation policy has had between fishers who rely on these catches to survive and those for whom they are not the primary catch.
The biggest message I took from this paper is how important it is that human lives are taken into account when making conservation decisions; and more importantly that scientists and policymakers need to involve communities early on in the process, communicate better and work together, not against each other if we want conservation to be effective – and supported. This is a message I think more scientists need to hear and integrate into their work and one I hope to take forward in my future career.
Collins C., Letessier T. B., Broderick A., Wijesundara I., Nuno A. (2020). Using perceptions to examine human responses to blanket bans: The case of the thresher shark landing-ban in Sri Lanka. Marine Policy, 121 (104198).
Working on the avifauna of the Wakatobi Islands was an opportunity to follow in the footsteps of some great ornithologists and biogeographers, out to a remote string of islands off South-east Sulawesi, Indonesia. The Wakatobis have always sat in glorious isolation, they’re a coral uplift which formed upon a platform of Australasian origin and have never been connected to mainland Sulawesi. This isolation has meant these islands are home to a unique mix of species, and have been largely understudied.
Until recently, knowledge of the islands’ biodiversity came solely from a brief visit at the beginning of the 20th century by specimen collector Heinrich Kühn. This trip provided some important museum specimens and hinted at a potential hotspot of new species on theses islands, but no subsequent visits were made, and the Wakatobi Islands largely remained a mystery to science. Then in 1999, teams of researchers from Trinity College Dublin, Halu Oleo University and Operation Wallacea, led by my PhD supervisors Prof Nicola Marples and Dr David Kelly, began a series of eight research expeditions which aimed to investigate this potential trove of unique biodiversity. In our recent paper in the Raffles Bulletin of Zoology we summarise 20 years of remarkable work by Prof Marples, Dr Kelly and others, recording 100 bird species for the islands, highlight recently described species, and discuss the threats facing the resident Critically Endangered species.
Nearly every single one of us has visited the zoo at least once, it’s a fundamental part of most childhoods. In fact, over 700 million people visit zoos and aquariums around the world every single year. Although we may all go to the zoo for a fun day out, by choosing to go to the zoo we are indirectly funding the conservation of animals in the wild, as modern zoos and aquariums invest more than $350 million in conservation in the wild every single year, representing the third largest conservation organisation contributor globally (Gusset & Dick, 2011).
It is widely accepted that semi-natural grasslands in Europe require active management to maintain biodiversity. Without management, woody shrubs typically replace grasslands and many plant species that have persisted for thousands of years will be lost from the area. This fact underlies ‘conservation grazing’ guidelines for managing livestock in semi-natural habitats, such as those embedded into EU agri-environment projects.
But is
there a better way than livestock to manage biomass for conservation?
If you could do one thing for nature, what would it be?
Invent a new way of automatically cataloguing species? Put location trackers on every single individual of a threatened animal population? Start collecting DNA sequences of threatened species so we can de-extinct them, Jurassic Park style?
The answers I got to this question when I posed it to our Tuesday lunchtime group of PhD students, researchers, and academics, was far less sci-fi and much more pragmatic.
