Introduction to Wildlife & Fisheries Conservation

WFSC 304

LAND

AIR

WATER

organisms

Instructor

Dr. Thomas J. DeWitt

Authority: Biodiversity at genetic and phenotypic levels,

ecosystem function, predation, freshwater

Office hours: Videoconference by appointment

Course content

This course covers major issues in environmental biology and presents disciplines that collectively make up the applied field of conservation biology. We explore the major conceptual paradigms associated with both wildlife and fisheries conservation. We examine current issues and perspectives relevant to modern conservation. The course includes graded, written and oral assignments that foster growth in creative and integrative ability and communication skills.

Instructor philosophy

· Unconnected facts are boring; they gain meaning through synthesis

· Memorizing information is not learning in a meaningful sense

· Learning concepts (integration and organization of information) is meaningful

· Learning to reflect, to twist facts and concepts into new syntheses that solve problems… that is the goal

· This requires building a conceptual framework to accommodate interrelated information

(the larger the framework, the more complete and useful it will be)

· Concept rotation / lateral thinking

you write a definition:

Learning goals

Understand the nature, magnitude and context of environmental problems

Understand the multidisciplinary framework of conservation biology

· Ecology

· Genetics

· Toxicology

· Evolution

· Resource and land use

· Politics

· etc.

And more abstract skills…

Learn to think conceptually

Learn to think integratively (build conceptual framework with information from different domains)

Learn to think creatively (come up with ideas no one else has thought)

Learn to think thoroughly (carry through logical scenarios to distant yet probable ends)

Learn to think about connectedness of disciplines and entities

(e.g. interactions of physics, ecology, infrastructure, stakeholder values)

Learn to think globally/internationally

Learn to think quantitatively (e.g. understand research and modeling)

Practice group communication (practice preparing and giving oral presentations; practice group work)

Read scientific literature (gain information & facility in extracting information)

Practice participation in scholarly oral discourse

Spark and feed your sense of wonder about the world

NOT LEAST: Apply understanding and synthetic skills to solve problems in conservation and sustainability

Why focus on the abstract skills?

Because you may think you are better at these things than employers think:

Source: Inside Higher Ed

Course structure

Website: http://people.tamu.edu/~tdewitt/wfsc304/index.html

“The primary goal is to reduce suffering, and to do that one must understand the world.”—The Buddha

Mankind has done a fair job of discerning the nature, workings, and history of the physical world. Here’s what we have been able to piece together:

· 14 bya the universe was formed

· 4.5 bya our planet was formed

· early earth contained key ingredients for emergence and maintenance of life (Miller expts: methane, water, nitrogen + sparkamino acids and complex organics)

· photosynthesis changed the biogeochemistry at planetary scale

· life was mean for the first humans—disease and predators and climatological vulnerability kept us down. But we were clever monkeys… masters of water

· irrigation, water wheel, noria, sanitary sewerage, steam engine, seafaring…

· couple with domestication of livestock, industrial revolution (guns, bigger ships, refridgeration), western medicine, green and gene revolutions

population when I

sat in your chair

Homo sapiens – 200,000 BP

· The earliest modern humans are from Omo, Africa and are dated to 195,000 years ago (YA)

· Molecular coalescence suggests the origin of humans 200,000 YA

· Humans are known in the Middle East from about 100,000 YA

· India 65,000 YA

Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002) Hominid cranium from Homo: Description and taxonomy of Homo-323-1976-896. Am J Phys Anthropol 117: 103–12.

Stoneking M, Soodyall H (1996) Human evolution and the mitochondrial genome. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 6: 731–6.

· Australia 50,000 YA

· Europe 40,000 YA

· Siberia 30,000 YA

· North America 20 – 15,000 YA

· South America 14,000 KYA

Increased human population results in increased demands on Earth’s resources.

Humans have contributed to the decline and extinction of many species, the disruption of natural, hydrological, and chemical cycles. Consequently, biological diversity is rapidly declining (Barnosky et al. 2011, cited in your text).

From a 2012 edition of your book—note the projection accuracy (blue lines added).

How many humans are there now? (7.84×109; link ads present)

This human population is unevenly distributed across the planet:

83% of the land surface is influenced by one or more of the following:

· human population density greater than 10 / km2

· agricultural land use

· urban/suburban areas

· access within 15 km of a road

· major river or coast

· night light enough to be picked up by satellite sensors

Fundamental graphs that express the unprecedented challenge to life on the planet: replacement of nature with humans, support species, and built things.

1. The biomass of humans and their support animals, once a vanishingly small sliver of the overall pie, is now in great excess of all else.

2. The weight of human made items outweighs all multicellular biomass

Resource use is not geographically homogeneous. Also not homogeneous per-capita:

This graph is about consumption. It shows the land area it takes to support a person from different countries.

· Consider the US/India contrast. It would take 3 billion Indians to register the same land-area impact as we the people of the US, 300 million strong.

· The U.S. contains 4% of the world population, yet, it accounts for 30% of the world’s daily oil consumption (250 times as much as India).

· It would take 4 Earths to support the world’s population at the level of consumption typical in the US.

· An “ecological footprint” calculates how much land and water resources we consume to grow our food, support our lifestyles, and assimilate our wastes.

· Our demands continue to increase for energy, food, and forests.

· The obvious problem is…

The footprint of man’s “progress”, in terms of natural resource issues, includes

· Overexploitation

· Extinctions/Extirpations

· Invasive Species

· Spread of Diseases

· Contamination/Pollution

· Deforestation/Desertification

· Habitat Degradation

· Habitat Loss/Fragmentation

· E.g. Wetlands loss

Wetlands as defined by biologists are areas saturated with water at the surface either permanently or seasonally (e.g. swamps, marshes, estuaries). Cyclical reversal of wetlands definition by EPA. Currently wetlands no longer include small or temporary water bodies (optional Google search).

Historically over 220 million acres existed in the lower 48 states. About 20% of land was wetlands.

Since then, extensive losses due to land use conversions.

We now have about 105.5 million acres of wetland. (US EPA)

· Why destroy a wetland?

Drained wetlands are attractive for agriculture and commercial and residential development. They make good agricultural fields because of their productive soils, high water table, and flat topography. In coastal areas, suitable home sites are naturally in short supply due to fringing aquatic habitats such as estuaries.

· Why preserve wetlands?

Ecosystem services—Wetlands provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals, including diverse endangered species. Wetlands help moderate floodwaters, control sediments, and improve water quality. The tranquility and beauty of wetland areas make them popular for recreation. They also recharge inland groundwater.

Aesthetic side—wetlands are majestic. seen through certain perspectives

“The [Colorado] river was nowhere and everywhere, for he could not decide which of a hundred green lagoons offered the most pleasant and least speedy path to the Gulf.” —Aldo Leopold. He canoed the delta in 1922. Within 20 y most of the wildlife was gone.

Moral side—

Does nature have a right to exist?

Does biodiversity have intrinsic value?

Morality comes from within but is often shaped by philosophical, aesthetic, or religious precepts. The child’s heart may most often ‘know’ it is wrong to degrade nature. In some religions duty to nature is canonical. Some are silent on man’s responsibilities and some ordained the right to use the environment ‘fruitfully’.

· Always, when you see a map—Reflect

· What do you notice about percent loss in the midwest? OH, IN, IL, KA, MO, KY? What may drive the pattern?

· CA?

· ME, MT?

· FL, TX?

The Fed protects wetlands through regulation, such as the Clean Water Act, provisions of the Food Security Act, EPA regs, economic incentives (tax deductions for selling or donating wetlands to a qualified organization), and acquisitions (i.e., establishing national wildlife refuges) and prohibitions of development (e.g. ANWR). A recent strategy involves cooperative agreements between federal, state, tribal, and local governments with the goal of protecting entire watersheds. However, ~75 percent of wetlands are privately owned, so individual landowners are crucial to preservation/protection of wetland ecosystems. NGOs also provide protections (e.g. WWF, DU, CI).

The wetlands losses make freshwater fish particularly vulnerable to extinction:

From a thorough study (Burkhead M, 2012, Extinction rates in North American freshwater fishes, 1900–2010. Bioscience):

· USGS researchers examined contemporary (1900-2010) extinction rate for freshwater fish in North America

· They compared contemporary extinction with rates derived from examination of freshwater fish in the fossil record

· Fossil record showed approximately 1 extinction/3 million years

· The contemporary rate was 877 times higher

· Not surprising since NA wetlands are literally under human assault. In the US for example 50% of our historic wetlands have been destroyed.

But not just fish…

Thousands of species are threatened with extinction at present.

· 12% of all birds

· 12.5% of all plants

· 23% of all mammals

· 32% of all amphibians

· 34% of all fish (more if restricted to FW)

· 20% - 42% of all reptiles

If we do nothing, these numbers will get worse. Extinctions will be increasingly common.

If we act to conserve nature and its resources, these numbers could abate.

The root of most current conservation problems is of course (in case you missed it!) too many humans. Some governmental policies and social structures are effective in reducing population growth (e.g. demographic transitions, one-child policies). Perhaps resource limits (e.g. water) will become limiting, for example by driving conflicts, disease, famine, etc. But it is a good bet we will hit 9 billion people and we have to plan for it.

Culture largely determines the outcome of nature-human interactions

Cultural attitudes differ greatly among societies and social groups.

In Scandinavia, the forests and glaciers are a part of the fabric of society and part of their cultural identity. There, you may be prosecuted for disturbing land in a non-sustainable manner—yes, even if you own the land. Here, centuries old glaciers have diminished or disappeared in recent decades. They see global climate change in real time. It is no coincidence that Greta Thunberg is Swedish.

Policy & culture (e.g. China)

Later, longer, fewer ‘social’ movement…

From UN Population facts (2019) source link :

“In sub-Saharan Africa, the size of the population would be close to 10 per cent smaller in 2100 if women were to bear the same number of children over the reproductive lifespan, but at significantly older ages”

· Delayed reproduction occurs when women have equity in education and career opportunities. In that formulation, reproduction is a cultural trait.

· Death rates fall when

· Birth rates fall when food, economic, and medical security improve.

· Forces such as these culminate in ‘demographic transition’:

This sounds great. It means that developed countries have relatively stable populations. And yet…

Why so much green in Siberia and the arctic and N. Africa?

The point of this material is that biodiversity is in a crisis mode.

Here is a recent projection for land animals:

So this says it all.

The other instructors have a slide:

Reasons for optimism

1. World population growth has slowed substantially

Brazil in 1960 – birth rate of 6.4

In 2010 – 1.9

(compare to US at 2.0)

2. We all have the potential to change how much and what we consume

Let us accept these statements optimistically but cautiously. The Brazil scenario was cherry-picked before Brazil entered a new period of political turmoil. And although we all can decide about consumption, we always seem to choose more. More is better. Much better, apparently.

So assuming consumption will increase (it will), we should concern ourselves with sustainability and conservation.