Isolated populations. Bad news for wildlife?

[Nowicki418]

Normally a population of animals can exchange genes across enormous distances. Urbanization and the construction of roads are just a few barriers humans have put up. Some animals can cross these barriers and others cannot. Can caudates cross these barriers?

I know that with isolated populations, one area may have hundreds of a caudate species while the next area has none at all. Zoom forward a few hundred years, are these populations going to develope their own subspecies? What about a few thousand years. Could each county have their own species of salamander?

This would be a major problem. Yeah I know, depends on the species and location. Its just that I've never heard this problem adressed before and am curious if I was oblivious to it or if I'm overestimating these unnatural barriers. Also, what can be done to prevent this?

 

[Molch]

It's one of the biggest problems in wildlife conservation, whether you deal with caudates or African lions or many other species: the fragmentation of their habitats and the stop of gene flow between populations due to human development. It also happens due to natural causes: for example, the drying of he climate in the middle east over the last few millennia may have fragmented the habitats of Neurergus species.

Ultimately, most isolated salamander populations may not have enough numbers to continue indefinitely and evolve into new species. That's a long process that depends on a species' ability to adapt to a changing environment, and a limited gene pool of a small population makes that much less likely to happen.

Sad as it is, I think we live in an era of global mass extinction, such as the ones at the end of the Permian or Cretaceous period....

 

[Nowicki418]

You may be right that most populations are too small for rapid change, but there are still a few large populations out there. With enough time I think there could be a Yellowstone salamander or a Florida Everglades salamander. No doubt that these extremely large wildlife refuges will look very different from a future populated world.

As for mass extinctions. Our society is generally very ecologically ignorant. We are proud of our energy efficient dish washers and longer lasting light bulbs but just because someone says to "go green" doesn't mean they know a thing about conservation. We are not prepared for a massive rapid ecological change and do not have a plan on how to handle one. A few enthusiasts and scientists isn't enough on a global scale.

If populations of wildlife are too small to evolve than the only way to stop their extinction is to increase their numbers, by adding habitat. Creating habitat is much more difficult than conserving habitat and I don't think the human race is willing to make global change if it means digging into our wallets. Especially since we are becoming more and more anti-intellectual.

We also have to consider that extinctions are natural and necessary. How do we decide what is worth saving and whose time is up?

It's overwhelming and makes me feel a little helpless.

 

[xxianxx]

Sad as it is, I think we live in an era of global mass extinction, such as the ones at the end of the Permian or Cretaceous period

Its always doom and gloom, nature abhors a vaccum and new species will evolve to fill the niches left by other extinct species. We as a species are a result of previous extinctions and if you look on the bright side we will probally make ourselves extinct at some point due to our destructive nature, leaving a cleaner planet for all our slimy friends( if there are any left).

 

[Azhael]

Yes, nature will re-colonize all habitats given enough time (millions and millions of years). The problem is that until that happens, we will be left with a hugely empoverished planet that´s barely the shadow of what it used to be. I call that tragic in the highest sense.
Even if it´s just for purely selfish reasons, it´s a huge loss. The amount of medicines, new fibres, new materials, etc that will be lost when the species become extinct before we can ever even discover them greatly surpases anything we currently have. Then there´s of course the very real problem of destroying the global ecosystem that we depend on....mess with an ecosystem long and hard enough, and it will crumble down with everything it contained.

I hate to say that mass extinction is most probably already a reality that will unfold during the next few decades....We may not see it for what it is from our isolated possition, but the dominoes have been falling fast for a while already...

Anyway, sorry for the pessimistic rant. Here in europe habitat insularization is a huge problem (among plenty of other things, i cringe every time i see a new motorway being built).

 

[rethgar]

Habitat fragmentation is one of the major issues I deal with at work, I work with roads pretty exclusively. We do a far bit of work trying to improve the situation for most species not just caudates, but since I like them best they get a little more attention... All the cute and furries have loads of people looking out for them anyway.

And funnily enough I'm just seeking funding to look at the effect of a major road scheme on the genetic viability of a Triturus cristatus population severed by the project.

One of the major concerns we have as relates to roads is the unsympathetic nature of road drainage, most gullies are one giant pitfall trap which unless regularly checked result in major amphibian death.

 

[suztor]

Pessemistic or not it seems to be the growing reality. Humans in the greater majority take the environment and animals for granted, the concept of ecology is not even a thought to them.

Although off topic...
I fear I may be acting old, or close minded to change, but I'm really conserned about what this world is developing into. In way of politics, religion and the general concept that seems to be growing amongst the 'ruling class' of keep the little people dumb and dim.

I can't say I look forward to the future at all.

I could really go on about this for quite some time but I will cut myself off right here.

 

[rethgar]

I know that with isolated populations, one area may have hundreds of a caudate species while the next area has none at all. Zoom forward a few hundred years, are these populations going to develope their own subspecies? What about a few thousand years. Could each county have their own species of salamander?

The UK is a good example of this. The relatively few native species are those that made it that far west before the land bridge with Europe disappeared. We have so few species compared to Europe but more than Ireland.

Caudates being relatively slow moving don't colonize rapidly. The exception being those species that become problem invasives or naturalised visitors. Most invasives tend to be a direct result of human interference, stupidity or thoughtlessness and not as I have heard argued climate change. Aiding their ability to survive perhaps.

Sadly for conservation, people won't stop being idiots we just have to keep on trying to do something worthwhile and try and educate as many people as we can along the way.

 

[Azhael]

Sadly for conservation, people won't stop being idiots we just have to keep on trying to do something worthwhile and try and educate as many people as we can along the way.

R´amen!

 

[Molch]

when the environmental movement says, "save the planet", I always cringe (being a tree hugger meself).

The planet is in no danger. Life is in no danger. Life has always sprung back from previous mass extinctions, even one as serious as the permian/triassic. Of course, it took a few millions of years of a severely impoverished biodiversity before Mama evolution came up with new and exciting life forms. The perm/triassic extinction gave rise to the dinosaurs, the cretaceous one gave a huge lift to the mammals etc.

so nah, not worried about the planet or life on earth.

What I do worry about is our quality of life while we are here, during the few hundred millennia we get to be part of this ol' planet. Are we gonna watch things die all around or do we make an effort to keep as many species as we can, to improve our quality of life and extend our stay here for as long as possible? We're bound to be a casualty in our own private mass extinction.

Then again, once humans have shoved off the old coil along with who-knows-how-many other species, after some millions of years, the planet will go through another boom of biodiversity with new species probably so starnge and wonderful we couldn't possibly imagine them...wish I could get a time mashine to fast-forward 50 million years to see what kind of life will be there.

Personally, I think the ruminants will rule the earth.

 

[Nowicki418]

I saw a thing on the news about a case of West Nile virus in the area. The story talked about wearing bug spray and removing still water from the property which mosquitoes use to breed. Instead of showing a video of still water they showed a video of a vernal pond. People hate mosquitoes and fail to see their ecological importance. Not only do these vernal ponds hold our beloved caudates but much of the ecosystem relies on these ponds to produce food. Humans are directly responsible for the deaths of lots of native fauna. We kill anything that isn't cute, directly beneficial, or "harms us" without the consideration of heavy indirect consequences.

In the event of a mass extinction humans will further exterminate any "unwanted" species. There is no such thing as a "cushy" ecosystem because of predation and parasites. Normally a new species would rise to take the place of an unfilled niche but I don't think people are wise enough to let that happen. Once the mosquitoes, snakes, and wolves are gone I don't see how a new species could rise replace the niche. We will kill it before that happens.

Even today humans essentially are deer’s natural predator as we have killed or heavily reduced the numbers of many of the predators, such as cougars and lynx. Deer are evolving in ways that make them better suited to survive the hunters such as shorter antlers and more nocturnal habits. If we stopped hunting the deer population would go even more out of control. Contradictory to what so called animal rights groups may think, it looks like humans will not only continue to hunt/fish but will be REQUIRED to fill more niches in the future.

While mass extinctions have caused a lot of unique and wondrous change in the past I don't think the next one will do so well. An extinction may even make the environment more unstable than what we started with if we continue to eliminate entire niches.

But look on the bright side. With new research on cloning and genetics, the resurrection of species isn't far outside our grasp. Without having to worry about "inbreeding", "domestication", "extinctions" and all that, we will always have wild type axolotls and caudates available in zoos. So long as we save a copy of their genetic code in a database somewhere. ( Of course we all prefer wild animals, but change is inevitable )

 

[Molch]

Once the mosquitoes, snakes, and wolves are gone I don't see how a new species could rise replace the niche. We will kill it before that happens.

......

While mass extinctions have caused a lot of unique and wondrous change in the past I don't think the next one will do so well. An extinction may even make the environment more unstable than what we started with if we continue to eliminate entire niches.

we won't be around. The recovery from mass extinction takes several millions of years. Humans will be long gone by then. So yes, the old planet will recover from whatever damage we inflict; trouble is, we won't be there to enjoy it.

 

[xxianxx]

Once the mosquitoes, snakes, and wolves are gone I don't see how a new species could rise replace the niche. We will kill it before that happens.

Evolution doesnt happen overnight, any ecosystem we destroy will eventually be replaced over millions of years. Humanity wont be around forever were just another species passing through , though we should leave an interesting fossil record.

 

[rethgar]

when the environmental movement says, "save the planet", I always cringe (being a tree hugger meself).[
QUOTE]

I've always hated the phrase tree hugger. I agree the environmental movement often does itself more harm than good especially when it comes to negative stereotypes. Then there's always those folks who don't think about their actions. I'm thinking of the effect releasing mink from fur farms felt by water vole populations the UK. Idiots doesn't even begin to cover it!

 

[Azhael]

We´ve had at least two such incidents here that i can remember. Salamanca is full of american mink (i even got to disect one)...it´s just outrageous what those *long list of expletives* idiots did. Sure, i don´t like animals being used for their fur one bit, but releasing them was literally the dumbest, most ridiculous and dangerous thing they could have done. Thank you, Idiots, thank you for messing up what was left of our native wildlife. Nicely done.....

I have no problem with tree huggers that have a functioning brain, in fact, even if don´t like it, i´d probably be called a tree hugger myself by other people. The brainless ones, though...those i´d like to put in a cage with a hungry wolverine and see if they still feel like hugging nature.

 

[Linus]

Everyone is so nice here :]

Speaking of isolated populations, I found a population of Plethodon cinereus with almost entirely red adult individuals!

As you were.

 

[Nowicki418]

Once the mosquitoes, snakes, and wolves are gone I don't see how a new species could rise replace the niche. We will kill it before that happens.

These kinds of situations have already occurred and I think it would be unwise to believe "nature will just sort it out for us after we are gone". I won't be here in millions of years, but I am here now. And right now, we have a strong negative emotional affliction with many important species and sometimes the entire niche itself. For example: anything powerful enough to kill something large like a deer can probably take down a human too.For lots of people this is enough of a reason to kill the animal on sight claiming self defense. Right now we play a niche that is a major predator to the deer population. Imagine what would happen if PETA halted all hunting practices? ( However unlikely it may be ) Yes nature would eventually find balance but how do we know what kind of side effects “balancing out” might cause especially considering we are still here. We can’t justify ignoring a problem by expecting it to solve itself. Sure maybe "life" will still exist but I enjoy the natural world and wouldn't like all life to change in order live with us. We are the intelegent ones, it should be the other way around.

I don’t mean to get off topic but if feels bad having my ideas so easily discarded. I have reasons and evidence to back them and didn’t just pull it out of nowhere. I don’t mean this to be aggressive and I would be happy if a convincing counter argument proved me wrong. I am willing to learn, but I need feedback.

 

[rethgar]

Your main point here is perfectly, valid human interference in the natural environment is at a point now where non intervention is no longer an option in many places. Certainly I live in a country with very few truly wild places and the entire landscape is shaped by humans, even those widely thought of as natural.

We regularly have to cull our deer because we wiped out all their natural predators hundreds of years ago. The deer now cause massive damage to forest habitats although the drive is less about biodiversity and more to do with the price of timber. Although there is talk of predator reintroduction, much as I'd like to see it, i'm not sure it'll work.

Given the chance nature can recover or adapt but not always in a desirable manner or as quickly as it needs to. On a geological timescale something will remain and the world will look different, species come and go, that's the way of it. What I dislike intensely is the fact we accelerate this beyond what is natural based on some kind of superiority complex.

For a species marked out by our ability to reason we are pretty unreasonable