In my little bid to participate in Change.org’s Blog Action Day 2010 – Water, I’ve re-hashed a post from 2008 on ‘water neutrality’. This will also benefit my recently joined readers, and re-invigorate a concept I don’t think has received nearly enough attention globally (or even in parched Australia where I live). So here we go:

–

The world’s freshwater ecosystems are in trouble. We’ve extracted, poisoned, polluted, damned and diverted a large proportion of the finite (and rather small!) amount of freshwater on the planet. Now, most people might immediately see the problem here from a selfish perspective – no clean, abundant water source = human disease, suffering and death. Definitely something to avoid, and a problem that all Australians are facing (i.e., it’s not just restricted to developing nations). Just look at the Murray-Darling problem.

In addition to affecting our own personal well-being, freshwater ecosystems are thought to support over 10000 fish species worldwide (see also a recent post on Africa’s freshwater biodiversity’s susceptibility to climate change), and the majority of amphibians and aquatic reptiles. Current estimates suggest that about 1/3 of all vertebrate biodiversity (in this case, number of species) is confined to freshwater. As an example, the Mekong River system alone is thought to support up to 1700 different species of fish.

So, what are some of the ways forward? The concept of ‘water neutrality’ is essentially the wet version of carbon neutrality. It basically means that water usage can be offset by interventions to improve freshwater habitats and supply.

A great paper by Nel and colleagues published in Conservation Letters entitled Water neutrality: a first quantitative framework for investing in water in South Africa (definitely one for the Potential list) gives us a good model for how water neutrality should work. Using a South African example, they describe a scheme where investors are required to (1) review their water use, (2) implement a reduction strategy and (3) replenish water to hydrological systems through the investment in catchment services equivalent to their water use. It’s in this last act that the ‘neutrality’ can be achieved for the betterment of biodiversity – in the South African example, participants replenish their water use through investment in clearing of water-intensive invasive alien plants that choke freshwater systems and otherwise use much of the available water. And we all know how destructive invasive species can be (see previous post on this subject).

Not only does the scheme produce more water, it restores fragile freshwater ecosystems and does so within the economic framework that allows schemes like carbon trading to operate. We desperately need something like this in Australia. Imagine, more water for everyone AND healthy river systems (again, think Murray-Darling) – all paid for by previously water-intensive, but now ‘water-neutral’ firms. Imagine seeing labels on Australian produce that say ‘This is a Water Neutral product that supports freshwater ecosystem health’.

CJA Bradshaw

Nel, D., Marais, C., & Blignaut, J. (2009). Water neutrality: A first quantitative framework for investing in water in South Africa Conservation Letters, 2 (1), 12-19 DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00035.x

© M. Dawson

Patrick McGoohan in his role as the less-than-sentimental King Edward ‘Longshanks’ in the 1995 production of ‘Braveheart’ said it best in his references to the invocation of ius primæ noctis:

If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out

What a charmer.

Dabbling in molecular ecology myself over the past few years with some gel-jockey types (e.g., Dick Frankham [author of Introduction to Conservation Genetics], Melanie Lancaster, Paul Sunnucks, Yuji Isagi inter alios), I’m quite fascinated by the application of good molecular techniques in conservation biology. So when I came across the paper by Fitzpatrick and colleagues entitled Rapid spread of invasive genes into a threatened native species in PNAS, I was quite pleased.

When people usually think about invasive species, they tend to think ‘predator eating naïve native prey’ or ‘weed outcompeting native plant’. These are all big problems (e.g., think feral cats in Australia or knapweed in the USA), but what people probably don’t think about is the insidious concept of ‘genomic extinction’. This is essentially a congener invasive species breeding with a native one, thus ‘diluting’ the native’s genome until it no longer resembles its former self. A veritable case of ‘breeding them out’.

Who cares if at least some of the original genome remains? Some would argue that ‘biodiversity’ should be measured in terms of genetic diversity, not just species richness (I tend to agree), so any loss of genes is a loss of biodiversity. Perhaps more practically, hybridisation can lead to reduced fitness, like we observed in hybridised fur seals on Macquarie Island.

Fitzpatrick and colleagues measured the introgression of alleles from the deliberately introduced barred tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium) into threatened California tiger salamanders (A. californiense) out from the initial introduction site. While most invasive alleles neatly stopped appearing in sampled salamanders not far from the introduction site, three invasive alleles persisted up to 100 km from the introduction site. Not only was the distance remarkable for such a small, non-dispersing beastie, the rate of introgression was much faster than would be expected by chance (60 years), suggesting selection rather than passive genetic drift. Almost none of the native alleles persisted in the face of the three super-aggressive invasive alleles.

The authors claim that the effects on native salamander fitness are complex and it would probably be premature to claim that the introgression is contributing to their threatened status, but they do raise an important management conundrum. If species identification rests on the characterisation of a specific genome, then none of the native salamanders would qualify for protection under the USA’s Endangered Species Act. They believe then that so-called ‘genetic purity’ is an impractical conservation goal, but it can be used to shield remaining ‘mostly native’ populations from further introgression.

Nice study.

CJA Bradshaw

Fitzpatrick, B., Johnson, J., Kump, D., Smith, J., Voss, S., & Shaffer, H. (2010). Rapid spread of invasive genes into a threatened native species Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0911802107

Lancaster, M., Bradshaw, C.J.A., Goldsworthy, S.D., & Sunnucks, P. (2007). Lower reproductive success in hybrid fur seal males indicates fitness costs to hybridization Molecular Ecology, 16 (15), 3187-3197 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03339.x