Mar | 2011 | ConservationBytes.com

A very pissed-off New Guinean versus the Destroyer of Forests

31 03 2011

I really don’t know where this came from (weird e-mail trail), but it was too good not to share.

For those of you who follow ConservationBytes.com, you might remember a fairly recent post where a group of leading conservation biologists exposed one of the most dangerous men in the world – Alan Oxley, the (very embarrassing to admit) Australian destroyer of tropical biodiversity and future welfare of hundreds of millions of people.

It seems he and his commercial interests (and my, do those fellas lay it on thick) have turned their attention to destroying the last tracts of intact South-East Asian forests (and associated biodiversity) in Papua New Guinea. Kiss some of the most endemic, biodiverse and biowealthy areas on the planet good-bye.

So it was interesting to receive this email that had been sent to Oxley’s front-company, International Trade Strategies (ITS) Global, by one very pissed off Papua New Guinean. I have no idea who ‘Bush Kanaka Mangi’ is, but he sounds the real deal and I wouldn’t want to be Oxley if he ever came across him. I cite verbatim¹:

—

Mr Alan Oxley,

HONESTLY : I am sick of getting this bloody rubbish, bullshit from you and your company ITS Global about palm oil is good for PNG, logging is good for PNG. Who the hell do you think you are ????, you seem in all your articles and consultancy reports as the expert about our country and more knowledgeable about the Melanesian society very well. My assessment of all your electronic newsletter which you circulate widely, your reflections and recommendations all are in no way closer or nearer to the way we Papua New Guineans think and want to do things and develop our nation, all of what you say are totally and purely and absolutely RUBBISH and yet you claim to know everything and know the problems of PNG and our people and on ways to solve our problems and continue your bullshit campaign in support of R&H and all its doing here destroying our forests, our society, manipulating our systems and creating confusion and hell is loose here. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: Alan Oxley, biodiversity, deforestation, ITS Global, Livelihoods, oil palm, Papua New Guinea
Categories : agriculture, biodiversity, carbon, conservation, corruption, deforestation, exploitation, oil palm, palm oil, poverty, propaganda, rain forests, tropical

How fast are we losing species anyway?

28 03 2011

I’ve indicated over the last few weeks on Twitter that a group of us were recently awarded funding from the Australian Centre for Ecological Synthesis and Analysis – ACEAS – (much like the US version of the same thing – NCEAS) to run a series of analytical workshops to estimate, with a little more precision and less bias than has been done previously, the extinction rates of today’s biota relative to deep-time extinctions.

So what’s the issue? The Earth’s impressive diversity of life has experienced at least five mass extinction events over geological time. Species’ extinctions have kept pace with evolution, with more than 99 % of all species that have ever existed now gone (Bradshaw & Brook 2009). Despite general consensus that biodiversity has entered the sixth mass extinction event because of human-driven degradation of the planet, estimated extinction rates remain highly imprecise (from 100s to 10000s times background rates). This arises partly because the total number of species is unknown for many groups, and most extinctions go unnoticed.

So how are we going to improve on our highly imprecise estimates? One way is to look at the species-area relationship (SAR), which to estimate extinction requires one to extrapolate back to the origin in taxon- and region-specific SARs (e.g., with a time series of deforestation, one can estimate how many species would have been lost if we know how species diversity changes in relation to habitat area). Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: ACEAS, Andrew Lowe, Barry Brook, biodiversity, Cagan Sekercioglu, Chris Johnson, ecology, extinction, Extinction event, Fangliang He, Lian Pin Koh, Mark Burgman, Navjot Sodhi, Nigel Stork, Stephen Gregory, Tien Ming Lee, William Laurance
Categories : anthropocene, biogeography, conservation, deforestation, ecology, extinction, extinction debt, fragmentation, habitat loss, island biogeography, logging, modelling, research, species-area curve

Cartoon guide to biodiversity loss XI

22 03 2011

The latest six cartoons… (see full stock of previous ‘Cartoon guide to biodiversity loss’ compendia here).

—

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: biodiversity, biodiversity cartoons, cartoons, ecosystem services, environment
Categories : cartoon, conservation, environmental economics, environmental policy

Classics: demography versus genetics

16 03 2011

Here’s another short, but sweet Conservation Classic highlighted in our upcoming book chapter (see previous entries on this book). Today’s entry comes from long-time quantitative ecology guru, Russ Lande, who is now based at the Silwood Park Campus (Imperial College London).

—

In an influential review, Lande (1988) argued that

“…demography may usually be of more immediate importance than population genetics in determining the minimum viable size of wild populations”.

It was a well-reasoned case, and was widely interpreted to mean that demographic and ecological threats would provide the ‘killer blow’ to threatened species before genetic factors such as inbreeding and fitness effects of loss of genetic diversity had time to exert a major influence on small population dynamics.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: Effective population size, environment, Genetic diversity, Genetics, Imperial College London, Population
Categories : conservation, conservation scholars, demography, extinction, extinction debt, genetics, minimum viable population, mvp, threatened species

Build a bridge out of ‘er

12 03 2011

Apologies to Monty Python and my poor attempt to make the over-used expression ‘bridging the gap’ humorous.

Today’s guest post comes from across the Pacific Ocean. Dr. Sara Maxwell is a postdoctoral fellow with Marine Conservation Biology Institute and University of California Santa Cruz, Long Marine Laboratory. She was kind enough to contribute to ConservationBytes.com about an issue I’ve covered before in various forms – making conservation research relevant for conservation action.

—

In a catalyzing article titled “From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation” in the November 2010 issue of BioScience, Raphaël Arlettaz¹ and his colleagues Michael Schaub², Jérôme Fournier³, Thomas Reichlin², Antoine Sierro⁴, James Watson⁵ and Veronika Braunisch² explore reasons for our hard work as conservation biologists not reaching the implementation phase. This article strongly resonated with my colleague, Kiki Jenkins⁶ and I, Sara Maxwell. This resulted in a series of letters published in BioScience and now we join together, along with Jeffrey Camm⁷, Guillaume Chapron⁸, Liana Joseph⁹, and Rudi Suchant¹⁰ to synthesize our ideas and present them to the larger conservation community via ConservationBytes.

The article that sparked the discussion

In their article, Arlettaz and colleagues highlight some of the main roadblocks to implementing conservation research. The main reasons are that:

The research made by conservation biologists’ does not lend itself well to implementation, i.e., as a community we often focus on the wrong questions or address them in ways that do not lead to practical applications for practitioners;
The outcomes of conservation biologists’ research tends not to reach practitioners and so fails to be put into action;
When we successfully align and collaborate with practitioners, there is a lack of economic or political support to make the changes that need to happen; or
Conservation biologists do not commit to engaging themselves in the implementation of their recommendations due to a lack of reward structure for this behaviour and the conflicting roles of academia and conservation.

Arlettaz and colleagues illustrate how to overcome these roadblocks using a case study of their own work on the endangered hoopoe (Upupa epops) in Switzerland, showing how they followed through the recommendations of their work to implementation and had a direct impact on species recovery. They highlight means by which other conservation biologists can do the same.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 7 Comments »
Tags: biodiversity, conservation biology, environment, research
Categories : conservation, conservation biology, environmental policy, environmental science, management, science, science communication

Big sharks. Big mystery.

9 03 2011

My PhD student, Ana Sequeira, has just written a great little guest blog post for the Environment Institute‘s blog. Given I’m en route to Tasmania for a quick consultancy meeting, I thought I’d let myself off the hook and reproduce the post here. Well done, Ana (and hint to my other students – your time on ConservationBytes.com is coming…).

—

This week is Seaweek and guest blogger Ana Sequeira describes how whale shark distribution might be shifting according to seasonal environmental predictors.

Ana Sequeira is a PhD student at the University of Adelaide (Global Ecology Group). Her main research interests are to develop models applied to the marine environment to describe key environmental processes, species distribution patterns and ecological interactions.

The main objective of her PhD thesis is to investigate behavioural ecology of whale sharks. She is now trying to understand which environmental variables may affect whale shark distribution.

The whale shark (Rhincodon typus, Smith 1828) is the largest fish in the ocean and can reach more than 12 m in total length. Although little is known about their habitat selection or migration patterns, the whale shark appears to be a highly mobile species. They predictably form near shore aggregations in some coastal locations (e.g. off Ningaloo reef in Western Australia) what makes them the subject of highly lucrative marine ecotourism industries. Also, artisanal and small-scale fisheries for the species still exist in many parts of the tropics.

Since the whale sharks is classified a Vulnerable species (IUCN Red List), understanding their migratory behaviour became of chief importance as they can be travelling from regions where they are protected to regions where they are still harvested. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: Fish, IUCN Red List, Marine biology, Ningaloo Reef, University of Adelaide, Whale shark
Categories : conservation, fish, fisheries, harvest, marine, modelling

Government pulls plug on Asian honeybee eradication

3 03 2011

Here’s another one from the bee man, Tobias Smith (PhD candidate at the University of Queensland). Tobias recently blogged about bee basics here on ConservationBytes.com (something I highly recommend for anyone interested on brushing up on bee facts and dispelling a few myths), so I asked him to follow up with this very important piece on the future of pollination in Australia. It concerns a nasty little invader recently dubbed the “flying cane toad” (not my analogy).

—

http://www.flickr.com/photos/angela-and-andrew/1196369580/in/faves-lornet/

Over the last few weeks there has been much media attention given to the Asian honeybee (Apis cerana) incursion in far north Queensland. The Asian honeybee was first detected near Cairns in May 2007. Since then an effort to eradicate the bee has been made. This peaked during 2010, when over 40 bee eradication personnel were employed to hunt and destroy in areas around Cairns, the Atherton Tablelands, and other nearby locations.

In late January this year, the committee established to manage the eradication program (governments and industry), decided to pull the plug on eradication efforts (on money to pay for efforts that is). They decided it was no longer possible to achieve eradication (a majority decision, not a unanimous decision). The position to stop resources for eradication is not supported by industry, or ecological commentators. Arguments have been made that this is the only window of opportunity for eradication (for ever!), and that more resources need to be put towards it now, while there is still a chance of success.

A few points to be made about the Asian honeybee in Australia: Read the rest of this entry »