The Japan Times published my op-ed article “Tokyo’s urban design role.” My argument is that Tokyo’s past urban design failures paradoxically make it a model for rebuilding existing cities and designing hundreds of emerging cities. In the context of climate change and global warming, livable cities can create a new balance between people and  nature.

I talk about fireflies, Ginza rice and honeybees, modern bonsai, satoyama in the city, businesses and biodiversity, and how Japan can promote innovations in urban life, alongside achievements in popular culture and high technology.

by Mary Ellen Ryall

I watched this video (shown in the link below) of E.O. Wilson, a biologist, explaining biodiversity and the possible consequence of the loss. He was speaking about the hidden life beneath the soil that supports life.

http://www.ted.com/talks/e_o_wilson_on_saving_life_on_earth.html

______________________________________________________________________

The topic was of interest to me because of a video I did for News from Indian Country—“Tracking the monarch butterfly through corporate killing fields”—shown below:

I touched on the fact that even earthworms were being poisoned by pesticides and herbicides. Sandy Stein, secretary of Happy Tonics, and I experienced what massive doses of ammonia (fertilizer) felt like as we traveled on Route 35 alongside the concentrated animal feeding operations and monoculture fields in Kansas, USA. Please read “Nutrients for plants” to learn about the dangers of ammonia fertilizer at http://www.nutrientsforplants.com/blue-fertilizer.html.

If we lose earthworms and kill other (unknown) soil microbes, what will be the consequence? E. O. Wilson speaks to this finite hidden world. Please watch his video. We must honor and protect biodiversity including the soil which contains the “mystery of life within.”

Nick Vander Puy, reporter from News from Indian Country, sent a quote that ties right into this plea:

“Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not to be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.” Source: Cormic McCarthy’s apocalyptic story The Road.

Every precious species belongs here.

“With the collapse of some important fishing grounds, marine scientists are coming to recognise that what really matters is the wider ecosystems and environmental context.”
On the growing recognition of the links that bind ecosystems. Financial Times, 27 November 2009

Sheepdrove comment: This is way out of date… the ecologists have known for a long time how important ecosystems are, and they’ve been telling us too. We thought it was common knowledge that human activities are bound to a reliance on natural systems. Has the FT only just caught up?

RSPB calls for action on bird losses from industrial fishing
Concern is growing about the huge number of seabirds being killed by fisheries in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, the RSPB said yesterday. Conservationists traditionally focus on southern oceans, but there is mounting alarm over the numbers of northern species falling victim to large-scale industrialized fishing methods. The Independent (27 Nov, p.21)

Farming Today
Website summary: Charlotte Smith asks whether sustainable agriculture, whilst being better for the environment, is going to provide enough food to feed the world. BBC Radio 4 listen again

Sheepdrove comment: The alternative is… unsustainable agriculture?

Computer rendering of E. coli bacteria. A newly developed E. coli strain is capable of efficiently producing unnatural polymers, through a one-step fermentation process. (Credit: iStockphoto/Sebastian Kaulitzki)

A team of pioneering South Korean scientists have succeeded in producing the polymers used for everyday plastics through bioengineering, rather than through the use of fossil fuel based chemicals. This groundbreaking research, which may now allow for the production of environmentally conscious plastics, is published in two papers in the journal Biotechnology and Bioengineering.

read the article here

Biodiversity is usually straightforwardly defined as the entirety of life in all its various forms and at all levels of organisation (Hunter and Gibbs, 2007). The term, “biodiversity hot spot”, however, is a bit of a misnomer. While hot spots are generally used to describe localised areas with atypically high concentrations of activity or of certain objects, a biodiversity hotspot only partly encompasses this definition.

First introduced by a British environmentalist, Dr. Norman Myers, in the interests of biodiversity conservation, he described biodiversity hot spots as areas not only ʻcharacterised by exceptional concentrations of species with high levels of endemismʼ but also ʻexperiencing unusually high rates of depletionʼ (Myers 1988:p.187). The rationale was that by first locating and identifying regions of exceptional biodiversity and facing critical rates of human-caused destruction, limited conservation dollars can then be much better prioritised, focused, and thus maximised. Additionally, part of the reason rests on the fact that some hot spots have their species concentrated within very small areas, strengthening the economics of capitalising their conservation since the species-area ratio is exceptionally high (Myers, 1988).

Most of the 10 original hot spots identified in his paradigm-shifting 1988 paper and the additional 8 in a later paper were within tropical forests, where the extraordinarily high degree of biological diversity and accompanying endemism is well-documented, and far outweighs the level of species variety that one might encounter in most other regions of the world. Among the identified hot spots are 4 Mediterranean-type areas that combined, cover 0.3% of the Earthʼs land surface, but touted to feature 7.8%, of which two-thirds are endemics, of the Earthʼs extant plant species (Myers, 1990).

Since then, Myersʼ criteria for designating hot spot status upon identified regions has been refined and become more specific, to not only be more discriminatory, understandably considering the inadequacy of resources, but also more systematic, making it easier and quicker to pick out the regions of interest. As set out by Myers et al (2000), to qualify as a hotspot, an area ʻmust contain at least 0.5% or 1,500 of the worldʼs 300,000 plant species as endemicsʼ and ʻshould have lost 70% or more of its primary vegetationʼ. Under this definition, there exist are at least 25 hot spots world-wide that qualify, across several different habitat types and biomes. Despite their small combined area of 1.4% of the Earthʼs land surface, they represent 133,149 plant and 9645 vertebrate species, or approximately 44% and 35% respectively, of all extant plant and vertebrate species.

Figure 1: The 25 hot spot areas occupy from 3 – 30% of the highlighted red regions (Myers et al, 2000)

However, this strategy of relying solely on a regionʼs species richness, degree of endemism and extent to which to it has been destroyed as the criteria for identifying hot spots has been argued in recent years to be myopic at best. Biodiversity in its broadest sense, traverses all levels of ecological organisation and more holistic recommendations should be made upon additional consideration of other, possibly more important factors.

Kareiva and Marvier (2003) argues that the hot spot approach to conservation should not be the only discriminating force in selecting for regions of conservation value, since the goal of conservation is not solely ʻto protect the largest possible number of species in the smallest possible areaʼ (2003:p.346). For example, one of the most compelling and persuasive arguments for greater governmental emphasis on conservation includes the idea of ecosystem services, the less than obvious but hugely important natural ecological processes that inadvertently provide for an array of human needs. These “services” range from freshwater, clean air to the pollination of important crops and pervade all levels of human civilisation. A conservative estimate by Costanza et al (1997) puts a price tag on global ecosystem services such as the regulation of atmospheric gas composition, buffering against various environmental fluctuations, soil formation and nutrient recycling at US$33 trillion.

The shortcomings of the hot spot methodology are apparent where the provision of ecosystem services coincide with areas of low diversity. A good example, as brought up by Kareiva and Marvier (2003) is the typical Spartina marsh. With no endemic plant species and around 20 – 30 plant species in total, such a marsh would hardly qualify to be a hot spot and might elude attention. Yet, tidal marshes such as it offer some degree of flood regulation, waste treatment and act as a safe haven for young fish to mature, with an estimated annual value to the tune of nearly US $10,000 per hectare per year.

Interestingly, such considerations can easily be integrated with the hot spot methodology. Empirical studies have shown that while biodiversity loss has a profound influence over ecosystem functions and services (Loreau et al, 2001), there exists a positive asymptotic relationship between individual ecosystem functions and increasing biodiversity (Figure 2; Cardinale et al, 2006). This puts a limit above which stifling declines in species diversity would have little noticeable effect on the the quality of ecosystem services and would not be cost effective. As such, conservation efforts might do better concentrating on protecting biodiversity of areas to restore or preserve vital ecosystem services already in diminished form or undergoing decline, in which case the returns are two-fold, rather than focusing exclusively on preserving as much diversity as possible.

Figure 2: Relationship between the range of ecosystem processes and the number of species that affect one or more aspect of functioning (Cardinale et al, 2006)

Another source of contention with the hot spots approach is the importance of biodiversity as a resource for ʻfuture evolutionary innovationʼ. (Kareiva and Marvier, 2003:p.348). The unique evolutionary history of each species or more broadly, of taxonomic groups is invaluable and cannot be replaced once lost to extinction. Premature termination of any one of these histories would have profound effects on the biodiversity of tomorrow. However, the biodiversity in the hot spots identified, however varied, may not satisfactorily represent certain higher taxonomic groups of importance that reside in “cold spot” areas. Conservation prioritised towards hot spots might eventually result in a lop-sided representation of the diversity of higher biological taxa in future years. Future non-consumptive values derived from genetic richness, such as its intrinsic scientific value to public knowledge (Brown, 1990), might be lost as a result.

However, perhaps most deserving of examination is the usefulness of the established criteria. Recent analysis by Orme et al (2005) of the breeding distribution of all the worldʼs birds, has discovered an alarming lack of congruence between hotspots defined using different metrics, namely total species richness, threatened species richness and endemic species richness, and that a mere 2.5% of hot spot areas are common to all three of the aspects. This throws the validity of hot spots identified solely on plant endemism and primary vegetation loss into question.

Also, the criterion of percentage primary vegetation loss presumes that extent of habitat depletion accurately depicts the severity of the problem at hand and does not fully account for ongoing rates of depletion or extrapolations of current trends of degradation. For example, while a region which had already lost 70% of its primary vegetation despite cessation of the threat might classify as a hot spot, a huge pristine area undergoing phenomenally high rates of losses, albeit masked by insignificance in proportion to its total surface area, might not.

In conclusion, while the strategy of prioritisation and concentration of conservation measures of particular regions is probably the only efficient avenue for any hope of success in biodiversity conservation, relying on the hot spots approach is probably not the best way of selecting such regions. The hot spots criteria as laid out by Myers et al (2000) has been a useful benchmark for identifying regions of extraordinary diversity-density but perhaps less so of high conservation priority, as revealed by studies of metric incongruence (Orme et al, 2005) and the lack of consideration of other relevant factors, most notably of vital ecosystem functions and services. The hot spots criteria could be refined further to be flexible enough for the integration of these considerations.

Of course, that is not to say that the identification of hot spots is necessarily unproductive. Hot spots are themselves highly valuable and recognition of their large stake in global biodiversity has been greatly useful in furthering understanding in the origin of such diversity in the first place. It has also to some extent since its popularisation, galvanised the conservation movement by setting clearer, more specific targets.

Perhaps more crucially, in spite of the risk of oversimplification, simplifying the conundrum of deciding where best to concentrate effort makes the issue more accessible to those that may not be acquainted with its complexities, namely the politicians and the public. Introducing them into the political and public dialogue and discourse may well be the best first steps towards mitigating their depletion.

List of References

Cardinale, B. J., Srivastava, D. S., Duffy, J. E., Wright, J. P., Downing, A. L., Sankaran, M. &

Jouseau, C. (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning on the functioning of trophic groups

and ecosystems. Nature, 443 (7114), 989-992.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., Groot, R. D., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem,

S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. & Belt, M. V. D. (1997) The value of the

world’s ecosystem services and natural capitial. Nature, 387 (6630), 253-260.

Hunter, M. L., Jr. & Gibbs, J. P. (2007) Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. 3rd edition. Malden,

MA, Blackwell Publishing.

Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, P., Hooper, D. U., Huston,

M. A., Raffaelli, D., Schmid, B., Tilman, D. & Wardle, D. A. (2001) Biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294 (5543), 804-808.

Kareiva, P. & Marvier, M. (2003) Conserving Biodiversity Coldspots. American Scientist, 91 (4),

344-351.

Myers, N. (1990) The Biodiversity Challenge: Expanded Hot-Spots Analysis. The Environmentalist,

10 (4), 243-255.

Myers, N. (1988) Threatened Biotas: “Hot Spots” in Tropical Forests. The Environmentalist, 8 (3),

187-208.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity

Hotspots for Conservation Priorities. Nature, 403 (6772), 853-858.

Brown, G. M., Jr. (1990) Valuation of Genetic Resources. In: Orians, G. H., Brown, G. M., Jr.,

Kunin, W. E. & Swierzbinski, J. E. (eds.) (1990) The Preservation and Valuation of Biological

Resources. Washington, University of Washington Press. pp.203-245

Orme, C. D. L., Davies, R. G., Burgess, M., Eigenbrod, F., Pickup, N., Olson, V. A., Webster, A. J.,

Ding, T., Rasmussen, P. C., Ridgely, R. S., Stattersfield, A. J., Bennett, P. M., Blackburn, T. M.,

Gaston, K. J. & Owens, I. P. F. (2005) Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with

endemism or threat. Nature, 436 (7053), 1016-1019.

A lot of people who would consider themselves activists in the “eat local” or “sustainable agriculture” movement (otherwise known as “foodies”) are strongly against the use of GMOs.  A GMO is a Genetically Modified Organism.  But what exactly does it mean to modify the genes of an organism?  Do you picture a mad scientist in a lab coat playing God by mixing and matching the DNA of random plants and animals to produce science fiction creatures like flying elephants?  Well, let’s first take a look at history.  Selectively breeding crops for certain desirable traits and breeding out the undesirable traits is one form of gradually altering the genetics of a plant, and it’s a process that humans have been benefiting from for thousands of years. Surely without the “technology” of selective breeding there could not have been an agricultural revolution.  And without the agricultural revolution there would not have been an industrial revolution.  Instead of the current information age we’re now in, without selective breeding we’d still be hunting and gathering and following herds of migrating ruminants for survival.  Still, there’s no question that there are some problems with our currently unsustainable global food system.

So where did we go wrong?  Did the first agriculturalists screw up and set humanity on a path to self destruction when they figured out a way to domesticate vegetables and grains so that nomadic people could establish permanent settlements and create free time to spend their mental energy on things like philosophy and science instead of survival?  I think most people would say no.  We all need to individually draw our own lines of what we think is morally acceptable for science to pursue in the name of advancing our standard of living as a species.  And we hope that it can be done in ways that respect the planet as well as the people who depend on it.

Some people might be against GMO technology but agree with the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.  Other, more extreme “foodies”, may disagree with the use of any and all methods that rely on non-renewable resources, meaning no irrigation pumps, no diesel powered tractors or harvesting equipment, no chemical inputs, and certainly no genetically modified seeds!  But, can the world be fed exclusively from small scale, hand weeded gardens?  Can we expect people who live in arid climates around the world to stop irrigating or importing food and either starve or relocate?  All modern farming practices have pros and cons and we’ve gotten pretty good at justifying them to the critics when we need to.  Industrial agriculture claims that small scale organic farms could never feed the world’s growing population.  Bigger is better and more efficient, right?  Well, from what I’ve read it looks like more studies show that in the long run, large scale farms of chemical dependent monocultures produce less food per acre than smaller, well managed farms with a large number of deeply integrated plant and animal species.  If we want to model agriculture after mother nature, and she has been a pretty successful gardener for quite a few million years, then it’s pretty obvious that biodiversity is essential.  But the confusing thing here is, both the organic foodie and the industrial food corporation preach this same point.  The first may argue that biodiversity must be achieved through intricately woven symbiotic relationships on a family farm where the grass feeds the cow, the bugs in the cow’s manure feed the chicken, and both the chicken and the cow fertilize the grass.  Meanwhile, the Monsanto PR department boasts the message that agriculture’s much needed biodiversity can be enhanced by literally designing, modifying and inventing new breeds of plants and even animals.

This is where the debate really heats up.  How can we tell the biotech industry that creating a cross between a sheep and a tomato in a test tube is wrong, but creating a new variety of corn seed that is more resistant to specific insects without the use of chemical pesticides is ok?  Again, where do we draw the line and who gets to decide?  Norman Borlaug, “The man who fed the world” is credited with saving over a billion lives and even received the Nobel Peace Prize for increasing the world food supply through his work in genetics.  Among other achievements, he developed a new variety of wheat that gave higher yields in dry climates.  This new disease resistant wheat was planted in third world countries and was so successful that between 1965 and 1970 wheat yields doubled in Pakistan and India!

Suddenly GMOs sound pretty good, don’t they?  But I’m not trying to convince anyone that biotechnology will be the savior or the sole downfall of our food system.  Just like any other technology, it holds potential benefits for humanity but could also have potentially destructive side effects if poorly managed and regulated.  There are some studies that suggest there could be long term negative side effects to planting large monocultures of GMO crops, just like there are problems with large monocultures of non-GMO grops.  But more importantly, I think that by looking back at the history of early agriculture, and by studying and modeling after the natural biodiversity all around us, we could become more interested in working with mother nature than trying to outsmart her.  What are your thoughts?  Feel free to leave comments and add to the discussion, and thanks for reading.

If you would like some up to date Heritage news from Ireland, check out the Heritage Council website.  They seek to protect and enhance the richness, quality and diversity of Ireland’s national heritage for everyone. The Winter 2009-Spring 2010 Heritage Outlook Publication is available online, it features the latest heritage related matters in Ireland.

Grass-fed livestock… animals that the Lancet forgot!

A government u-turn was swiftly undertaken yesterday, following a report published in The Lancet. Embarrasing conflicts of opinion emerged from different UK goverment departments. 

The health department funded a study which proposed we should eat less meat, to reduce numbers of ruminant livestock (which belch out methane, a powerful greenhouse gas) and therefore counteract the health hazards of both climate change, and heart disease!

Alan Dangour, one of the authors of the report and a senior lecturer at the London School of School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said that a dramatic change could be made without giving up meat.
“We are not saying become vegetarian, we are just saying cut back on the amount of meat and meat products you eat.” “Even cutting back by a third, as we suggest, would still mean that the average adult was still eating one meat based meal every day.”

The report recommended cutting ruminant livestock by almost one-third, saying this would allow the agricultural sector to meet its share of targets to cut carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2030.

Defra, however, had not been consulted. They have now pointed out that British farmers won’t be happy about the idea of less livestock in the UK. They also highlight the fact that cutting Britain’s cattle and sheep should not necessarily be prioritised ahead of reductions in the more damaging phenomenon of rainforest-clearance beef herds in tropical regions.

The Defra panic –  BBC News (25 Nov)

James Landale reports that Defra had to act to calm worried farmers: ‘A senior official sent out an email telling them not to worry about the Lancet report: “This, as we know, rather over-simplifies a complex issue and I don’t think that Andy Burnham has actually said anything that supports the headline that govt supports a 30% reduction in farm animals.”’

Soil Association comment:

The Soil Association’s report on soil carbon, released today, shows that grass-fed livestock has a critical role to play in minimising carbon emissions from farming – which should be set against the methane emissions from cattle and sheep. This is because grasslands for grazing livestock represent vitally important carbon stores.

Sheepdrove comment:

Grass-fed animals on permanent pastures in Britain are far more sustainable than grain-fed livestock in the USA, for example. Therefore eating less meat is too simple a concept. It is more important than ever to choose carefully where your meat comes from. Read more about grass-fed livestock…

The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) announced (24 November, 2009) a report revealing that the last remaining population of Siberian tigers, the world’s biggest cat and a living symbol for the people of Russia, has likely declined significantly due to the rising tide of poaching, unusual weather and habitat loss.

Siberian Tiger. Image Credit:http://www.desktoprating.com

The report which was released by the Siberian Tiger Monitoring Program revealed that a recent tiger survey over a representative part of the tiger’s range showed a 40 percent decline in numbers from a 12-year average.

The surveys are conducted at 16 monitoring sites scattered across tiger range in an area, which covers 23,555 square kilometres, (9,000 square miles) representing 15-18 percent of the existing tiger habitat in Russia. Only 56 tigers were counted at these monitoring sites. Deep snows this past winter may have forced tigers to reduce the amount they travelled, making them less detectable, but the report notes a 4-year trend of decreasing numbers of tigers.

The total number of Siberian tigers across their entire range was estimated at approximately 500 individuals in 2005, having recovered from less than 30 animals in the late 1940s. Dr. Dale Miquelle, of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Russian Far East Program, said that despite the sobering results the “trend can be reversed if immediate action is taken.”

Russian scientists and non-government organizations are recommending changes in law enforcement regulations, improvements in habitat protection, and a strengthening of the protected areas network to reverse the downward trend.

Source and further reading: Wildlife Conservation Society

done

Nature and Animal Conservation

 

     Preserving species and their habitats is important for ecosystems to self-sustain themselves. Yet, the pressures to destroy habitat for logging, illegal hunting, and other challenges are making conservation a struggle.

Visit : http://www.globalissues.org/article/1…

 What is Biodiversity ?

 

    The variety of life on Earth, its biological diversity is commonly referred to as biodiversity. The number of species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, the enormous diversity of genes in these species, the different ecosystems on the planet, such as deserts, rainforests and coral reefs are all part of a biologically diverse Earth.

   

    Appropriate conservation and sustainable development strategies attempt to recognize this as being integral to any approach. Almost all cultures have in some way or form recognized the importance that nature, and its biological diversity has had upon them and the need to maintain it. Yet, power, greed and politics have affected the precarious balance.

Does it really matter if there arent so many species?

Biodiversity boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play.

For example, a larger number of plant species means a greater variety of crops; greater species diversity ensures natural sustainability for all life forms; and healthy ecosystems can better withstand and recover from a variety of disasters.

And so, while we dominate this planet, we still need to preserve the diversity in wildlife.

Who Cares?

  Biodiversity boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play. For example, a larger number of plant species means a greater variety of crops; greater species diversity ensures natural sustainability for all life forms; and healthy ecosystems can better withstand and recover from a variety of disasters.

And so, while we dominate this planet, we still need to preserve the diversity in wildlife.

Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions

It is feared that human activity is causing massive extinctions. From various animal species, forests and the ecosystems that forests support, marine life. The costs associated with deteriorating or vanishing ecosystems will be high. However, sustainable development and consumption would help avert ecological problems.

 

  

The Conservation Scholars series highlights leaders in conservation science and includes a small biography, a list of major scientific publications and a Q & A on each person’s particular area of expertise.

Our sixteenth Conservation Scholar needs little introduction because, well, he’s so famous (especially in Australia)! I cannot estimate how many times I’ve covered Professor Hugh Possingham’s and his colleagues’ research here on ConservationBytes, but suffice it to say it probably dominates the coverage (ok, I could have, but I couldn’t find the time). Affectionately known as the ‘Huge Possum’ for his brilliance, his effect on wide-reaching environmental policy and his no-bullshit approach to science, Hugh was awarded a coveted Federation Fellow by the Australian Research Council in 2007. He is also a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, and one of the founding Editors-in-Chief of Conservation Letters (for which I have the honour of editing alongside him).

Biography

Born in 1962, Hugh accidentally completed Applied Mathematics at The University of Adelaide in 1984 (top of honours class of 20 students). After attaining a Rhodes Scholarship Hugh completed his DPhil at Oxford University in 1987. An ARC QEII Fellowship ANU in 1989 followed, then a postdoc with Jonathan Roughgarden at Stanford modeling barnacles. In 1990 he took a tenure-track position in Applied Mathematics. He became a Professor and Chair in 1995 and moves to become Head of the Ecology Centre at The University of Queensland in 2000. Hugh has been awarded: the POL Eureka Prize for Environmental Research, 1999, the inaugural Fenner medal for plant and animal biology from the Australian Academy of Sciences, 2000, the Australian Mathematical Society Medal, 2001, ARC Professorial Fellow, 2003, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, 2005, ARC Federation Fellow, 2006, Sherman Eureka Prize for Environmental Research, 2009. Hugh has over 290 publications, 4900 Web of Science citations and currently a lab of 32 students and staff. Work from his lab helped stop land clearing in Queensland and NSW securing at least 1 billion tonnes of CO2. Hugh has a variety of broader public roles advising policy makers and managers as he sits of 16 committees and boards including: The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (founding member), Queensland Smart State Council, Chief Editor of Conservation letters, Council of the Australian Academy of Science, member of three NGO scientific advisory committees. The Possingham lab developed the most widely used conservation planning software in the world. Marxan was used to underpin the rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef and is currently used in over 100 countries by over 2000 users – from the UK to Brazil. Australia is using Marxan to help it rezone its entire Exclusive Economic Zone (2% of planet). Hugh gave a plenary at the first Marxan conference in Vancouver in April 2007. A recent international plenary was at The Society for Conservation Biology meeting in Port Elizabeth, Sth Africa 2007 – decision theory to conservation scientists – and locally the Australian Society for Operations Research, 2009 – conservation theory to decision theorists. Recent media includes discussions of: triage, assisted colonization (Science policy forum), national biodiversity policy, declining woodland birds and the conservation of travelling stock routes in Australia. He suffers from obsessive bird watching.

Major Publications

1. Lindenmayer, DW, HP Possingham. 1996. Ranking conservation and timber management options for Leadbeater’s Possum in south eastern Australia using population viability analysis. Conservation Biology 10:235-251
2. Possingham, HP, SJ Andelman, MA Burgman, RA Medellin, LL Master, DA Keith. 2002. Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:503-507
3. Meir, E, SJ Andelman, HP Possingham. 2004. Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecology Letters 7:615-622
4. Wilson, KA, M McBride, M Bode, HP Possingham. 2006. Prioritising global conservation efforts. Nature 440:337-340
5. Chades I, E McDonald-Madden, MA McCarthy, B Wintle, M Linkie, HP Possingham 2008. When to stop managing or surveying cryptic threatened species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105:13936-13940

Questions & Answers

1. You were recently quoted saying “If you don’t know what a differential equation is, you are not a scientist”. Can you describe the importance of mathematics in conservation biology and recommend what subjects in mathematics young conservationists should pursue?

All disciplines of science eventually get consumed by mathematics. This is a natural progression as they strive for prediction and utility. In 1994 it dawned on me that conservation research would remain fairly useless in practice unless it was embedded in a decision science framework with objectives, constraints, things we control and predictive models affected by those things we control. I have not changed my view since then. After a knowledge of decision sciences (optimisation mathematics and economics) a credible conservation researcher needs some differential equations, algebra, statistics (preferably Bayesian) and maybe something flashy things like graph theory. Conservation research without decision theory is pure conservation research, which is an oxymoron.

2. You’ve certainly tackled a lot of issues in your illustrious career, but you are probably best known for your work on reserve design algorithms and the software Marxan. Can you explain what reserve design algorithms are, why they’re needed, and how Marxan works?

That may be the most useful area of the lab’s research, however intellectually it is very straightforward – what is interesting is not always useful and what is useful is not always interesting. Marxan can be summarised in one sentence – get me a set of reasonably clumped sites that reserves a reasonable amount of a whole heap of biodiversity features (or surrogates of features) that we have data on while annoying as few people as possible. That is it – and it may ultimately alter the face of ten percent of the world. As for illustrious career … there are a few intellectual giants that aren’t so big I can still clamber over them to steal some ephemeral glory.

3. While most Australians might say they value biodiversity, our poor conservation record invalidates this assertion. What do you think are some practical (and realistic) ways we can encourage Joe Bloggs to invest in and protect biodiversity?

There seem to be two sorts of people that care for nature for its own sake. First there are those that love wilderness and large natural spaces, even if they don’t go there. These are the people who believe the Amazon is worth preserving because it is so huge, wild and diverse and that is all we need to know. Then there are the people interested in natural history. I think this a less fickle constituency, however their numbers in Australia are remarkably small. I would like to build on the latter – the love of nature for its own sake. It doesn’t matter how many media interviews I do extolling my love of nature, that doesn’t work. This probably requires activities that give more people a “hand-on” experience with nature; we probably need to get more people doing things like feeding birds. I used to say that bird feeding in Australia was stupid – I think I was wrong.

4. Effective conservation requires a lot more than science because it needs to alter human behaviour. One aspect here you’ve championed is effective allocation of conservation funds. How does one do this?

If you can shop you can wisely allocate conservation funds. All you need to know is price (usually well known), benefit to you (only you can determine that), and product reliability (read a consumer magazine). Combine the three and you are 90% there. Of course we delight in making it a lot more complex, sometimes with justification, but it is just shopping.

5. You’re a member of the well-known Wentworth Group. What do you do as a group?

The Wentworth Group has successfully championed major environmental policy reforms in Australia over the past few years. Some work is highly visible (work on water reform and land clearing), but other stuff is behind the scenes. I think it is a remarkable revolution in the way science can influence policy at a huge scale, and I can claim no credit for any of it.

6. If conservation triage was a corporation, you’d probably be its CEO. What is conservation triage to you, and how should it be approached?

Conservation triage is the same as resource allocation. Haven’t you read Madeleine’s 2008 TREE paper, Corey? If conservation planning and triage is just resource allocation, which is just prudent shopping, then my entire career boils down to six words: “the smart guide to biodiversity shopping”. And 90% was done by my lab members – it is all fairly embarrassing really.

[CJAB - I did, Hugh, I promise! I'm trying to bring my readers up to speed though ]

7. Happiest greenie moments.

Playing a role in stopping broad-scale land clearing in Australia (= saving about 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere) and getting all of Australia’s waters rezoned (including the Great Barrier Reef).

8. Future aspirations.

End tropical deforestation. Stop over-grazing in much of Australia. Get the people of Australia to love biodiversity. See every family of bird.

Amen, brother.

CJA Bradshaw

ONE INDIA

Ornithologists and forest officers in Punjab have expressed concern over the dwindling population of some popular birds, including the very common house sparrows. Disappearance of the common house sparrow from the urban areas is not something new.

A few years ago, alarm bells rang when the population count of the house sparrows decreased in London. It decreased by a total of 85 per cent.

Tejdeep Kaur, a Zoologist at Punjab Agricultural University traces one of the reasons to habitat loss. We are loosing its nesting sites as there is a loss of shrub vegetation. The overuse of pesticides in agriculture, decline in the reproductive efficiency because of the egg sheath infection are also the contributing factors.

The anti-knocking agents present in petrol decreases the population of insects which is the main food for them during their breeding period.

Though the house sparrow is facing extinction, none of authorities have taken any concrete steps to save them. No serious actions have been taken on this issue.

Before any action is taken a lot of study and research is being carried out regarding the issue. Statistics like how many sparrows are left and the reason behind extinction is yet to be formulated.

In yesteryears, the sparrows lived near human settlements and build its nests below tiled roofs. With the contemporary architecture making a clean sweep in cities, tiled roofs became a thing of the past, and sparrows lost prospective nesting spots.

The most recent meeting of the Observatory’s Environment topic group reviewed evidence to “Identify Regional Natural Environmental Priorities for the West Midlands”. Evidence highlighted by the group will inform work by the region’s Defra Agenda Group (DAG) to identify regional environmental priorities. The DAG comprises Government Office for the West Midlands, the Environment Agency, Natural England, Forestry Commission, Advantage West Midlands and Animal Health.

The overall aim of the project is to respond to a request by the Delivery Board for Public Sector Agreement 28 – PSA 28 to secure a healthy natural environment for today and the future. Each region has to develop a set of regional priorities for the natural environment to meet this aim, and has the following objectives:

• To establish spatially a set of regional priorities for our natural assets (air, water, soil, biodiversity, landscape and land management) and people’s relationship with them using the best regional evidence we have.
• To catalogue the environmental evidence that we use to identify our priorities
• To identify the issues associated with the priority environmental assets
• To produce an integrated regional map of our natural environmental priorities to highlight key areas for targeted consideration of delivery, to alleviate threats or realise opportunity.

The project involves two phases:

• Phase 1: To identify the regional issues and evidence associated with the natural environment themes of Air, Water, Soil, Biodiversity, Landscapes and Land Management. This is expected to be finished by the end of 2009.
• Phase 2: To use the evidence to inform a Stakeholder Workshop in January 2010 at which the natural environmental priorities for the West Midlands will be agreed.

At the recent Environment topic group meeting, members were able to feed into the first phase of this project and provide useful feedback on the sources of data and evidence used to inform the process. Constructive comments were received on the visualisation of the evidence and other potential issues that should be considered at the final Stakeholder Workshop in January.

The final Stakeholder Workshop is being planned for the 13^th January, where 25 key stakeholders will consider and validate the issues identified, and develop a small number of environmental priorities. If you have any interest on this project or want to know more, leave your details in the comment box below.

Thanks to Martin See (Environment Agency), Paul Cobbing (Government Office for the West Midlands) and Amanda Pearce (Natural England) for the information provided to produce this post.

(Photo by Island 2000 Trust Conservation)

Among the rules at the Volcanoes National Park in Rwanda, is an instruction forbidding visitors from defecating in front of a gorilla. I’m pretty close to infringement the first time a male silverback turns to look me in the eyes.

There’s nothing quite like being looked at by a 200-plus kilo gorilla. It’s terrifying and exhilarating at the same time – a vast expanse of muscle, topped by intelligent, human eyes. One swipe of his massive King Kong hands and I would be crushed in an instant. But he has no such desire. he looks at me, through me, past me and walks off, the vegetation flattening away beneath his bulk.

Sitting in the forest surrounded by a large family of gorillas who play around me is undoubtedly a highlight of this journey – a highlight of my life. I can’t stop grinning. The feeling is incredible. I can’t believe these wonderful apes are living their relaxing lives out in this beautiful mist-draped forest on volcanic mountain slopes just an hour or so’s hike from the road where their busy hairless cousins lead such hectic, hard lives.

Two teenagers (males, aged 6 and 7) playfight, tumbling on top of each other, chasing and grabbing, playing tag until they are out of breath and panting. A tiny newborn suckles at the breast of her huge mother. Another baby experiments with headstands and toe-chewing. Another couple of infants run up a slope and then roll themselves down, and then run around in circles till they drop down dizzily. An adult male on the cusp of silverbackhood, with a few greying back patches, lies lazily on his back, rolls around to scratch with enormous fingers and brushes off tumbling infants. Someone else is swinging around in the trees behind us, while others munch at leaves and play in the vegetation next to us. Their favourite meal is bamboo shoots, but they eat most of the vegetation here, and supplement their diet with red ants for a bit of protein.

We requested to visit the Susa group of gorillas, which number 26, including several babies and 2 silverbacks. It’s the most famous group, studied extensively by Dian Fossey, and we were lucky. There are fewer than 400 mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) left in the wild, distributed among the forests here that carpet Rwanda, Uganda and the DR Congo. Each gorilla group is followed by armed guards that protect them from poachers, and visitors in groups of 8 max are allowed to visit half of the groups (the other half are only visited by researchers) for a maximum of 1 hour per day. As we approach, our guide introduces us and requests permission to approach the group using a series of grunts which are answered by the largest silverback. After what seems like 10 minutes, our guide tells us our hour is up and we have to leave our cousins. I can’t bear to say goodbye, but the gorillas barely acknowledge our departure and we leave them playing, eating and lazing around in their happy gorilla way.

Images and video will be uploaded as soon as we have opportunity!