Shifting Baseline Syndrome

Jayzesake

I started what was intended to be a brief reply to the quote below in the 'Nature in the News' thread, but it turned into something longer, so I thought I'd post it as a new thread instead.

vistafinder wrote: »

I feel sorry for the people coming after us.

You don't really have any reason to. They will perceive their severely biologically depleted reality as normal, just as most people do today, as did our parents' generation, and theirs etc., etc.

The state of the natural world has been detoriorating - and continues to do so (see, for e.g., OYE's link above http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifesty...hBAPKA.twitter) - since time immemorial. But people are generally blind to that because they are only able to perceive gradual changes over their own lifetime, using the state of things when they were young as their baseline against which to compare things, not realising that what they saw back then was already impoverished compared to when their parents were growing up, and so on and so on.

So, for example, we might (rightly) deplore the disappearance of hedgrows and the wildlife refuges they represent in a landscape, but most don't see that this is just the latest blow in an assault lasting thousands of years, which has probably seen that landscape go from deep ancient woodland with a full complement of trophic levels, including large predators, to a chemical desert.

It's called 'shifting baseline syndrome'.

See here, for example:
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0623-hance_shiftingbaselines.html

magicbastarder

george monbiot discussed this in 'feral', i think explicitly in relation to fish stocks - that what is considered a normal level now is a tiny fraction of what they would have been hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Jayzesake

magicbastarder wrote: »

george monbiot discussed this in 'feral', i think explicitly in relation to fish stocks - that what is considered a normal level now is a tiny fraction of what they would have been hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Yes, the term was originally coined in relation to Marine conservation, but is now applied more generally, as it has been seen to perfectly describe a phenomenon that has occurred in practically every environment on the planet, not just at sea.

vistafinder

We really are screwed so then...

OpenYourEyes

vistafinder wrote: »

We really are screwed so then...

Yes, but thankfully we'll never fully be able to appreciate what a horrible mess we made of the country/continent/planet!


I know people who have visited wetlands, and even abandoned farmland, in Poland, and the mix of species and their sheer number has been staggering. Painful to realise that our midlands should be like that - similarly alive with cranes, bitterns, marsh harriers etc - but for the destruction of the last 200 years.

Jayzesake

vistafinder wrote: »

We really are screwed so then...

Maybe, maybe not.

I think the first step in making things better always has to involve being able to understand where we are at now, and how we got there. The implications of shifting baseline syndrome for the conservation of the natural world are enormous, as are many other relatively new understandings of how ecology - and our interaction with it - works.

But by recognising the extent of the damage that has been done, and the dynamics of the phenomenona that have drivenb that, we can at last begin to seriously challenge the forces that are causing that damage in an informed manner.

So, to go back to my example above, instead of just deploring the removal of hedgerows, we can argue for ecological restoration that will see some areas return to fully functioning, rich, ecosystems on a large scale. That doesn't necessarily mean going back to the past (which would be practically impossible anyway), but forward to a situation in which the interconnections within an ecosystem are sufficiently vibrant, complex and resiliant to allow species to survive. As things stand, species and functioning ecosystems are disappearing at a phenomenal rate everywhere you look.

It is also clear that older conservation strategies - small fragmented reserves, isolated actions to save a particular species etc. - are not nearly enough to arrest the decline.

Important exceptions aside, at the moment those of us who care about the natural world are achieving little more than fighting a rearguard action in the face of ongoing and accumulating loss. But, probably for the first time in history, we (that is, those of us who care enough) now understand the scale of what we as a species have done to the natural world, how and why that has happened, how natural systems work, and what we need to do to reverse some of that damage.

Understanding shifting baseline syndrome is a really important part of that, as it helps explain why a species that doesn't hate the natural world behaves - and has done so since the very beginnings - as though it did.

(Apologies for the rant but, as you might imagine, this stuff means a lot to me, as it obviously does to all those in this forum.)

V_Moth

Excellent post Jayze. I hadn't heard of this concept before.

Reading through the links, I think one of the best ways to counteract this bias* is to collect as much data as possible to show how particular habitats or species are faring. For example doing regular counts at wetland sites (IWeBS**) or garden feeders (BirdTrack**) is something anyone can do and over time would show to people that species populations are continuously shifting.

Slightly off-topic, but one of my bugbears is that a lot of bird sightings of fairly widespread bird species are now being submitted to Irishbirding (ostensibly a rare bird website - now the Sparrowhawk census of Ireland page) and all this information is just being lost to conservation.


*Syndrome sounds to medical in my opinion and I think it should probably be referred to as "Shifting Baseline Bias"

** And many other surveys organised by the different environmental groups

OpenYourEyes

It definitely does highlight the importance of long-term datasets and long-term studies. Its not uncommon to be out walking in the countryside and to meet someone of an older generation who will tell you "there used to be loads of birds here". And then, last year there was a study that found that there are 50million less birds in Europe now than there was a few decades ago - the latter definitely has more impact in my opinion, because it both quantifies it and is verifiable, compared to vague individual accounts.


For anyone who has the new Bird Atlas (and I'd highly recommend it) - the declines and losses it highlights are shocking. Birds I'd never expect to be in my area were once widespread breeders.

OpenYourEyes

V_Moth wrote: »

*Syndrome sounds to medical in my opinion and I think it should probably be referred to as "Shifting Baseline Bias"

I would think that at least part of the reason it's called "syndrome" ie because its something that affects people, rather than affecting surveys, and its important to make it "hit home" with the public. I think if you were to explain SBS and SBB to members of the public, they'd be more interested/worried about the syndrome.

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

It definitely does highlight the importance of long-term datasets and long-term studies. Its not uncommon to be out walking in the countryside and to meet someone of an older generation who will tell you "there used to be loads of birds here". And then, last year there was a study that found that there are 50million less birds in Europe now than there was a few decades ago - the latter definitely has more impact in my opinion, because it both quantifies it and is verifiable, compared to vague individual accounts.

As OYE says, these things do need to be measured scientifically in order to carry any kind of real weight. However, there is absolutely no lack of evidence - scientific or otherwise - for the continuing catastrophic decline in the health of the natural world, whichever direction you care to look, whether on this island or globally.

A recent and deeply shocking example:

World wildlife populations halved in 40 years - report

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418983


The most important issue is how that evidence is acted on - or not. That is, whether we continue to tinker at the edges of these problems, or on the other hand find the collective will to put relatively new understandings of how ecology works, and therefore what is required to have a real chance of slowing that decline, at the forefront of our actions.

Capercaillie

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Yes, but thankfully we'll never fully be able to appreciate what a horrible mess we made of the country/continent/planet!


I know people who have visited wetlands, and even abandoned farmland, in Poland, and the mix of species and their sheer number has been staggering. Painful to realise that our midlands should be like that - similarly alive with cranes, bitterns, marsh harriers etc - but for the destruction of the last 200 years.

x2
I was in Biebrza (Eastern Poland) last year. Once common Irish birds are everywhere. Corncrake calling everywhere. Spotted crake, Lapwings, Redshank, Ruff, Cranes, Bitterns, Snipe, Sea-Eagles, Marsh harrier, Montagu harrier are everywhere.
Red fox at low levels due to Wolf predation thus easing pressure on wading birds and crexs. The local and farmers have a pride in their area and wildlife, something which is lacking in a lot of Irish people.

recedite

Corncrakes spread into western Europe after the forests were felled, in the days when peasant farmers laboured in fields with scythes. That's what really suited them; mechanised farming does not, and native forests do not either.

On the positive side of things, the Nephin Beg re-wilding project is something that future generations will be able to enjoy. It will probably be "wilder" than anything available to us now. Whether it will be rich in wildlife is another matter.
Which brings me on to a separate but related point. Future generations may well have a different attitude to what I call "animal xenophobia". Having a large area of marshy bogs and broadleaf forest may not be interesting enough for them, they may decide to forget the corncrakes and introduce beavers and European Elk/moose into their new/ancient habitat.

More on that whole concept here.

Conservationists must stop spending all their time backing loser species – the endangered and reclusive. We must start backing some winners. We must start defending nature where – and how – it really is. And that will often mean embracing alien species. Either that or we will end up destroying nature in the name of conservation.

Capercaillie

recedite wrote: »

Corncrakes spread into western Europe after the forests were felled, in the days when peasant farmers laboured in fields with scythes. That's what really suited them; mechanised farming does not, and native forests do not either.

On the positive side of things, the Nephin Beg re-wilding project is something that future generations will be able to enjoy. It will probably be "wilder" than anything available to us now. Whether it will be rich in wildlife is another matter.
Which brings me on to a separate but related point. Future generations may well have a different attitude to what I call "animal xenophobia". Having a large area of marshy bogs and broadleaf forest may not be interesting enough for them, they may decide to forget the corncrakes and introduce beavers and European Elk/moose into their new/ancient habitat.

More on that whole concept here.

Stop helping Corncrake and actively introduce non-native species because those species are "more" interesting is crazy. Go to the West and see would the locals prefer Corncrake to Beavers.

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

Which brings me on to a separate but related point. Future generations may well have a different attitude to what I call "animal xenophobia".
More on that whole concept here.

If you look a little deeper, you will find that Fred Pearce's well-publicised opinions in this area completely fly in the face of those of all serious and experienced conservation biologists.

They also fly in the face of realities on the ground which are only too evident to anyone with a modicum of understanding of ecology; take a visit to Killarney NP and see how rhododendron infested areas have been reduced.

"Britain probably has more biodiversity today than ever before. "

Pearce's claim that introducing exotic species into ecosystems raises biodiversity is downright absurd. Firstly, if an introduced species becomes invasive, it will lower biodiversity by driving out other species; again, rhododendron in Killarney is only one example of many. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, to see biodiversity as merely a list of species present in an area is to completely miss the point. It is the connections between species that makes an ecosystem, which is what it's all about. It is precisely because certain exotic species have not developed those connections with species in a native ecosystem through co-evolution that they become invasive.

Lastly, it is not a question of 'animal xenophobia', as you call it, simply a recognition that by moving species willy-nilly from every part of the world to every other, we have upset natural balances everywhere. 'Xenophobia' is a term that relates purely to human relations, and is not a relevant concept here.

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

More on that whole concept here.

interesting to see most comments disagree vehemently with the author; and i'd add my opinion to that too. as well as the other counter-arguments made above, even if adding extra species didn't wipe out indigenous species, the notion that it increases biodoversity is countered by the fact that you're making ecosystems more homogenous; taking the premise to its ludicrous conclusion, every temperate zone in the world, for example, would have the same species as every other temperate zone. and part of what makes ecosystems interesting and valuable is their variety.

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

interesting to see most comments disagree vehemently with the author.... taking the premise to its ludicrous conclusion, every temperate zone in the world, for example, would have the same species as every other temperate zone. and part of what makes ecosystems interesting and valuable is their variety.

Of course I'm well aware that predominant view at this moment in time is to prevent species moving around (with somewhat arbitrary exceptions being made for birds on the basis that they could have flown to the new destination by themselves) But who knows what view future generations will take.

By the time the Nephin Beg wilderness matures, its quite likely that the global economy and the global ecosystem will be monitored and managed by an artificial intelligence.
If a decision needs to be taken, for example on whether to allow drilling for oil in the arctic, it won't be left up to a man who owns an oil company like George Bush or Vlad Putin. Or even a bunch of senators who can easily be "lobbied" for a wad of cash at election time.
If the AI is tasked with maintaining maximum biodiversity in all areas, while also maximising economic output with minimum damage to the environment, then who knows what decisions will be made. It may well decide to relocate certain populations in the interests of increased biodiversity.

That's all I'll say on the matter. I'm not going to argue a point which is purely speculative anyway.

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

I'm not going to argue a point which is purely speculative anyway.

good call. i'm not going to argue about that AI point either!

recedite

I see Colin Stafford Johnson is doing a program about toads in Ireland, on RTE tomorrow at 7pm. Natterjacks in the south, part of the Lusitanian fauna that either survived the ice age, or like the Irish shrews and the kerry slugs was possibly introduced inadvertently by early settlers from the Basque/Andorra regions while hiding in animal fodder.

And more controversially, the common toads in Donegal, which only appeared recently. It will be interesting to see what his take on them is. Invasive alien species, or a welcome increase in biodiversity?

Bufo bufo was first recorded at Long Lough, Rathmullan, Co. Donegal in spring 2011 (David McNamara, per. comm., 28th Jan 2014). The species is believed to have been introduced by an enthusiastic breeder (unproven despite investigation) and at the time of this first verified recording long strings of spawn were noted as evidence of breeding (David McNamara, per. comm., 28th Jan 2014). An abundant breeding population of the
species is, however, expected to have been present in the area near Rathmullan prior to 2008 and have so far apparently been restricted to breeding at Long Lough (Rob Gandola, per. comm. 3rd February 2014). Locals have also said to have counted a good number of dead animals along the road but whether this is an indication of outward spread or just crossing to the breeding site is unknown. (Rob Gandola, per. comm. 3rd
February 2014). As of yet no eradication measures have been undertaken (David McNamara, per. comm., 28th Jan 2014). There has also been an unverified sighting in Glenveagh National Park, Letterkenny, Co. Donegal (Rob Gandola, per. comm. 3rd February 2014). This unverified sighting is ~35km away from the known population in Rathmullan and warrants investigating....Bufo bufo is not usually considered to be an invasive species.

source

Check out the first comment after the item on this facebook page.
Somebody is worried about them breeding with our native frogs

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

Somebody is worried about them breeding with our native frogs

a quick google would appear to give some truth to their concern - they can attempt to breed, but the offspring is infertile at best.
so if it does reduce the viability of frogspawn, it would be a concern.

Capercaillie

On mainland Europe and the UK both common toad and common frog coexist together without any major problems. The main problem with people introducing non-native amphibians is introducing the deadly fungal disease chytridiomycosis into the country. This disease has caused mass extinctions of species across the world. Something to think about to people who want to increase "biodiversity".

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

a quick google would appear to give some truth to their concern - they can attempt to breed, but the offspring is infertile at best.
so if it does reduce the viability of frogspawn, it would be a concern.

Eh?.... that's like worrying about cats and dogs interbreeding.

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

Eh?.... that's like worrying about cats and dogs interbreeding.

No. There are plenty of examples of inter-species breeding between species that are reasonably closely related, with infertile hybrid offspring often the result.

Horses x donkeys (= mules)

Lions x tigers (= 'ligers'?)

And an example closer to home

Saxifraga hirsuta (Kidney Saxifrage) x Saxifraga spathularis (St. Patrick's Cabbage) = infertile hybrid saxifrage

recedite

Jayzesake wrote: »

No. There are plenty of examples of inter-species breeding between species that are reasonably closely related

Has anybody ever seen a hybrid between the common frog and the common toad? Perhaps they are invisible as well as infertile :pac:
The two are not closely related.

Capercaillie wrote: »

The main problem with people introducing non-native amphibians is introducing the deadly fungal disease chytridiomycosis into the country. This disease has caused mass extinctions of species across the world. Something to think about to people who want to increase "biodiversity".

Not a relevant point to a decision on whether to have an official policy of eradication against the toads in Donegal. If they are already there, then either a disease has already been introduced or not.

If a human had brought back some toadspawn from Britain in a bucket of ordinary chlorinated tapwater, and released it into a pond in Donegal, no other organisms/diseases would have travelled. The only issue then would be of an illegal introduction. The disease aspect would be a red herring.

Toadspawn occurs in sticky strings. If some had become attached to the legs or feathers of a duck or a wading bird, it could easily survive the flight over. Did you ever wonder how sticklebacks and other small fish find their way to isolated ponds and quarry holes? If this is a natural colonisation process, then what right have we to call a halt to it ?

If we were really worried about wildlife travelling, we would be more careful about importing soil and hay. Garden centres and farmers import tonnes of it every year.
This is probably how the white toothed shrew got here. The "native" pygmy shrew probably also travelled in hay, only a lot earlier.
Similar story with the vole. As well as the soil, the Siemens machinery was also apparently cushioned with hay in the crates.

On the plus side, the larger shrew and the vole might actually save the barn owl, because their other diet of rats and mice is nowadays laced with poison. Its a complicated situation. One thing is for sure; nature does not stand still in time, it ebbs and flows.

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

One thing is for sure; nature does not stand still in time, it ebbs and flows.

This is, of course, true. But some of your posts indicate an unwillingness to distinguish natural colonisation from human introductions. That is akin to arguing that since extinction is a natural occurrence, we needn't worry about the current extinction rate, even though it's probably 1,000-10,000x the natural background rate.

Or maybe you actually think the latter is a plausible argument?

Capercaillie

recedite wrote: »

Not a relevant point to a decision on whether to have an official policy of eradication against the toads in Donegal. If they are already there, then either a disease has already been introduced or not.

If a human had brought back some toadspawn from Britain in a bucket of ordinary chlorinated tapwater, and released it into a pond in Donegal, no other organisms/diseases would have travelled. The only issue then would be of an illegal introduction. The disease aspect would be a red herring.

.

You can get vertical transmission of chytridiomycosis (Transmission from parent to spawn). The disease can be spread that way. Chlorinated water will not stop the disease. The main vector for transmission of the disease is by importation of infected amphibians (includes carriers).

Given this disease has caused mass extinctions of amphibians I would not consider it a red herring.

recedite

Capercaillie wrote: »

You can get vertical transmission of chytridiomycosis (Transmission from parent to spawn). The disease can be spread that way. Chlorinated water will not stop the disease...

If you can cite your source for these two "facts" that would be great.

Capercaillie wrote: »

Given this disease has caused mass extinctions of amphibians I would not consider it a red herring.

I mentioned red herring in the context of official policy towards the toads that are already established in Donegal. So, hypothetically if they were diseased, the disease would also be established, and would already have transferred to frogs and newts. Exterminating the toads would not exterminate the disease.

The "living the wildlife" TV program was quite interesting BTW. Amazing how many tadpoles there are, he was able to catch swarms in a net. Worth watching on the RTE player if you missed it.

Jayzesake

Jayzesake wrote: »

This is, of course, true. But some of your posts indicate an unwillingness to distinguish natural colonisation from human introductions. That is akin to arguing that since extinction is a natural occurrence, we needn't worry about the current extinction rate, even though it's probably 1,000-10,000x the natural background rate.

Or maybe you actually think the latter is a plausible argument?

Hi Recedite,

I'd be curious to hear your response to this post.

Thanks

Capercaillie

recedite wrote: »

If you can cite your source for these two "facts" that would be great.

I mentioned red herring in the context of official policy towards the toads that are already established in Donegal. So, hypothetically if they were diseased, the disease would also be established, and would already have transferred to frogs and newts. Exterminating the toads would not exterminate the disease.

The "living the wildlife" TV program was quite interesting BTW. Amazing how many tadpoles there are, he was able to catch swarms in a net. Worth watching on the RTE player if you missed it.

Apologies there is no vertical transmission, but spawn can be affected via horizontal transmission so spawn can be a vector for transmission of disease.
http://www.daff.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal-plant/aquatic/field-guide/4th-edition/amphibians/infection-batrachochytrium-dendrobatidis.pdf

Horizontal transmission is via waterborne, motile zoospores and is likely to be
by direct animal-to-animal contact. Vertical transmission via eggs has not been
demonstrated.

Chorlinated potable water is not a sterilising agent and will not kill the fungus.

recedite

Jayzesake wrote: »

This is, of course, true. But some of your posts indicate an unwillingness to distinguish natural colonisation from human introductions. That is akin to arguing that since extinction is a natural occurrence, we needn't worry about the current extinction rate, even though it's probably 1,000-10,000x the natural background rate.

Or maybe you actually think the latter is a plausible argument?

Well, I just don't see it in such black and white terms as you.
You have mentioned two different processes here, colonisation and extinction. Sometimes a species must use colonisation to avoid extinction, such as when the climate changes.

On colonisation, some species may have been helped along by mankind. Red squirrels may have become extinct in Ireland in 17th/18th C after deforestation, they were so rare anyway that they were re-introduced using Welsh stock. Even earlier, the Normans introduced rabbits. One Norman guy, Gerald of Wales, mentioned that beavers were almost gone from Wales. Maybe if the Welsh hadn't already hunted them to extinction, they would have brought them here with the rabbits. We don't really know for sure whether some other animals were introduced. Eventually, it hardly matters whether the animal came here in a boat or on a floating log, as long as the ecosystem is enriched. Any animal that lives in Britain could live in Ireland, its only a fluke that some are here, and some are not. Even if there were no humans, they might get across eventually.

On extinction, I don't think its helpful to divide it into your two types, "man-made" and "natural". What about the K-T mass extinction? It was thought to have been caused by a meteorite striking Earth, which changed the climate. "Natural" or not? Hopefully by the time we are threatened by this again, mankind will have the technology to divert the meteorite. Or would you argue that nature should take its course?

Currently most extinctions are probably caused by habitat loss, as a result of human activity. I'd like to see that situation reversed. And instead of just bemoaning the "shifting baseline syndrome", I'd like to see the baseline level of wildlife in this country raised.

recedite

Capercaillie wrote: »

Apologies there is no vertical transmission, but spawn can be affected via horizontal transmission so spawn can be a vector for transmission of disease.
http://www.daff.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal-plant/aquatic/field-guide/4th-edition/amphibians/infection-batrachochytrium-dendrobatidis.pdf

Chorlinated potable water is not a sterilising agent and will not kill the fungus.

There is nothing about either spawn or chlorine in that document.

Capercaillie

recedite wrote: »

Eventually, it hardly matters whether the animal came here in a boat or on a floating log, as long as the ecosystem is enriched. Any animal that lives in Britain could live in Ireland, its only a fluke that some are here, and some are not. Even if there were no humans, they might get across eventually.


Currently most extinctions are probably caused by habitat loss, as a result of human activity. I'd like to see that situation reversed. And instead of just bemoaning the "shifting baseline syndrome", I'd like to see the baseline level of wildlife in this country raised.

Mink are in Ireland because of humans, but I suppose by some miracle they might have swam across the atlantic. Would you welcome their "addition" to Ireland's Biodiversity?

Non-native invasive species are second only to habitat loss as the greatest cause of extinctions worldwide!

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

instead of just bemoaning the "shifting baseline syndrome", I'd like to see the baseline level of wildlife in this country raised.

you write that like the two are not compatible?

or do you mean raise the baseline by introducing new species?

OpenYourEyes

magicbastarder wrote: »

you write that like the two are not compatible?

or do you mean raise the baseline by introducing new species?

I think Recedite means they'd be ok with new species coming in as that would increase overall diversity - but in my head thats changing the baseline, not raising it. And given that the baseline refers to a past level, its moving in a completely different direction from the baseline really.

And then theres the fact that there's a big questionmark over every new species that comes here and what impact it'll have on native species.

recedite

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I think Recedite means they'd be ok with new species coming in as that would increase overall diversity - but in my head thats changing the baseline, not raising it. And given that the baseline refers to a past level, its moving in a completely different direction from the baseline really.

Yes, I'd be ok with new species coming in as that if that would increase overall diversity. That's the big question of course. You would have to have very strict criteria. Its just that I'm not going to pre-judge with an automatic "no" to any creature that has not been seen here before.

IMO the shifting baseline does not refer to any particular past level. Its always shifting, and usually downwards. There is no point in history or pre-history that we can say "everything in Ireland at this point is native, and everything that comes afterwards is non-native".

Sure, mink have been bad, so have Sika deer. If the guy who introduced Sika had introduced European Elk instead, we might have both Elk and Red deer, in different habitats, instead of a load of hybrids running around.

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

Currently most extinctions are probably caused by habitat loss, as a result of human activity. I'd like to see that situation reversed.

Sorry to be blunt, but if you were genuinely concerned about extinction levels, you'd make an effort to understand the factors that are driving that. As Capercaillie says, invasive species rank only second to habitat loss in that regard. That is not an opinion, but fact.

recedite wrote: »

On extinction, I don't think its helpful to divide it into your two types, "man-made" and "natural". What about the K-T mass extinction? It was thought to have been caused by a meteorite striking Earth, which changed the climate. "Natural" or not? Hopefully by the time we are threatened by this again, mankind will have the technology to divert the meteorite. Or would you argue that nature should take its course?

Judging by this and a previous post about how the world will soon be governed by Artificial Intelligence or suchlike, I have the impression that you've been watching too many tacky science fiction movies and confusing them with the real world.

That is not helpful.

OpenYourEyes

recedite wrote: »

Yes, I'd be ok with new species coming in as that if that would increase overall diversity. That's the big question of course. You would have to have very strict criteria. Its just that I'm not going to pre-judge with an automatic "no" to any creature that has not been seen here before.

The reason most people pre-judge with an automatic "no" is that, no matter how much research you do, you never really know what impact a species will have until it has established. Thankfully, with some species we have over-estimated what their impact would be, but the precautionary principle should apply - because it'll be too late to do anything about it before you're sure the species won't be detrimental to an ecosystem or to native biodiversity.

recedite wrote: »

IMO the shifting baseline does not refer to any particular past level. Its always shifting, and usually downwards. There is no point in history or pre-history that we can say "everything in Ireland at this point is native, and everything that comes afterwards is non-native".

With specific reference to the shifting baseline syndrome, its describing the fact that people dont truly grasp how much biodiversity has been lost within their lifetime, or within 1-2 human generations. It's not that we keep moving the baseline on purpose or anything.

For rabbits and a few other species the term used is generally 'naturalised' rather than native or non-native.


As a matter of interest Recedite, do you acknowledge an inherent value in native biodiversity?

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

Yes, I'd be ok with new species coming in as that if that would increase overall diversity. That's the big question of course. You would have to have very strict criteria.

There is no way to determine beforehand which exotic species will become invasive and which won't.

recedite wrote: »

IMO the shifting baseline does not refer to any particular past level. Its always shifting, and usually downwards.

You have completely misunderstood the meaning of 'Shifting Baseline Syndrome'. Please refer to my first post for an explanation.

Capercaillie

recedite wrote: »

Yes, I'd be ok with new species coming in as that if that would increase overall diversity. That's the big question of course. You would have to have very strict criteria. Its just that I'm not going to pre-judge with an automatic "no" to any creature that has not been seen here before.

IMO the shifting baseline does not refer to any particular past level. Its always shifting, and usually downwards. There is no point in history or pre-history that we can say "everything in Ireland at this point is native, and everything that comes afterwards is non-native".

Sure, mink have been bad, so have Sika deer. If the guy who introduced Sika had introduced European Elk instead, we might have both Elk and Red deer, in different habitats, instead of a load of hybrids running around.

How do you know Elk will cause no harm to Irish habitats?

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

With specific reference to the shifting baseline syndrome, its describing the fact that people dont truly grasp how much biodiversity has been lost within their lifetime, or within 1-2 human generations.

Thanks OYE. I would go further and say that SBS descibes a phenomenon that allows our species to enter a pristine natural environment and, over 100s or 1000s of years, gradually degrade it down to practically a biological desert without realising it.

But yes, the mechanics of that centre on the way the human brain perceives change over the course of a lifetime. We regard the state of things when we were young as natural, and any changes to that during our lifetime as unnatural. But when we die the younger generation look at that new, impoverished, reality as natural, and any changes to that as unnatural, etc., etc.

So to go back, the end result is that over longer periods of 100s or 1000s of years - which, let's not forget, is only the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms - of human occupation or exploitation of an environment, that process is constant and accumulative, and allows us to devastate that environment without having a clue that we're doing so, or the extent of what had been done before we were born.

It helps explain why, for example, most people in Ireland and elsewhere look at a chemical-soaked field of Italian rye grass, or some other monoculture, and think that's nature. They don't have the means to visualise what might once have been there (old-growth forest, for e.g., with a full complement of trophic levels, including large predators, i.e. fully functional ecosystems), or to comprehend how much incredibly biologically richer that would have been, and how much poorer we are, not to mention all the other 'earthlings' (i.e. other species), as a result of having transformed every corner of the environment so thoroughly.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

It helps explain why most people in Ireland and elsewhere look at a chemical-soaked field of Italian rye grass or some other monoculture, and think that's nature. They don't have the means to visualise what might once have been there, how incredibly biologically rich that would have been, and how much poorer we are, not to mention all the other 'earthlings' (i.e. other species), as a result.

Sad to say that most farmers would rate Italian Ryegrass as ideal and any other grassland is dirt.

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

Sad to say that most farmers would rate Italian Ryegrass as ideal and any other grassland is dirt.

Understandable in the sense that the farmer wants whatever will allow him to turn the most profit - it is his livelihood after all.

But if we look at it from another - ecological - perspective, it's just another means of rendering more extreme the pre-rye grass situation, i.e. that the land benefit one species (ours) to the utmost exclusion of all others.

That's what agriculture is and always has been. Just that technologies and methods continue to be relentless in making that ever more absolute.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

Understandable in the sense that the farmer wants whatever will allow him to turn the most profit - it is his livelihood after all.

But if we look at it from another - ecological - perspective, it's just another means of rendering more extreme the pre-rye grass situation, i.e. that the land benefit one species (ours) to the utmost exclusion of all others.

That's what agriculture is and always has been. Just that technologies and methods continue to be relentless in making that ever more absolute.

I would agree to a point, but certain extensive farming techniques can be hugely beneficial to wildlife.

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

I would agree to a point, but certain extensive farming techniques can be hugely beneficial to wildlife.

I would say that certain farming techniques can be more beneficial to wildlife than others, particularly modern industrial chemical-based ones. But wildlife really needs large areas where there is no farming at all.

If, for example, poor farmers in Brazil cut and burn a piece of forest to farm on, the type of farming they practice thereafter may be more beneficial to wildlife than the soya plantation or cattle ranch nearby, but ecologically it's still a disaster.

Exactly the same argument goes for Ireland, the only difference being that here the forests were removed longer ago.

That is not to say we don't need agriculture: we obviously need to eat, all 7 billion+ of us. There is a debate as to whether it's more beneficial to wildlife to have low impact farming, which tends to produce less per acre, hence less space devoted solely to wildlife, or on the other hand intensive farming where there would be almost zilch wildlife, but increased production per acre, with correspondingly more area for ecosystems.

It's a difficult one and I'm still not totally sure what to think about it. However an important argument in favour of intensive farming is that we now know that for ecosystems to work fully, wildlands need to be really big, I mean really big. Otherwise they lose species and cannot function properly; they slowly die, in effect. It may be difficult to appreciate that in Ireland because we are already far into the latter scenario, where only small remnants of wildlife survive; and as a result of Shifting Baseline Syndrome we don't even see that.

But on the other hand, it's not a given that the extra space yielded through intensive methods would be left for wildlife. It may simply be used to provide more food for an ever increasing global population.

Difficult, but very vital, questions.

magicbastarder

Jayzesake wrote: »

Judging by this and a previous post about how the world will soon be governed by Artificial Intelligence or suchlike

i know it's a bit OT, but i would find such a notion horrifying; the implication of his post is that we would have no say in what the AI decided, and it would be deemed to have a better grasp of what we value or don't value in nature. how would you train it with an appreciation of the natural world?

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

I would say that certain farming techniques can be more beneficial to wildlife than others, particularly modern industrial chemical-based ones. But wildlife really needs large areas where there is no farming at all.

In the vast majority of cases you are correct, but you have species like Corncrake in Ireland that need agriculture to exist. Land abandonment will lead to their extinction.

magicbastarder

but you could also argue that an 'artificial' landscape led to the conditions which allowed them to settle here; again, part of the wider debate.

Capercaillie

magicbastarder wrote: »

but you could also argue that an 'artificial' landscape led to the conditions which allowed them to settle here; again, part of the wider debate.

True, the corncrake/grey partridge/corn bunting followed the plough to ireland.

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know it's a bit OT, but i would find such a notion horrifying; the implication of his post is that we would have no say in what the AI decided, and it would be deemed to have a better grasp of what we value or don't value in nature. how would you train it with an appreciation of the natural world?

Well not quite. If we had no say in the matter, the logical course would be for the AI to exterminate us in order to improve the biodiversity of the planet. But ideally the AI would simply manage resources and the like to best advantage. It would calculate what effect the Elk would have if introduced, or whether to exterminate the mink.
In my head the Elk probably would be beneficial, because they inhabit similar habitat around other northern latitudes, but a trial would be needed first. Its easier to predict in the case of the common toads that they will have no adverse effect, by comparing to a very similar situation Britain, and knowing that they inhabit different places to the natterjacks.

Capercaillie wrote: »

.. but you have species like Corncrake in Ireland that need agriculture to exist. Land abandonment will lead to their extinction.

Regardless of changing agricultural practices here, the corncrakes are still numerous in their native habitat, the steppes of eurasia.

Capercaillie

recedite wrote: »

It would calculate what effect the Elk would have if introduced, or whether to exterminate the mink.
In my head the Elk probably would be beneficial, because they inhabit similar habitat around other northern latitudes, but a trial would be needed first.
.

Why introduce non-native species like Elk when you don't know what effect they would have on the Ecosytem. Why not reintroduce extinct native species?

Its easier to predict in the case of the common toads that they will have no adverse effect, by comparing to a very similar situation Britain, and knowing that they inhabit different places to the natterjacks.

You do not know the disease status of the Common Toads released. Chytrid fungus has been introduced into Madagascar by importation of infected Amphibians. The likely result mass amphibian extinction.The Eco-systems we have in Ireland although similar to UK are not the same, the introduction of common toads could have unseen consequences to Irish wildlife. Ecosytems are complex and interconnecting.

Regardless of changing agricultural practices here, the corncrakes are still numerous in their native habitat, the steppes of eurasia

The original native habitat of Corncrake was riverine habitat. They gradually became adapted to managed grasslands (haymeadows).

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases you are correct, but you have species like Corncrake in Ireland that need agriculture to exist. Land abandonment will lead to their extinction.

I wouldn't see any reason why we can't encourage protection of species like the corncrake in suitable areas, with more traditional farming methods or whatever else is required, while elsewhere aiming for wilder, more complete, ecosystems?

Capercaillie

recedite wrote: »

There is nothing about either spawn or chlorine in that document.

"Treatment of clinical chytridiomycsis involves antimycotic drug itraconazole. Benzalkoniumm chloride used to treat superficial mycotic dermatitis". Potable water with chlorine added is worthless.
"Emerging infectious diseases in wildlife" ES Williams