Nature in the News

Capercaille wrote: »

You are being pedantic

The biggest threat to biodiversity on the planet (after habitat destruction) is the introduction of non-native species into an environment. That has been proven numerous times.

Vivisectus wrote: »

then we better kill off the bee-eaters. They could very well put extra pressure on the native bees. Besides, if it wasn't for human-created unnatural climate change they may not have gotten here, so it sort of counts as an introduction.

Birdnuts wrote: »

With respect alot of scientific work goes into the re-introduction of former native species, both in this country and abroad. These re-introductions at an official level are done under IUCN rules which have very strict criteria. It is not done on the basis of what species is "popular" etc. but is all do with fitting these former native species in with existing habitats within a modern populated, farmed, rural landscape etc. This is why the re-introduction of the likes of Red Kites, Grey Partridges etc. makes sense at this time, while re-introducing the likes of Wolves or Brown Bears would not.

IUCN wrote:

1.A conservation translocation has intended conservation benefit, but it also carries risks to ecological, social and economic interests

2. There should generally be strong evidence that the threat(s) that caused any previous extinction have been correctly identified and removed or sufficiently reduced.

3. Assessment of any translocation proposal should include identification of potential benefits and potential negative impacts, covering ecological, social and economic aspects. This will be simpler for a reinforcement or reintroduction within indigenous range compared to any translocation outside indigenous range.

4. Global evidence shows that introductions of species outside their indigenous range can frequently cause extreme, negative impacts that can be ecological, social or economic, are often difficult to foresee, and can become evident only long after the introduction.

5. Conservation translocations outside indigenous range may, therefore, bring potentially high risks that are often difficult or impossible to predict with accuracy.

6. Hence, although risk analysis around a translocation should be proportional to the presumed risks, justifying a conservation introduction requires an especially high level of confidence over the organisms’ performance after release, including over the long-term, with reassurance on its acceptability from the perspective of the release area’s ecology, and the social and economic interests of its human communities.

7. In any decision on whether to translocate or not, the absolute level of risk must be balanced against the scale of expected benefits.

8. Where a high degree of uncertainty remains or it is not possible to assess reliably that a conservation introduction presents low risks, it should not proceed, and alternative conservation solutions should be sought.

Moses Faithful Slime wrote: »

Back on topic - I came across this in the papers this week.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28545964

recedite wrote: »

The bee eater is not native to Ireland, but there is a native honey bee.
If bee eaters arrived, we would not know whether it was a completely natural event, or due to human induced global warming, or a deliberate private reintroduction. Nor would we be able to predict the exact effects on the existing ecosystem. That was the topic. Anyway I agree, enough said.