Another bad joke

Conserving Biodiversity – The UK Approach” has just been launched, and very worthy it is too. There are many sensible suggestions, including about what individuals can do. And there’s much talk of “joined up working across the public, voluntary and business sectors,” and of “a more holistic or ecosystems approach” which recognizes “the interconnections between living things, their environment, and the services they provide.” In fact, the press release kinda reminded me of a recent article about buzzwords whose whole first paragraph consisted of one buzzword after another.

The one buzzword that’s missing, of course, is agrobiodiversity. But you knew that.

Despite all the hand-waving about joined-up holistic interconnected strategic partnerships, in 24 pages there is one — oblique — reference to traditional farming, and one sentence on the desirability of something called “agri-environment schemes.” There’s also a weird table on the implementation of the strategy in the four countries that make up the UK, which is supposed to outline the biodiversity duty of public bodies as determined by legislation (p. 10). The word “agriculture” appears in the sections on England and Northern Ireland, but it really is very difficult to understand what that actually means. And that’s it.

Maybe somebody who knows more about this document — and the process which gave rise to it — can help us out here. Was the exclusion of agricultural biodiversity from the national strategic framework for biodiversity conservation in the UK a matter of conscious choice? Or did it just fall through the cracks, as usual?

Climate change will cause more than extinction

A comment in Conservation Biology this month ((D.K. Skelly et al. (2007) Evolutionary Responses to Climate Change. Conservation Biology 21 (5), 1353–1355. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00764.x)) criticizes a recent paper in the same journal ((J.R. Malcolm (2006) Global Warming and Extinctions of Endemic Species from Biodiversity Hotspots. Conservation Biology 20 (2), 538–548. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00364.x)) which estimated that up to 43% of the endemic biota in some biodiversity hotspots could go extinct as a result of global climate change.

While not disputing that climate change will cause extinctions, the authors of the comment suggest that the climate envelope approach to predicting range changes ((That’s the same kind of approach that’s been used by our friend Andy Jarvis and others to predict dire consequences for the wild relatives of the peanut, potato and cowpea.)) ignores the possibility that species may in fact evolve in response to changes in the climate. And they quote evidence that such genetic change is happening.

Continue reading “Climate change will cause more than extinction”

A history of viruses

We’re fond of reminding ourselves here that agrobiodiversity isn’t just crops and livestock and their wild relatives — it’s also pests and pathogens and weeds and pollinators and earthworms and brewer’s yeast. It’s one of our leitmotifs. Another is that agricultural and “wild” biodiversity interact. Here’s a paper that kind of brings these two leitmotifs together, into a sort of counterpoint, if I may be allowed to push the metaphor ((C.M. Malmstrom et al. (2007) Barley yellow dwarf viruses (BYDVs) preserved in herbarium specimens illuminate historical disease ecology of invasive and native grasses. Journal of Ecology (OnlineEarly Articles). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01307.x)).

Carolyn Malmstrom and her team at Michigan State University isolated RNA of barley and cereal yellow dwarf viruses from old herbarium specimens of Californian grasses, dating back to 1917. They used such historical samples to trace the history of these agriculturally important viruses back through time, building up a sort of family tree. The analysis suggests that the viruses were present in the Californian native flora in the 18th and 19th centuries, when invasive Eurasian annual grasses (some of them weedy crop relatives) displaced native perennial grasses. In fact, they may have facilitated this invasion by helping the exotic grasses outcompete the natives ((“Non-native invaders amplify spring aphid populations and increase BYDV infection in natives, which in turn suffer substantially reduced survivorship when infected.”)).

The team also found “potential correspondence in the timing of virus diversification events and the beginning of extensive human exchange between the Old and New Worlds.” Humans may have caused the branching of the family tree of some viruses by moving them and their hosts around the world.

Here’s Malmstrom on the significance of her work:

This work points out that the virus world does have an active, long-term role in nature, not just in agriculture… We very much need to understand how viruses can move and influence our crops. If we care about our crops, we need to care about what’s happening in nature.

So: aphids, viruses, native grasses, exotic weedy invaders, crops. Quite a fugue.