Feral livestock: pest or useful resource?

I ((Contributed by Michael Kubisch)) came across an interesting article while browsing through my archives. ((Dirk van Vuren and Philip W. Hedrick. Genetic Conservation in Feral Populations of Livestock. Conservation Biology, Vol. 3, No. 3. (Sep., 1989), pp. 312-317.)) It is by now quite dated, but with global climate changes upon us, I think it may actually be more relevant now than it was 20 years ago. The article makes a case for the preservation of feral livestock which are descendents of animals that, once kept by humans, either manage to escape into the wild or are simply abandoned when no longer useful.

Not all species do this equally well. Sheep have a hard time managing on their own, while pigs, on the other hand, easily adapt to all sorts of environments. In the US there are an estimated 4 million feral pigs, many of which may be descendents of pigs brought over by the Spanish in the 16th century. Similarly successful have been feral horses in the US and camels in Australia, the latter being so abundant that there are efforts underway to use them for meat production.

The article makes the case for preserving feral livestock as a valuable genetic resource because the adaptation to life in the wild may have favored or preserved traits, for example resistance to specific parasites or a higher temperature tolerance, that domestic livestock may have lost.

Of course, there are drawbacks: in some countries feral animals are considered pests and there is no doubt that particularly pigs can and do inflict serious damage on the environment. And because of this there are often programs in place to eradicate or at least control feral populations, although such attempts have not always been all that successful. At any rate, in an age of changing climate conditions it might perhaps be more worthwhile to keep some feral livestock around than to try to get rid of it. 

Weaver ants protect mango and cashew crops

Farmers in Benin harvest fruit of far higher quality if they allow weaver ants (Oecophylla longinoda) to infest their mango (Mangifera indica) trees. Scientists at the CGIAR’s Inland Valley Consortium noticed that fruit-fly damage was lower in trees where weaver ants were abundant. So they arranged to exclude ants from trees on six plantations. The results were very encouraging. ((Paul Van Mele; Jean-François Vayssières; Esther Van Tellingen; Jan Vrolijks. Effects of an African Weaver Ant, Oecophylla longinoda, in Controlling Mango Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Benin. Journal of Economic Entomology 2007, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 695 – 701.)) Farmers who tolerated the ants can manage without pesticides and are able to sell their mangoes into the lucrative European organic market. The scientists reckon it takes just a day to teach farmers about the benefits of weaver ants, and are planning to take their ideas to East Africa and Asia.

There is just one downside. The ants bite. But that can be avoided by harvesting the fruit with poles instead of by climbing the trees. ((There are further write-ups at Scidev.net and The Economist.))

Seed Regulation: How much is enough?

Earlier this year we posted about how EU Regulations destroy agricultural biodiversity and proposed rules to allow the marketing of European traditional varieties. Eliseu Bettencourt, a colleague with a close interest, said then that he didn’t have enough time to intervene in the discussion. Now, he says, he has a chance. Which would be kind of dull except that he’s seen the very latest drafts of the documents …

The post of 19th February 2007 refers to the “Draft Commission Directive establishing the specific conditions under which seed and propagating material of agricultural and vegetable species may be marketed in relation to the conservation in situ and the sustainable use of plant genetic resources through growing and marketing”, supposedly due to come into force on 1st April 2007. The Directive did indeed materialize as the writer of the post so rightly guessed then, though he even refrained from the obvious joke.

I guess the writer was referring to the draft document of May 2006, which bore that title. According to the drafts I have had access to later, in February 2007, that document was sub-divided intro three different documents, respectively: Continue reading “Seed Regulation: How much is enough?”

Biodiversity even more valuable

A study published in tomorrow’s Nature (news item) suggests that previous estimates of the value of biodiversity in supplying ecosystem services may have consistently underestimated its importance. This is because previous efforts looked at single services, such as clean water or pollination. Professor Andy Hector from the University of Zurich, Switzerland and Dr Robert Bagchi from the University of Oxford developed a new method to look at multiple ecosystem processes in the same analysis. According to Professor Hector “previous analyses have been too narrowly focused … and have effectively assumed that the species that are important for one ecosystem service can provide all the other services too – but that doesn’t seem to be the case”.

Applying their method to data from European grasslands, Hector and Bagchi found that higher levels of biodiversity were required when all seven of the measured ecosystem services were taken into account than when focusing on any single ecosystem service in isolation. Moreover, different ecosystem services were affected by different groups of species. Dr Bagchi explained that “because different species influence different ecosystem services more species are required for a fully-functioning ecosystem than for one managed with a single goal in mind”.

What’s really neat is that the researchers are now testing their ideas in the tropics. Professor Hector is one of the lead researchers on the Sabah Biodiversity Experiment in Malaysian Borneo, which investigates whether tree-replanting schemes are more successful in restoring fully-functioning forest ecosystems when they use a high diversity of species than the monocultures that are usually planted. That’ll be one to watch.

doi:10.1038/nature05947