May 11, 2005
The Case for Charisma
Here's why I ask...
Unless you've been living in a cave, you probably already know that the ivory-billed woodpecker was re-discovered, not extinct after all, in the swamps of Arkansas. But unless you happen to be a mollusk biologist you're probably not aware that two freshwater snails in Alabama were also recently re-discovered alive and well.
That's the focus of a bit of thoughtful journalism by ABC News (unfortunately far too abbreviated to do justice to its subject): Why do large attractive animals--biologists call them "charismatic megafauna"--get all the attention when it comes to conservation? And what does it mean for the smaller and less-pretty species, that comprise the vast majority of species on our planet?
To take Idaho as an example, why do a relatively small number of re-introduced wolves garner endless amounts of media attention and public focus, when a newly discovered species of fairy shrimp, never before known to science is hardly mentioned?
You have to admit: it has a lot to do with looks. It may also have something to do with expressiveness. Wolves and other charismatic species appear to express very human-like emotions--affection, fear, excitement--and their behavior is almost eerily similar to ours: they cling to tightly-knit family structures and they establish social hierarchies, for instance. Fairy shrimp, on the other hand... well, they basically just lie in the mud or perhaps float around in seasonal pools not doing a whole lot that resembles (most) human behavior.
But is it smart to assign conservation priorities--which land will be protected and how--based on the presence of the charismatic creatures and without considering the not-so-popular ones? After all, it's the unappealing species that make up the vast majority of the Earth's inhabitants. And without the small, un-pretty, and perhaps unknown creatures, the fate of the larger ones would certainly be in doubt.
So far, biologists have named a total of about 1.7 million species and each year about 13,000 more are added to the list of Earth's known organisms. But Harvard University biologist Edward O. Wilson has suggested that vast numbers of species — particularly the smaller, less glorious ones such as snails and insects — remain undiscovered. Some estimate that up to 100 million species have yet to be found.
There are at least two conventional explanations for focusing on the big charismatics. First, it's a lot easier to motivate action for attractive animals, or highly symbolic ones, than it is for ugly ones (that's part of the reason why we hear a lot about salmon and little about lampreys, both of which are at-risk in the Columbia River). It's much easier to get people to preserve a river for the sake of bald eagles than for those freshwater snails that no one noticed weren't extinct after all.
Second, many charismatic megafauna are also considered keystone or indicator species. That is, a habitat that supports a certain animal must also support a certain array of other species in the ecosystem--where there are spotted owls, for example, there must also be old growth trees, voles, and flying squirrels. Plus, they're generally easier to monitor (it's easier to count sea otters than the spiny sea urchins they prey on) so focusing on charismatic megafauna is simpler.
Lately, I've been researching a small suite of species in the Northwest. It's clear that data for big animals is generally much better than for small ones. But I want to figure out what these big species--caribou, sage grouse, and orcas--tell us about broader ecological conditions. From a conservation biology perspective, what's the value in monitoring the likeable animals?
Which brings me back to my opening question: If you could only monitor 7 species in the entire Pacific Northwest, which would you choose?
Posted by Eric de Place | Permalink
1. Homo sapiens, crime rates, mortality, morbidity, mental health indicators, population increase.
2. Spotted owl. Good old growth forest indicator, easy to find.
3. A snag-dependent forest species, possibly white-headed woodpecker.
4. Northern goshawk, a fairly good pine forest indicator species, although very inconsistent in territory occupancy and reproduction.
5. A riparian amphibian. May have to use different species for different sub-regions. They don't move around much, as opposed to
6. An anadromous salmonid. Easy to monitor but difficult to tie to changes in one particular part of their environment.
7. A nearshore rockfish.
These are off the top of my head. I have worked with indicator species but am not a professional ecologist.
Posted by: sf | May 12, 2005 9:03:28 AM
You know, I can believe you are sitting there very honestly wanting to hear what seven species people would think to save and why. And there could be arguments made for any seven depending on what people are interested in. I have found it interesting when I was in school studying biology that the most important group of organisms was always the one’s the professor was studying. Perhaps they are acting in their own professional self-preservation but perhaps they are also tapping into a key principle that if we truly did attempt to preserve any particular species that that would inherently conserve other species upon which the protected species would depend on. I think the important aspect in that sentence is the authenticity by which we attempt to conserve any particular species habitat and its web of interactions.
Posted by: Jeffrey | May 15, 2005 8:20:26 PM
I am conducting a research work on snails evolution and this article of yours helped me a lot in this connection.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 12, 2005 4:16:15 AM
Great work!Well these type of research are really necessary as they create awarness in people about the various species on earth and the different ways in which they can be protected.
Posted by: Kate | Apr 13, 2006 10:26:41 AM