Adventure Journal Post
Large Predators Critical to Ecosystems
Study in Science magazine cites loss of these animals as humans' "most pervasive influence on nature," and discusses elk overgrazing in Yellowstone following wolf eradication as an example.By Steve Casimiro, Guest Writer, 7-25-11
You can make a moral argument against letting large predator species decline and become endangered, and you can certainly make a spiritual argument (as in, knowing they’re there elevates the spirit). Now you can make a practical argument: The loss of top predators in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments has had a major impact on ecosystems worldwide, leading to changes in vegetation, more wildfires, a decline in water quality, and an increase in infectious diseases and invasive species, according to a study published in Science.
“Until recently, large apex consumers were ubiquitous across the globe and had been for millions of years. The loss of these animals may be humankind’s most pervasive influence on nature,” said the study, conducted by an international team of 24 scientists. Their review cited numerous examples of how the loss of top predators cascades through ecosystems, creating significant disturbances.
In Yellowstone National Park, the extirpation of wolves led to a flourishing elk population, which then overgrazed trees. Reductions in numbers of lions and leopards in parts of Africa has led to a rise of olive baboons, increasing contact with humans and the spread of intestinal parasites in humans and baboons. The decimation of sharks in the Chesapeake Bay has led to a proliferation of cow-nosed rays, which have over-consumed oysters.
“People who live in North America know it’s hard to grow a garden because deer will eat it,” said Ellen K. Pikitch, a co-author of the report and a professor at Stony Brook University in New York. “The lack of wolf populations throughout North America has led to an expansion of the deer population.
“You may hate wolves. You might think they’re dangerous. But without them, the land changes,” Pikitch said. “Deer carry ticks. We humans become more susceptible to diseases such as Lyme disease.”
The authors said that to restore healthy ecosystems, land managers must also restore or reintroduce large predators. And just a note to those who would reflexively favor cattle over wolves: Cows are not part of a natural, healthy ecosystem.
This post, made possibly by Patagonia, appeared in Adventure Journal. Steve Casimiro is the founder and editor of the site.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
This is just another PR stunt amping Bill Ripple's "trophic cascades" theory, with a peer review of the usual Society for Conservation Biology peerage -- Soule, Terborgh, Berger, the guy saying the Yellowstone bunnies were all dying and had to withdraw his paper?
Which leads me to another pet peeve about this kind of "journalism." If I want to read this paper to see WTF is being said, I get to cough up 15 bucks.
The point of this "publication" is to puff up a theory in the public mind without the public actually being able to see the theory. That's completely screwed up. If "scientists" want to brag up their journal scores, fine, but they should make the article available in full, for free, to any and all media outlets wishing to post a link to the full paper.
Otherwise, it's just a fan dance for publicity -- not public enlightenment. Which is why we have science, right?
I wonder what our ecosystems are now and have been for 50 years if only wolves will make them well again?
There is this statement, "In Yellowstone National Park, the extirpation of wolves led to a flourishing elk population,.."
Why no mention of the winter feed stations affecting the elk population AND spreading disease?
Science has an obligation to the lay society it operates within to enlighten the public, either to facts or an agenda.
Sending out a press release specifically so it will be cribbed by a "journalist" without making the underlying claims subject to scrutiny or at least examination is not ethical. Yet it is way too common, and threatens understanding.
"Trophic downgrading" is a loaded phrase, never mind the conclusion of the abstract that lots of money needs to be granted for "interdisciplinary research." This is self-interested PR, nothing more, nothing less, and should be treated as what it is.
Show me the paper, and not after it's been pulled off the roll, thanks.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Gallatin River, the battle of predators evidently is headed to court on the Yellowstone Club financial meltdown. Evidently, poor Timmy Blixeth, who never looked back at the trail of tears and financial ruin he has for a legacy, is now the aggrieved party and is joining in a lawsuit that claims he was sorely damaged by predatory lending practices of Credit Suisse. That lawsuit will reveal who was the top predator of the real estate purveyors to the filthy rich. Of course, poor little Tiny Tim was beat up by the monsters of Switzerland and their rapacious banking practices. Cry me some tears. Whip me. Beat me. I deserve it. I was taken advantage of by bankers loaning me money. That my proffered financials were of the quality needed to gain loans from Credit Suisse either means they were predators in the lending market, or Tiny Tim was a bit fraudulent in his financial documentation to the bank. How it ends is not important. That it is once again Tiny Tim and his financial plundering of the West, for his gain, ending up in court is the constant. Tim always ends up in court. He is now trying for an Oscar, an Emmy, a Tony, and will show his stuff in court as the aggrieved party in search of some monetary condolences from that big bully, Credit Suisse. MegaBankers against a poor little one time billionaire on paper. tch tch. How sad can it get?? Does Obama have a paragraph for helping heal a wounded ego in ObamaCare?? Tiny Tim needs help. His fortune now is only $200 million, or so he reports. For him to have that much, someone else is out that much. Another lawsuit in the making. Predator vs. Predator. It's a Montana thing.
"Science has an obligation to the lay society it operates within to enlighten the public, either to facts or an agenda.
Sending out a press release specifically so it will be cribbed by a "journalist" without making the underlying claims subject to scrutiny or at least examination is not ethical. Yet it is way too common, and threatens understanding."
Look at the author affiliations. They all work at public institutions funded by the public. The work product belongs to the public and in the public domain without requiring additional compensation.
Man's management of the wild animals of North America is the envy of the world.
Can you show this study was derived from public funds? Or are you going to just kick in the old manure spreader again
Besides they would not need to do a study they have a 15 year ready made study in Yellowstone to demonstrate the effectiveness of major predators at keeping ungulates healthy. On the other hand that probably did not seem like a good one to make their point.
I bet if a study came out touting that your god, the cow, caused no harm anywhere at any level, you would be citing it until the cows came home and care less about the funding
The fact is we only have to look at Yellowstone to see the impact of maximum predators on ungulates. The true picture is there for all to see and no amount of spin is going to change it. All of the research/studies/articles in the world are not going to change the actual fact of what has happened there.
It does not matter who pays for "research" done by government employees, that should be a matter of public record, and if it is done on the public dime we should have access to the results.
What you worship is evident in every post. You should have grown up and lived in India.
And now, according to you all the researchers of this paper are government employees?
But here is a little secret. IF there are any such that contributed to this study, then this study WILL be available to the public. It is just up to you to find it. I know that that will involve not just getting it from some newspaper; what you usually rely on for your facts but give it a shot. You may be surprised.
I don't refer to what I think you are but rather what you do. Spread manure. It is about your actions, not your person. I have pointed this out to you on numerous occasions.
Really? Cattle are of this planet, not alien visitors from another world. They are capable of breeding with bison. Might as well argue against farming practices that grow food by disturbing the natural state of soil.
"Montana isn't Africa"
Well I'm certainly glad we got that straightened out