Showing posts with label invasive species. Show all posts
Showing posts with label invasive species. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

No Introductions Necessary?

Biology concepts – introduced species, invasive species,


The United States is a melting pot, and it is one of our
greatest strengths. The questions is, is it also a good
idea for plants and animals?
The United States is an amazing place to live; nearly everyone’s family is from some place else. But if you ask the people you meet on any given day, they will likely say they are from the USA. Most have had time to assimilate and find their niche in their family’s adopted homeland. Can you name a place on Earth where this situation applies to its animals and plants?

If a place like this existed, it would probably be some place young. It would probably also be someplace isolated, where the exchange of species would not have been easy. Sounds like an island to me; probably a volcanic island(s), something like the big island of Hawaii, in a chain that is only 300,000 years old….. O.K., it is the big island of Hawaii.


Hawaii is the biggest and youngest of the Hawaiian Islands.
Formed from five active volcanoes, it is growing larger
everyday.
Since they are islands, it makes sense that many of Hawaii's species came from somewhere else. A key question is, how did they get there? If seeds were brought by migratory birds or washed up on shore, or if an animal wasn’t quite dead when a predatory bird dropped it on the island, that’s one thing. But if humans brought plants or animals and released them by accident or deliberately, that is something else.

History shows the latter mechanism has been responsible for most of the diversity in Hawaii. Estimates are that the rate of species introduction in Hawaii has outpaced the natural rate of diversification by 2 million times. Over half of the island’s plants species are there because of people, not nature.

Many of the plants and animals that have been brought to Hawaii were introduced deliberately, but that is not the definition of an introduced species. Whether an organism is imported and released to serve some specific purpose, or whether it is a stowaway on a ship or otherwise unknowingly allowed to get loose, it is an introduced species (also called neozoon, alien, exotic, non-indigenous, or non-native species). Introduced species are those plants and animals living outside their native range due to some human intervention, whether intentional or not. For Hawaii, this began in the 19th century.


The Hawaiian monk seal is known as
Ilio‐holo‐i‐ka‐uaua in Hawaiian,
meaning, “the dog that runs in
rough waters.” They are critically
endangered, with only about 1100
remaining individuals.
Hawaii has only two native mammals, the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) and the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus), and no native terrestrial (land) mammals. Many other mammals were introduced in the name of making money, like cattle and goats, while others were brought in specifically to make hunting more enjoyable.

In the last few posts, we have been discussing the activity patterns of different organisms, and we suggested that the organisms that interact most likely have the same or overlapping activity patterns. A tragic story illustrating this concept has played itself out in Hawaii since the late 1800’s.

Ladd & Company (from Maine) had established a lucrative sugar industry on the big island by 1834, and this increased the ship traffic in and out of Hawaii. The ships brought rats, an all too common introduced species.

In Jamaica, the problem of rats in the sugar cane fields was an old one. A successful sugar planter, W.B. Espeut, thought that introducing the Indian mongoose to the sugar cane fields could help with their rat problem. Apparently it did, and Espeut told everyone he could find. Subsequently, 72 mongooses were brought to the big island in 1883. There were some objections raised in the local papers, but as with most good ideas, they were roundly dismissed.


It is sad that mongooses
in Hawaii are causing damage, while
at the same time, mongooses are
endangered in their native India
due to habitat loss.
The problems became apparent not too long after mongoose introduction. In Jamaica there is a predator that eats mongooses, the fer-de-lance snake, but no such predator in Hawaii. What is the number one cause of death for mongooses in Hawaii? Old age!

No predator means unfettered reproduction, and female mongooses can have two litters each year. The result has been lots of mongooses, all looking for a meal and a mate.

Did all these Hawaiian mongooses do their job, did they get rid of the rats? Not really, and this is where a biology class could have helped. Mongooses are diurnal, they hunt during the day, but the rats on Hawaii are nocturnal. Oops. You would have thought someone might have noticed that beforehand.

I’m sure the odd mongoose runs into the odd rat as one goes to bed and the other begins its day, but that isn’t enough to force either species to adapt; everyone is happy keeping to his old schedule. Now Hawaii has too many rats and too many mongooses.

Mongooses (mongeese?) will eat almost anything (fruits, snails, mammals, insects, amphibians, lizards, spiders), but they really like bird eggs. Many species of bird in Hawaii, including the Nene (Hawaiian goose, the state bird) are on the brink of extinction because of the mongoose.

The story of the mongoose and the rat illustrates another point. Not only are there few mammals on Hawaii, there are even fewer native predators. As a result, many animals and plants that happen to be from Hawaii originally (or least for a long time) have adapted to this lack of predators by not developing defense mechanisms. This is an advantage, in that energy normally spent on defense can be saved for other metabolic or reproductive activities. Nature always wants to reroute energy if it is being used unnecessarily.

But, if predators are then introduced (and they were by the bucketful after Western Europeans and Americans became involved) the native animals are particularly at risk. The lack of native predators and the introduction of alien predators is illustrated by the case of the western yellow jacket. Though often mistaken for a bee, the yellow jacket is actually a wasp, and a nasty one at that.


Western yellow jackets have a smooth
stinger, so they can sting multiple
times. However, they rarely sting when
away from their nest.
The yellow jacket is an example of an accidentally introduced species, arriving in a shipment of Christmas trees. Law required that a percentage of the trees be shaken to knock off insects before shipment, but the required percentage of shaken trees was apparently too small, or the time shaken was too short, because it didn’t work.

In the continental U.S., the yellow jacket forms an annual nest and starts over building a colony each spring, but in the warmer climate of Hawaii, the species has become perennial, with nests as large as an SUV – more like a Lincoln Navigator, not the small Honda CR-V.

The yellow jacket is a carnivorous wasp only as a larva. The adults eat only nectar, but acquire meat to feed their young. This has decimated native Hawaii insect species, which in turn has reduced the amount of food available to bird species. In addition to insects, the wasps will devour dead birds and other large vertebrates, but will kill lizards and amphibians to feed their young.

In addition to accidentally introduced species, there are many feral (fera in Latin = wild beast) species on the big island. Feral species are animals that were domesticated, but have returned to the wild and propagated there. Their freedom could have come by accident or on purpose, as with cats and dogs in the cities. We call them strays, but they are correctly referred to as feral.


The stories of sewer alligators inspired sculptor
Tom Otterness to create a slightly scary piece in
bronze. It is located in a14th Street subway station
in NYC.
All those alligators in the sewers of NYC aren’t feral, because they were never domesticated. And yes, alligators have been caught in the sewers of NYC; the latest Time and Post articles I could find were from August of 2010. They don’t live for years, grow to be monsters, or reproduce - but small ones, probably recently released, are found just about every year.

In most cases, feral animals cause problems and don’t offer many advantages. They can act as reservoirs of disease, compete with native species for resources, prey on indigenous species and eat native plants.

If there are benefits to feral animals, they will depend on your view of things. Some ranchers can make money by rounding up feral cattle or horses. Feral canines provide an income for the town dogcatcher. Stray cats can help keep the rodent population down; there seem to be many advocates for feral cats. There is even a website that advertises all the wonderful things about sterilized feral cats. Really? They want to catch them, sterilize them, and then release them again?

Literally, thousands of plants and animals of all kinds have been introduced to the big island, and now we get to the crux of the issue – introduced species that become invasive species, ie. those that do damage to the natural ecosystem by becoming dominant by killing or displacing native species. The question is – which is the exception, introduced species that become invasive and do damage, or introduced species that do little damage or even result in a benefit?

On the negative side, we have talked about the Hawaiian mongooses, rats, and yellow jackets. There are others; feral pigs and cattle graze on native grasses and other plants. The Formosan ground termite causes millions of dollars of damage to trees and structures each year. Alien plants, such as Florida prickly blackberry and molasses grass smother native vegetation and prevent their re-establishment. As a result of these and other invasives, Hawaii has more endangered species per square mile than any other place on earth. This is due, at least in part, to invasive species.

Other introductions have been moot. For instance, over 4,600 species of plants have been introduced into the Hawaiian Islands over the last 200 years. However, only 86, less than 2% of the total, have become serious problems for native ecosystems.


Horses were introduced to the Americas
by the Spanish in the 16th century, as were sheep and
cattle. De Soto brought 13 pigs to Tampa Bay in
1539; these were the ancestors of the razorbacks
of the Southeast… and the University of Arkansas.

Some introductions have been wildly successful. Indeed, most of the cultivated crops (except for corn, turkeys, tomatoes, potatoes, and peanuts) and livestock animals in the continental U.S. are introduced species. Your pet cat, dog, bird, fish, or snake is probably an introduced species as well.

Of the approximately 5,000 alien animal and plant species in Hawaii, only about 300 to 500 have gone on to wreak significant damage and some have been beneficial. So the question remains, which are the exceptions- the failures and accidents that have resulted in destruction, or the successes and the accidental introductions that have had negligible effects?

Websites are full of lists of invasive species, the species they are displacing and the lost resources due to their introduction. We don’t see lists of introduced species that have worked out just fine. Perhaps this is as it should be; attention should be paid to those problems that need to be resolved. Attention should also be focused on the failures as a learning opportunity when future introductions are contemplated. But don't assume that a species is a problem just because it was introduced.




Lemoine NP, Burkepile DE, & Parker JD (2016). Quantifying Differences Between Native and Introduced Species. Trends in ecology & evolution, 31 (5), 372-81 PMID: 26965001

Nelson FB, Brown GP, Shilton C, & Shine R (2015). Helpful invaders: Can cane toads reduce the parasite burdens of native frogs? International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife, 4 (3), 295-300 PMID: 26236630


For more information, classroom activities and laboratories on introduced and invasive species, see:

Introduced species –


Invasive species –
 

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Carp Diem - Polyploid Fish Seize The Day

Biology concepts – polyploidy, invasive species

There are 60,000 different species of weevils, a type of
beetle. And almost all of them are polyploid! Polyploidy
benefits speciation, so maybe them being polyploid is
why there are 60,000 species. On the left is
Trachelophorus giraffa, named for obvious reasons, and
on the right is Rhigus nigrosparsus. You’ll have to go to
Brazil to see one in person.
We think that polyploid animals are the rare exceptions, and they certainly are in the case of mammals, but there are other groups of animals don’t think twice about being polyploid. Arthropods are notorious for developing polyploid lines, while amphibians and reptiles are probably the most well studied polyploids. But there are more - that cedar planked salmon you enjoyed the other night – it was probably triploid as well.

We pointed out last week that polyploidy in plants has done a lot to promote speciation events, and this seems to be the case in fish as well. While some families have a few polyploid members, like the loaches, or the carps and minnows, other families are completely polyploid, like the Salmonidae (salmon). Wat is more, the families with the greatest number of polyploid members also have the highest number of species overall. Of the 28,000 known species and >60 orders of fish, 63% fall into the 9 orders that include polyploidy – coincidence? I don’t think so.

Remember that polyploidy in plants is well behaved, not much genome restructuring goes on even though there can be subfunctionalization and neofunctionalization leading to speciation at the molecular level. In contrast, fish polyploidy seems to induce a tolerance of change, and gene ordering and genome restructuring seem to run rampant. This seems to be at least one reason for high rates of new species development in fish that are polyploid.

The effects of polyploidy on fish are similar to those we have talked about previously. Polyploid fish tend to be larger, ie. the gigas effect, and they tend to live longer and grow faster, ie. heterosis. Inductions of triploidy or formation of auto- or allopolyploid species tend to have fewer diseases. For some reason, sexual maturation in fish is linked to higher infection rates – most likely due to stress. Finding a mate and having kids is stressful, ask any adult. Stress is directly related to infection rates, as one of the effects of the stress hormone cortisol is to turn down the immune system.

The sunshine bass on top is a diploid female which
is filled with eggs (gravid). In contrast, the female
on the bottom is triploid. She is bigger, even
compared to a gravid fish. The gigas effect in
polyploids is real, and effects sport fishing. Everyone
wants to catch a bigger fish.
Whether or not ploidy level itself has an effect on immune fitness is up for argument. A 2012 opinion paper from three prominent researchers states that increased gene numbers could lead to expression of more immune proteins, and antibodies to more different parasites, so it could increase resistance. They also offer that the mere increase in genes could end up producing more immune cells in total, therefore conferring more resistance.

In plants, a recent study indicates that a disease resistance cluster of genes in soybeans indicates that production of new disease resistance genes could develop by polyploid development. In an autopolyploid soybean, the number of disease resistance genes doubled, but they didn’t produce twice as much protein. It seems that they have begun to evolve independently. This may in turn produce newly functional resistance genes, or on the other hand, may eliminate one of the clusters. It appears that specific immune function and polyploidy may be interpreted only on a case by case basis.

But there negative effects that are similar to plants as well.  Triploid species are often less reproductively active, due either to difficulties in gamete production or to aberrant sex steroid levels as a result of dosage imbalance.

In some cases though, sterility has been used to the advantage of humans - triploid salmon are less likely to return to spawning grounds, which means they stay in the ocean longer, growing fat and happy. For wild salmon fisheries, this means a greater number of bigger fish. For salmon hatcheries and commercial growers, it means less stress on the animals and a greater harvest. Triploidy can be induced in the salmon (and other species) by cold shocking the eggs near the time of fertilization or using chemicals to prevent chromatid separation during meiosis.

Triploid oysters on the west coast are raised so that they can be 
harvested year round. They are bigger and taste better 
than spawning diploids. They are also more disease 
resistant, and this might affect pearl formation, since most 
natural pearls are induced by parasites that bore through the shell.
For a reason completely different than organism size or stress, oyster farmers have also induced triploidy in their product organisms. It seems that spawning reduces the sweetness and size of the oysters. They taste “spawny.” Since triploid oysters do not spawn, they retain their size and sweetness throughout the summer, when diploid oysters would be less tasty and are not harvested.

Pacific oyster species use up to 80% of their body weight for production of sperm and eggs – not good for food harvesting. This can last for most of the late spring and summer, so the triploids allow for harvesting when people are accustomed to avoiding oysters – typically, the rule is don’t eat oysters in any month without an “r.”

But if we harvest fewer diploids, and introduce more triploids – could we end up with a glut of oysters? The diploids that would have been caught are free to reproduce and we end up eating the triploids that wouldn’t have been reproducing anyway. What ecological niches might be disturbed by too many oysters? You can discuss amongst yourselves whether this is a good idea in the long run – I render no opinion one way or the other.

You can argue both sides of the polyploid introduction argument; human efforts to enhance (alter) the zoological face of the planet have met with some disastrous failures, but remember that majority of foreign introductions have been ecologically moot. This point is often overlooked, but we have talked about it before.

Polyploidy in wild salmon is extremely common, so would there really be that great a change? The use of triploid induction is more common in commercial fisheries and in the shellfish industry because they believe it provides a hedge against escapement and breeding with wild populations. Triploid fish and shellfish are sterile, so even if they did escape into the wild, they would be unlikely to breed with the wild type populations.

But Mother Nature always finds a way, doesn’t she? There have several cases of reversion to diploidy in triploid oysters. These shellfish are then free to breed with wild species. And what is more, induction of triploidy is not 100% efficient in fish, so some organisms will remain diploid. The incomplete induction of triploidy has been illustrated brilliantly by the invasion of the asian carp.

What we call the asian carp is actually four different
species. But they all get big. O.K. usually not this big!
They are moving up the Mississippi River and
threaten to enter the Great Lakes. If they do, they could
destroy a multibillion dollar a year fishing industry.
What we refer to as asian carp is actually a mix of four species, the bighead carp, the black carp, the grass carp, and the silver carp. The grass carp was introduced into Geogria from China and the USSR in the 1960’s as a way to control overgrowth of grass and weeds in local ponds – that's what they eat. The interested parties did consider escapement and breeding, so they instituted a program of triploid induction. However, since some eggs escaped triploid development and some fish escaped the ponds, they became invasive. In the late 1980’s a program was introduced to assure that all released fish were triploid, but by that time the damage was done.

The bighead carp and silver carp were introduced into the US in sewage treatment plants and aquaculture ponds as a way to produce clearer water. These two species eat zooplankton and the waste of other animals, so naturally they were a good choice to improve water quality. But as with the grass carp, they ended up in the Mississippi and now have become a great problem. As far as I can tell, bighead carp and silver carp were not required to be tested as triploid before release until 2005 or later.

Nobody wants to bite into their striped bass fillet and find a 
yellow grub. Black carp were introduced to destroy the 
snails that serve as one life cycle stages of the grub. My Gosh! 
Did this guy actually circle the grub with his wedding ring?!
The black carp was also introduced to help aquaculture farms. In raising striped bass, the yellow grub had become a major problem. The grub arrives in the waste of wading birds and can then wreak havoc by multiplying in snails and then attacking the striped bass fry. They burrow into the fish and cause large cysts to form. You can’t sell a food fish that releases a worm when you cut into it.

Black carp love snails, so they were introduced into fish farm ponds in the 1990’s to interrupt the yellow grub life cycle. The plan worked, and worked well; too bad the work to induce sterility did not work as well - the black carp has ended up in the Mississippi as have the other species of asian carp.

The result of these escapes is that rivers in 23 states are choked with asian carp, to the point that many native fish die off. True - the fish are big, very big, so they could provide a source of food. But they haven’t caught on as a food fish, and some places (like Canada) won’t even allow them to be sold for food. Fishing them for sport isn’t going to work as well, as their diets don’t help. How would you bait a hook with a piece of grass or a zooplankton?

The numbers have grown so large in recent years that other problems have developed. The silver carp has a strange habit of leaping out of the water when a boat motor approaches; there have been hundreds of instances where people have been struck by the fish. Noses have been broken, boats have been damaged, and this is all on top of losing the native species in the rivers. Check out this video of the silver carp problem and the birth of a new sport, aerial bowfishing.

Jeff Goldblum said it in Jurassic Park – life finds a
way. There is no way of predicting which turn life
will take, or the lengths evolution will go to help
life persist in the face of huge obstacles. Too often,
we are that obstacle.
There are no exceptions to two rules of nature: one - life will find a way to exist in every form you can imagine and using strategies that you can’t even imagine; and two – altering nature through anything other than natural selection is going to have unintended consequences. Thus, polyploidy is a strategy that fish have employed to diversify and fill niches, and polyploidy used by humans has been both a benefit and a bane.

But we haven’t even talked about one of the most interesting exceptions in nature that is related to polyploid development; the link between extra sets of chromosomes and the abandonment of sexual reproduction. To illuminate this exception, we will focus on the insect, lizard and amphibian polyploids next time.


Ashfield, T., Egan, A., Pfeil, B., Chen, N., Podicheti, R., Ratnaparkhe, M., Ameline-Torregrosa, C., Denny, R., Cannon, S., Doyle, J., Geffroy, V., Roe, B., Saghai Maroof, M., Young, N., & Innes, R. (2012). Evolution of a Complex Disease Resistance Gene Cluster in Diploid Phaseolus and Tetraploid Glycine PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, 159 (1), 336-354 DOI: 10.1104/pp.112.195040

King, K., Seppala, O., & Neiman, M. (2012). Is more better? Polyploidy and parasite resistance Biology Letters, 8 (4), 598-600 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.1152
For more information and classroom activities, see:


Polyploidy in aquaculture –

Asian carp –
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/aqua024.html