Pesticides, Cash Crops, and GM...Oh My

How conventional agriculture has created socially generated food scarcity through the loss of biodiversity and how to solve the problem.

Living in a generation where over 925 million people globally experience food scarcity (World Hunger Education Service, 2010), it is important to understand the difference between absolute scarcity and socially generated scarcity. Socially generated scarcity is insufficient necessities for some people and not others, while absolute scarcity is insufficient resources no matter how equitably they are distributed. Throughout history there have been examples of both, however, I would argue that socially generated scarcity is at the root of the hunger issue the world is facing today (Hildyard, 1996). Time Magazine (2008) argues that there are four interlinked trends contributing the global food crisis. First is the low productivity of farmers in the poorest countries, which is caused by their inability to afford seeds, fertilizer, and irrigation. Second, are the misguided policies in the U.S. and Europe that heavily subsidize the diversion of food crops to produce biofuels. The third contributor is climate change, which has taken a noticeable toll on global grain production in recent years. The final trend is the rising global demand for food and feed grains, being caused by growing populations and urbanization. I will argue that each of these trends can be traced back to a single underlying issue, which is the destruction of biodiversity through environmentally degrading “conventional” agriculture techniques.

Figure 1 (www.ifpri.org)

            The “Conventional” agriculture movement has been fueled by technological advances in machinery, fertilizers, and the development of genetically modified high-yielding varieties of wheat and corn. Many argue that large scale agriculture is necessary to feed the growing global population (Beus, 1990), but the ecological degradation that results is only exacerbating the food crisis while benefiting the agrochemical industries, large petrochemical companies, manufacturers of agricultural machinery, dam builders and large landowners (Shiva, 1991). Figure 1 illustrates how water, energy, and land policies can threaten sustainable food security. The Green Revolution in the Punjab was fueled by these agricultural techniques and dubbed the Green Revolutions “most celebrated success story”, yet the actual affects of the revolution have been devastating.

            Before the Green Revolution, maintaining diversity was central to traditional agriculture in the Punjab. Biodiversity in an ecosystem contributes to the stability of the system and thus it’s productivity. It confers resilience to pests, disease, and extreme weather, while sustaining the health of the soil for subsequent generations. The Green Revolution reduced this biodiversity in two ways. First, it reduced species diversity by replacing mixtures and rotations of crops such as wheat, maize, millets, pulses, and oil seeds with monocultures of wheat and rice. Second, it reduced the genetic diversity of the crops because the wheat and rice varieties planted came from a very narrow genetic base (Shiva, 1991). These reductions in biodiversity were perpetuated by the myth of “high-yielding varieties” that require exponentially more inputs of chemical fertilizer and water, causing soil erosion, water shortages, and overall degradation of the ecosystem. The social impacts that followed this reduction of biodiversity were devastating. Many farmers experienced initial financial rewards but the practices were not sustainable environmentally or economically and, before long, the farmers were in extreme debt due to the increased capital intensity of farming and the shifted control of land from small farmers to large corporations. Thus socially generated food scarcity spread through the Punjab in order to produce high-input, low-quality food for the rest of India. The video above shows an interview with Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist, regarding the Green Revolution that took place in India.

Figure 2 (swwb.org)

            Kenya faced a similar Green Revolution that left their lands degraded and food supplies dwindling. Gathuru Mburu, a Kenyan ecologist, has been sharing knowledge with local communities that are suffering greatly from hunger to improve their situation through the enhancement of biodiversity (Sevier, 2009). He explains that the root of the problem is that the soils are ‘dead’ and because of this people are starving. The first step is to rejuvenate those soils by removing chemicals completely or reducing them gradually in order to bring back small-scale, non-chemical based, farming. Figure 2 shows Rael Ochimbo weeding her maize field in the Nyando river basin in Western Kenya. Kenya is already feeling the affects of climate change when it comes to food production. The massive amounts of cash crops grown due to the Green Revolution do not do well in times of drought because they are not adapted to such an environment. By producing indigenous crops that have evolved in such a climate, such as yams, you will get higher yield, healthier soils due to the reduced need for chemical fertilizers, and more security due to their storage capabilities. The enhancement of biodiversity often comes with the restructuring of a community one household at a time. Many families produce tea as a cash crop but have such little land that they cannot grow enough food to support their families. They don’t make enough money from selling the cash crop to purchase food, because the majority of this money goes towards medical bills to address health issues arising from their poor diets and the chemicals used to grow their crops. Again, the health of the people, soil, and their livelihoods can be inextricably traced to the enhancement or loss of biodiversity.

            The World Bank, large corporations, and many governments feel that the solution to the food crisis is a second wave of Green Revolution where investments in fertilizers, high-yield seeds and GM crops are the focus. However, we have seen that these techniques lead to further food scarcity through the loss of biodiversity. In an article in The Ecologist (2007) Ed Hamer and Mark Anslow give ten reasons why organic can feed the world and why GM won’t. In an analysis of more than 286 conversions to organic farming in 57 different countries, the average yield increase was found to be 64 percent. Organically produced crops use 25 percent less energy than their chemical counterparts, and even have the potential to produce excess energy. Organically produced food can also cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. By localizing food production we will grow more sustainable crops and further reduce pollution by cutting back on packaging, and transportation. An organic system will reduce the dependency on pesticides thus increasing the health of ecosystems and communities through improved nutritional benefits. Finally organic farming encourages an increase in genetic biodiversity by planting local varieties and saving seeds that could confer an advantage during times of climate change, while also creating jobs in an industry that has been experiencing steady declines in numbers.

GM has failed to deliver their promised advantages on many occasions, they cost the Earth due to their heavy reliance on pesticides and water inputs, and they create a multitude of social and environmental issues with regard to contamination and gene escape. They have been shown to cause health risks, often leave communities hungry, create new problems through their proposed solutions such as breading resistance, and are bound to fertilizers and fossil fuels. These reasons along with the massive public outcry against companies such as Monsanto (more information on this in the video below) show that it is time that we rethink our diets and farming practices to protect the biodiversity that keeps our human populations, ecosystems, and planet happy and healthy.

Bibliography

"BBC HARDtalk - Vandana Shiva - Environmental Campaigner (19/11/12)."

            YouTube. YouTube, 21 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 May 2013. <http://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=O2OJPFSZ4OE>.

Beus, Curtis E., and Riley E. Dunlap. "Conventional versus Alternative Agriculture: The

 Paradigmatic Roots of the Debate." Rural Sociology 55.4 (1990): 590-616. Wiley

Online Library. Rural Sociological Society, 3 Feb. 2010. Web. 27 May 2013.

"Global Protest Against Monsanto." YouTube. YouTube, 26 May 2013. Web. 27 May

            2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJlQpBwrY7o>.

Hamer, Ed, and Mark Anslow. "10 Reasons Why Organic Can Feed The World." The

 Ecologist (2007): 43-48. Print.

Hildyard, Nicholas. "Too Many for What?The Social Generation of Food “Scarcity” and

 “Overpopulation”." Too Many for What? The Corner House, 1 Nov. 1996. Web.

 27 May 2013. <http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/too-many-what>.

Sachs, Jeffrey D. "How to End the Global Food Shortage." Time. Time, 28 Apr. 2008.

Web. 27 May 2013. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,

1734834,00.html>.

Sevier, Laura. "Gathuru Mburu: Kenya Has Already Had a Green Revolution." The

Ecologist (2009): n. pag. Print.

Shiva, Vandana. "The Green Revolution in Punjab." The Ecologist 21.2 (1991): 57-60.

"Sustainable Food Security Under Land, Water, and Energy Stresses." International

 Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). N.p., 2012. Web. 27 May 2013.

"2012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger Education

 Service." 2012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger

 Education Service. Hunger Notes, 2012. Web. 27 May 2013. <http://www.

worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world hunger facts 2002.htm>.

The Magically Disappearing Honeybee and You

Would you notice anything if honeybees disappeared? What about if large amounts of flowering plants started disappearing? And now fruits and vegetables like peaches, peas, pears, and watermelons. Without the western honeybee Apis mellifera L. many of our foods would vanish, and our diets would suffer. The food pyramid we have would crumble; other goods like fiber, drugs, and fuel would become scarce. Despite building the honeybee to be the forefront of pollination on many monocrop plantations world wide (Mazer 2007) it is incredibly fragile susceptible to externalities that we have created.

Apis Mellifera (Public Domain)

But is this doomsday event ever likely to occur? I mean we can have our cake, or in this case fruit, and eat it too right? Sadly, the unfortunate scenario can become a reality. Because A. mellifera L. is the premier biotic pollinator for agricultural crops world wide (Delaplane and Mayer, 2000), the effects of a disappearing honeybee is a reality. Figure 2-1 from Status of Pollinators shows a decline in managed honeybee colonies in the US. Since 1945, we have seen a loss of around 4 million bee colonies (USDA-NASS).

Figure 2-1: Total U.S. Colonies from 1945-2005 

Some of the potential causes for this decline have come from a variety of factors: parasitic mites, pathogens, pesticides, transgenic crops, migratory beekeeping, lack of genetic diversity, and invasive species. These biotic and abiotic factors are possible reasons for colony collapse disorder (CCD), which is the phenomenon where entire honeybee colonies abruptly disappear. These culprits have been identified, but not publicized enough.

The Varroa Mite (Varroa destructor) has been a major threat to colonies. These mites have caused a significant decline in populations of honeybees throughout the world (Jong, 1990; Sammataro et al., 2000). In some states, around 30-80 percent of managed colonies were lost due to these mites in 2003, despite the reliance on pesticides. (Elzen et al., 1998).  However, a certain pathogen proves to be more harmful than this deadly mite

The most harmful pathogen to honeybees is Paenibacillus larvae. By attacking honeybees during their larval stage of metamorphosis, the bacterium spreads the contagious disease American foulbrood (AFB) not only within managed colonies, but between managed colonies through the use of spores. The disease is so serious that most states require that if a colony is found to host AFB, it should be destroyed and its equipment, like the physical colony, be burned or buried. (Ratnieks, 1992).

The use of pesticides has also negatively affected honeybee populations. The major cause for the decline has been from improper use of pesticides, specifically neonicotinoid pesticides like acetamiprid, clothianidin, and imidacloprid. (Johansen and Mayer, 1990). After spraying agricultural fields, bees visit flowers for their pollen and nectar, and return to their hive to store this pesticide-soaked pollen and nectar. This pesticide is a neurotoxin, which affects a bee’s behavior. In fact, the European Union recently installed a ban on these types of pesticides because of their high risk to bees. What the EU, and many other people worry about with pesticide use, are colonies being exposed in their foraging environment and in their colonies. This pesticide-covered pollen is fed to honeybee larvae and stored in the form of the honey. Over time, the whole colony will become exposed to this pesticide, which may affect every individual in the hive.

Genetically modified organisms have also been a concern, as there has been some evidence that the insecticidal proteins in pollen can negatively affect honeybees, even though they are not the target species. (Losey et al., 1999) These pollen grains are fed to young brood by nursing honeybees, which potentially alters behavior during the adult stage of the bee’s life. 

The problems associated with migratory beekeeping are the stressful environments bees are placed in. Typically, farmers rent beehives from commercial beekeepers. These hives are placed on a truck and driven thousands of miles to their farms. Even though they have access to lots of pollen in these new areas, they are not used to a new location every 3 months since they only swarm once a year (Mazer, 2007). Managed colonies are not subject to the highly selective breeding process that natural colonies endure because inbreeding depression has made many managed colonies weaker than their natural counterparts. Not only is there a reduction in diversity between managed colonies, but within managed colonies. Because of this, many colonies are susceptible to hereditable diseases and infectious diseases (Mazer, 2007)

There is also the concern of invasive species. The Africanized honeybee (A. mellifera scutellata) was first introduced in Brazil in 1960s, and was later spotted in Texas in 1990, and California in 2000 (Hunter et al., 1993). These species not only have been responsible for depleting resources and increasing competition for honeybees, but attacking managed colonies and killing its queen.

Knowing all this, the potential loss of managed and unmanaged honeybee colonies could have severe economic consequences. It’s estimated that 30% of all food humans consume is made possible from honeybees. Dennis vanEngelsdorp, state apiarist for Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture, shows us what would be missing from our plate if bees were not here. The, “one in three bites of food,” we eat would be gone if it wasn’t for bees. 

Crop pollination is also estimated to be valued at $16 billion dollars when only examining the United States’ agricultural industry.  Other important crops that need pollinating are alfalfa and clover, which are important food sources for livestock feed. Other important products that honeybees produce are honey, which has a value of $150 million annually. It’s an understatement to say that the loss of honeybees will be catastrophic to the agricultural industry. (Mazer, 2007)

But what can be more severe than this? Well, the loss of plant diversity could be drastic as well. The mutualistic association between honeybees and plants is extremely important for the reproduction of angiosperms. We would see drastic reductions in plant diversity without essential supporting ecosystem services like pollination (Mazer 2007). From this many mutualistic relationships that animals have with flowering plants will be disrupted, and other species could suffer as well. The effects of this could undermine the agricultural system we have established, which would leave many individuals and organisms without food. Without the honeybee, we will experience a global catastrophe resulting in countless innocent lives being lost.

Knowing all this, what can we do? Well, individual action is a start, but global action is necessary to reverse these effects.  You can help by starting your own beehive in your backyard. Honeybees are actually quite friendly, and will not bother you at all when they’re foraging. You can also stop using pesticides around your home, to protect insect visitors from neurotoxins. Talk to your neighbors as well, and work with them to reduce their pesticide use too. You can also begin writing to your government officials, asking them to consider a ban on certain pesticides in the state to protect honeybees. Having a garden that flowers throughout the seasons helps too, as it gives an area for honeybees to forage throughout the year. The sooner action is taken to protect honeybees, the better off we, and other organisms, will be.

---
Sources

Delaplane, K.S., and D.F. Mayer. 2000. Crop Pollination by Bees. Oxon: CAB International. Delfinado-Baker, M. 1984. Acarapis woodi in the United States. American Bee Journal 124:805–806.

Elzen, P.J., F.A Eischen, J.B Baxter, J.S Pettis, G.W. Elzen, and W.T. Wilson. 1998. Fluvalinate resistance in Varroa jacobsoni from several geographic locations. American Bee Journal 138:674–676.

Hunter, L.A., J.A. Jackman, and E.A. Sugden. 1993. Detection records of Africanized honey bees in Texas during 1990, 1991 and 1992. Southwestern Entomologist 18(2):79–

Johansen, C.A., and D.F. Mayer. 1990. Pollinator Protection. A Bee and Pesticide Handbook. Cheshire, Conn.: Wicwas Press.

Jong, D. 1990. Mites: varroa and other parasites of brood. Pp. 200–218 in Honey Bee Pests, Predators, and Diseases, R.A. Morse and R. Nowogrodzki, eds. 2nd edition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Losey, J.E., L.S. Rayor, and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae.

Nature 399:214.

Mazer, S.J. 2007. Status of pollinators in North America. Nature 450:1162-1163.

McGregor, S.E. 1976. Insect Pollination of Cultivated Crop Plants. USDA Handbook 496. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 411 pp.

Ratnieks, F.L.W. 1992. American foulbrood: the spread and control of an important disease of the honey bee. Bee World 73:177–191.

Sammataro, D., U. Gerson, and G. Needham. 2000. Parasitic mites of honey bees: life history, implications, and impact. Annual Review of Entomology 45:519–548.

USDA-NASS. Report on the National Stakeholder Conference on Honey Bee Health. Rep. Alexandria, VA`: Sheraton Suites Old Town Alexandria Hotel, 2012. Print.

VanEngelsdorp, Dennis. "A Plea For Bees." TED: Ideas worth Spreading. TED, 01 July 2008. Web. 07 June 2013.

The emergence of infectious diseases due to biodiversity loss.

The emergence of infectious diseases due to biodiversity loss.

           

http://readthescience.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/you-have-humans.png

Life as we know is it is changing. Most people accept this as a simple fact of evolution. Change can be good and bad, but the loss of biodiversity is a change we cannot just merely accept. The US Congressional Biodiversity Act of 1990 describes biodiversity as “the full range of variety and variability within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur, and encompasses ecosystem or community diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity” [12]. The rich biodiversity that once was, is now declining rapidly. Human actions are largely responsible for the destruction of ecosystems, loss of species, and overall genetic variability. The leading threats to biodiversity include conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, climate change, pollution, unsustainable harvesting of natural resources and the introduction of invasion species [11]. What many people may not realize is that their relationship with the environment intrinsically connected with their own health. 

The loss of biodiversity has indirect and direct effects on provisioning and regulating ecosystem services that benefit humans. To elaborate, biodiversity serves to provide regulating ecosystems such a climate regulation and disease control. The result of these services being at risk is making it increasingly more evident that biodiversity is at the core of human health [5]. A rich ecosystem prevents disease by providing provisioning ecosystem services such as clean water, nutritious food and traditional medicines. Essentially, biodiversity is the backbone of a happy and healthy world. But, now the decline in biodiversity is coinciding with an increase in a sick environment and population. This coincidence has led researchers to speculate whether the decline in biodiversity is a key factor in the rise of emerging infectious diseases (EID).

            The relationship between EIDs and loss of biodiversity is evident in the core neglected tropical diseases that are affecting the people of Africa, Asia, and South America. In the past decade, there has been a surge in the number of EIDs that have plagued people and animals. For example, Schistosomiasis (Snail fever), is a trematode EID that infects people when they come in contact with fresh bodies of water that are inhabited by infected snails (intermediate host) and the parasitic trematode, Schistosoma mansoi. Approximately, 200 million people currently infected worldwide with about 80% of transmission occurring in sub-Saharan Africa [2].  The emergence of this disease can concurred with a change in the environmental stability of sub- Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa is made up of a rich diversity of biomes consisting of savannas, tropical rainforests and grasslands. It also has a wide distribution of biomass and very high population density. This rich diversity is at risk and is declining due to habitat loss, pollutions, wildlife trade, and invasive species [9].

 Figure [1] A detailed summary of the connection between changes in biodiversity and human health.

The decline in biodiversity has directly affected Schistosomiasis and many other parasitic diseases that rely on a host and vector relationship, see figure one [1]. This means the abundance of the host or vector is changing, which in turn affects the behavior and condition of the host, vector or parasite [3]. The relationship between population density of a host such as

http://www.frontiersoftravel.com/disease_maps/Schistosomiasis_risk_map.png

snail in Schistosomiasis and the rate of infection was measured experimentally. By comparing infection rates between a single host population and a host in a dense population sample, researchers concluded the presence of another species could reduce the transmission of parasites even if the total density of the parasite is constant [1]. This dependent relationship indicates that breaking the natural balance of species to species interactions can be fatal.

It is essential to consider why we are seeing a loss of species and population density in order to understand what the consequences are and how we can stop the devastation. Recent EIDs seems to be driven by globalization and ecological disruptions [6]. Man’s power to alter landscapes has caused the degradation of ecosystem services and the functions they provide. For example, deforestation is a major cause of habitat and biodiversity loss. Deforestation is the removal trees so the land can be converted to a “non-forest use” [7].  Not only has deforestation adversely affected carbon dioxide sequestration and subsequently global warming, but it has also increased transmission of Malaria.  

 

            Malaria is an infectious disease that is transmitted to humans through Anopheles mosquito that carry the malarial parasite, Plasmodium. According to WHO 2007, there are at least 300 million cases of Malaria per year and at least 1 million deaths [3]. The clearing of trees allows the Anopheles mosquito's' to breed more because they have more access to surface-water. Deforestation’s global warming effect also causes warmer microclimates so the larval mosquitoes survival rates have increased. The availability of direct sunlight, rising water temperatures and a shift in community dynamics has enabled this survival rate. The mosquitoes have also adapted the ability to digest blood meals at a faster rate. All of this has allowed the malarial parasite to develop quicker, which makes the mosquito infectious at a faster rate in warmer temperatures [6].  According to the CDC, the mean biting rate in areas with over 80% deforestation was 8.33 compared with 0.03 per night that was calculated for areas that only have 30% deforestation [4]. This incidence is a clear-cut example that the human population needs a rich biodiversity for their health protection. The relationship humans’ hold with environment is cyclical. Human actions effect the environment and in turn the environment affects the well-being of humans. 

By exploring the shift in EIDs and biodiversity, the evidence is clear without biodiversity plants, animals, and humans cannot live in a healthy world. So how can we stop the decline before we reach the tipping point of no return? In the TED talk, How Poachers Became Caretakers, John Kasaona suggested model that balanced traditionally cultural practices with modern technology to reach forwards conversation. His model is focused on community-based conservation so that radical movements such as deforestation and poaching can be reduced. Kasaona left the audience with these powerful words, “We knew conservation would fail if it doesn't work to improve the lives of the local communities” [8]. To change biodiversity patterns the approach needs to be a local level that can be sustainable for everyday practices and collectively a global change can occur.

Work Cited:

[1] Johnson, P. T.J, P. J. Lund, R. B. Hartson, and T. P. Yoshino. "Community Diversity Reduces Schistosoma Mansoni Transmission, Host Pathology and Human Infection Risk." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276.1662 (2009): 1657-663. Print.

[2] Hotez, Peter J., Alan Fenwick, and Eyrun F. Kjetland. "Africa's 32 Cents Solution for HIV/AIDS." PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 3.5 (2009): E430. Print.

[3] Keesing, Felicia, Lisa Belden, Andrew Dobson, C. Drew Harvell, Robert Holt, Peter Hudson, Anna Jolles, Kate Jones, Charles Mitchell, Samuel Myers, Tiffany Bogich, and Richard Ostfeld. "Impacts of Biodiversity on the Emergence and Transmission of Infectious Diseases." Nature 468 (2010): 647-52. Print.

[4] Olson, Sarah H., Ronald Gangnon, Guilherme Abbad Silveira, and Jonathan A. Patz. "Deforestation and Malaria in Mâncio Lima County, Brazil." Emerging Infectious Diseases 16 (2010): 1-8. Print.

[5] Collins, Jocelyn. "Biodiversity." Biodiversity. WWC Enviro Facts, n.d. Web. 29 May 2013. <http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/envfacts/facts/biodiversity.htm>.

[6] Pongsiri, Montira J., Joe Roman, Vanessa O. Ezenwa, Tony L. Goldberg, Hillel S. Koren, Stephen C. Newbold, Richard S. Ostfeld, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, and Daniel J. Salkeld. "Biodiversity Loss Affects Global Disease Ecology." BioScience 59.11 (2009): 945-54. Print.

[7] "SAFnet Dictionary | Definition For [deforestation]." SAFnet Dictionary | Definition For [deforestation]. Society of American Foresters, 28 July 2008. Web. 23 May 2013. <http://dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/deforestation>.

[8] Kasaona, John. "How Poachers Become Caretakers." Address. TED2010. Ted.com. June 2010. Web. <http://www.ted.com/talks/john_kasaona_from_poachers_to_caretakers.html>.’

[9]http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20080317&t=2&i=3543548&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2008-03-17T072353Z_01_N16477619_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE0

[10] "Chapter 12." Impact of Climate Change on the Geographic Scope of Diseases. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 June 2013.

[11] Scientific Definitions of Biodiversity." Scientific Definitions of Biodiversity. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 June 2013.

[12] "Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions." - Global Issues. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 June 2013.

False Emeralds: A Case Study on the Dangers of Invasive Species

When was the last time you thought about introduced species?  And I mean really thought about them.  How prevalent they are and how much differently the world and the Pacific Northwest in particular would look without them.  In order to think about that, take a second and picture what you had for dinner last night.  Unless your meal consisted entirely of blackberries, Camas, Huckleberries, or some other native plant then you have introduced species to thank for the side dishes.  Much the same can be said for any meat you may have enjoyed, with only a select few commonly eaten animals being native to this region. 

These introduced species sound pretty good so far, so then what’s all the fuss about?  It’s largely because of them that we’re able to enjoy the lifestyles we do now, and the world sure would be a lot different if species native to an area stayed within their original range.  On the food production front alone, that would mean we in the United States would have to pay a whole lot more to import our beef, wheat products, and the majority of our beloved fruits and vegetables just to name a few favorites.  So again the question must be raised, with all of these seeming benefits from the cultivation of different introduced species, why are they so often pointed to as being a bad thing?  The answer to that can be found through an understanding of what happens when an introduced species gets a little out of control and makes the transition to an invasive one.

Before delving too much further, I should spend some time to define my terms. In this context when I use the phrase introduced species I simply mean any species which has been moved outside its native range, the range in which it coevolved with the other organisms present in the environment, through human activity.  While similar to introduced species, invasives have the key distinction of just being bad news all around.  While introduced species are classified as such based only on their movement into an area, invasive species are given their particular title only once they prove to be really good at spreading rapidly throughout the new habitat and outcompeting anything else that gets in their way.  As part of this rapid growth invasives often cause extraordinary damage in terms of economic and ecological costs, a major portion of this damage in the form of biodiversity loss (Invasive, 2013).  Most often the brunt of this damage is born by native species, those that have in most instances not dispersed widely.  This means that the effects of invasives in an area are best seen through the subsequent loss of endemic species which when lost are gone forever.

A good overview of the ways in which invasive species work can be seen in the below video; though the music is a bit silly, it’s worth a look because it provides a nice concise look at invasives and even some common steps taken to slow their spread.

Due to this large risk of significant damage and loss, it is in the best interest of ecologists to predict if a new species being introduced to an area will make the jump from “introduced” to “invasive.”  Trouble is that this turns out to be a really hard thing to predict.  However, ecologists have been able to develop a kind of generalized rule about invasive species, at least for plants.  Deemed the “rule of 10s” this relationship states that in general 10% of plants introduced into an area will survive in the wild and of that number 10% will then go on and become invasive (Iowa, 2013).  A similar relationship is seen with animals, although they hold a higher predicted rate of invasiveness with about 25% of introduced vertebrate species becoming invasive (Vander, 2005).  This higher rate makes sense though, as vertebrate animals are generally more adaptable to new environments than plants due to motile nature.

So now we’ve discussed the basics of what constitutes introduced and invasive species, and how common they are.  It is time then to return to the specific dangers of invasives, and what better way to do so than through the use of an example? 

Adult Emerald ash borer with size reference
 and characteristic trunk damage (Freshfromflorida.com)

The Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) is an insect belonging to the wood-boring beetle family.  As its name implies, this beetle exclusively targets trees in the Ash (Fraxinus) genus.  Also as is clear from the image, the beetles are a striking emerald green.  What makes this insect so dangerous as a pest is that it targets every species of the genus, not just a select few ash varieties.  Originally introduced to the Midwest of the United States from Asia on imported lumber, this beetle was first spotted around Detroit, Michigan in 2002.  Recent dendrochronological (tree ring dating) data now shows that the Emerald Ash Borer had been established in Michigan at least 10 years prior to its detection in 2002 (EmeraldAshBorer.info).

Since adult EAB’s are capable of flying up to a mile at a time in search of new host trees, they are quite hard to contain and that mobility coupled with their fast reproductive cycle means that this pest has the potential to spread incredibly rapidly through a stand of trees.  After EAB eggs hatch on the bark of the ash trees, the newly emerged larva travel through the bark and into the phloem of the tree where they proceed to feed and grow for about 1000 days before emerging as adults.  This extended period of hidden growth means that it’s possible for a tree to show no outward sign of infestation for long periods of time even though it is filled with thousands of Emerald Ash Borers larva.  This allows the beetles to persist unseen and untreated until it is too late to help the infested tree.  Once a tree is infested with those larva, its survival rate drops to zero as the Ash Borers starve the tree by consuming its sugar transporting phloem cells (Poland, 2006).

Another video with great music.  This short clip provides a great overview and recap of the origin, spread, and mechanism of attack of the Emerald ash boring beetle.  Also valuable in the video is a short discussion of the current methods being used to slow the beetle’s spread and hopefully limit its future damage.

Prediction of future EAB spread (US Forest Service).

Emerald Ash Borers are thought to be one of the most serious threats currently facing North American forests. As is shown by the image to the left their suspected future impact is huge, and these pests have the potential to kill every one of the 7.5 billion ash trees currently growing unless they are stopped.  Not only would this vast destruction eliminate an entire genus from our forests, it would also have unpredictable effects on the overall forest structures we see today.  At this point in time, there hasn’t been much progress in the way of preventing infestation in trees, and officials are relying on early detection and containment efforts along with public awareness campaigns aimed at halting the spread of this pest (The Nature Conservancy).  The only other current research out there is centered on the natural "enemies" of the Emerald Ash Borer in its native Asian ranges, but implementing that kind of strategy to control one pest's population would require further unpredictable introductions (Liu, 2003).

Serious as it is, the Emerald Ash Borer is but one example of the very real danger posed to global biodiversity by invasive species.  There are countless other plant and animal species out there doing as much or even more damage to the environments they are introduced into.  And in our increasingly interconnected world, the rate of new species introductions is only going up.  So while it is true that only a small fraction of species introduced into an area ever become invasive (remember the rule of 10s from earlier?), this high level of introductions has led to alarming invasive species establishment rates estimated at 6 per year in California and up to 15 per year in Hawaii and Florida (Center, 2013).

By now I hope I have done a good job conveying just how big of a concern invasive species are.  Their movement into places where there are no barriers to their spread leads to the decimation of native populations which often turn out to be only found in that place.  So although the damage caused by invasive species is often discussed in terms of dollar amounts, the real damage is more tangible than that.  It is in the irrevocable loss of the species which give our favorite places their special character.  And with the increasing rate of species introductions we now run the very real risk of losing more of that which can never be replaced.

References

Center for Invasive Species Research. UC Riverside, n.d. Web. 25 May 2013.

"EmeraldAshBorer.info". EmeraldAshBorer.info. 2012-05-21. Retrieved 2013-05-21.

"Invasive Species - Forest Disturbance Processes - Northern Research Station - USDA Forest Service." Invasive Species - Forest Disturbance Processes - Northern Research Station - USDA Forest Service. N.p., 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 26 May 2013.

Iowa State University. "Invasive species widespread, but not more than at home range." ScienceDaily, 5 Mar. 2011. Web. 26 May 2013. 

Liu, Houping, et al. "Exploratory survey for the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), and its natural enemies in China." Great Lakes Entomol 36 (2003): 191-204.

Poland, Therese M., and Deborah G. McCullough. "Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat to north Americas ash resource." Journal of Forestry 104.3 (2006): 118-124.

"The Nature Conservancy. Protecting Nature. Preserving Life.™." Emerald Ash Borer. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 May 2013.

Vander Zanden, M. Jake. "The success of animal invaders." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102.20 (2005): 7055-7056.

A Healthy Microbiome is a Healthy You

            The human microbiome is the unsung hero of our health and happiness, or lack thereof. While it’s entirely invisible and rarely even comes up in conversation, let alone medical facilities, it plays an extremely important role in the regulation of human immune systems and bodily function. The human microbiome is extensive and high variable, serving many functions in our bodies, the most notable of which are immune system support and aiding in proper digestion. Upsets in our bacteria can cause both of these things to fail. While to most the skin and internal microbiome we carry with us is wholly unimportant and generally unknown, the fact is that it is a massive part of our livelihood and in sheer numbers, our human cells are outnumbered by our microbes more than 10:1. While the research into the nature of our microbiomes is just beginning there has already been a large amount of evidence linking a healthy microbiome to a healthy, or at least healthier, person in general.

The proportions of bacteria types on and in the
body depend largely on location.

            The concept of “probiotics” has become reasonably common in recent years, with many products available that advertise their probiotic content, such as yogurts, supplements, and some drinks. These specific items are aimed at supporting the microbes residing in our intestines, more commonly referred to as “gut flora.” Aside from the skin of the forearm, which has been shown to have “the richest community with an average of 44 species” of microbes present, the gut is one of the most microbe dense areas of our bodies (Yong 2010). A healthy gut leads to a healthier life, and there have been studies recently linking obesity to the health of the gut flora. While  not historically as much of a problem, the homogenization of the average American diet has created culture with a less microbially diverse digestive system, which has in turn led to a heavier nation, as well as a sicker one. Current scientific research positively links reduced bacterial diversity in the gut with obesity, something that should serve as a big red flag for our country (Ley 2010).

Babies need a healthy microbiome, too!

            It should be no real surprise that the basis for our microbiome comes from our parents, especially from our mothers, during our births. The process of natural birth introduces the mother’s gut and vaginal microbes and shortly after birth, we’re exposed to the skin microbiome as well. This is a vital process for a healthy immune system, and, as it turns out there are much higher rates of allergies and asthma in children born through C-sections, a sterile process allowing the newborn to be exposed to only the mother’s skin microbiome (Pollan 2013). Of course, this lack of exposure can easily be corrected by essentially inoculating the infant with the proper microbes. As unappealing as that sounds, the fact remains that it has been proven many times over that the microbiome present in and on our bodies is crucial for our quality of life, if not our survival, in general.

            The big question is really why, as a nation, our microbes have failed us? And the answer is that they haven’t. We’ve failed them. Bacteria does not exist for us to use and it surely isn’t something we can always assume we’ll have the right amount of in our bodies, especially if we’re not willing to take care of them, ourselves. There are many different methods of exposure to the proper microbes, outside of the exposure we receive from our mothers at birth, and yet so many people lack the proper microbiome, these days. Ironically, our desire for cleanliness and convenience has been our downfall.

High fat diets promote obesity not only in humans.

            Many microbes can come into contact with our skin through things such as dirt and pollen. These microbes are essential for fighting allergies and improving the immune system. The problem is that many parents don’t want to deal with dirty kids, and so they’re discouraged from digging around in (and sometimes eating) dirt. This is something that has been termed the “hygiene hypothesis” which is essentially that a lack of exposure to microbial stimulation in early life causes deficient immune response to allergens in later life (Huffnagle 2010). We’ve also become so obsessed with eating “clean” food and using pesticides and washing out produce that we remove much of the bacteria from the food we eat, as well, drastically reducing our exposure to the good bacteria our bodies need, not just the bad. And it’s not just that we’ve become almost too clean. As is well-illustrated in a video by Jessica Green titled “You are your microbes,” the standard American diet is definitely not helping our situation at all. Eating a diet based heavily on fats and starches and forgoing the greens does supply food for some of the gut flora we carry with us, but all of the bacteria that depend on the micronutrients provided by plant materials and a more diverse diet can no longer survive (Green 2013). In fact, it has been shown that obesity has been specifically linked to one bacterium called Enterobacter that thrives under high fat diets, though it is surely not the only bacterium that contributes to large amounts of weight gain. However, after test subjects with excess amounts of this particular bacteria consumed a diet of mainly whole grains and probiotic foods, those high in micronutrients meant to support diverse gut flora, significant amounts of weight were lost and associated medical issues such as diabetes and hyperinsulinemia were drastically better (Fei 2013).

A diverse microbiome is a healthy microbiome.

            The healing effects of a healthy microbiome don’t stop there, however. Though it doesn’t sound pleasant, fecal transplantation has become a promising cure to many intestinal illnesses like Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, debilitating illnesses that have historically shown little response to standard medicines (Spectrum Health 2013). That the proper balance of gut flora can cure these things and promote healthy weight and autoimmune response is astounding, and should be taken as a hint that we need to clean up our act. In reality, keeping up a healthy microbiome is as easy as eating a balanced diet and getting a bit of time outside each day. Gardening would kill two birds with one stone, even. A healthy microbiome is a healthy you, and for something so easy to accomplish that seems like something worth paying attention to.

Popular Media:

Green, Jessica. “You are your microbes.” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, Jan. 7, 2013. May 28, 2013

Pollan, Michael. “Some Of My Best Friends Are Germs.” New York Times. New York Times, May 15, 2013. Web. May 28, 2013.

Yong, Ed. “An introduction to the microbiome.” National Geographic Magazine. National Geographic, August 8, 2013. Web. May 28, 2013.

Primary Literature:

Fei, Na and Liping Zhao. “An opportunistic pathogen isolated from the gut of anobese human causes obesity in germfree mice.” The ISME Journal. Nature, December 13, 2012. Web. May 28, 2013.

Huffnagle, Gary B. “The Microbiota and Allergies/Asthma.” PLoS Collections. PLoS Pathogens, May 27, 2010. Web. May 28, 2013.

Ley, Ruth E. “Obesity and the Human Microbiome.” Medscape News. Medscape, 2010. Web. May 28, 2013.

Savory's talk and an alternative for studying grassland ecology

In recent TED talk from Alan Savory, a potential solution to increasing desertification that is affecting grasslands all over the world. Savory suggests that by using holistic pasturing of herds to mimic the effects of nature, we can reverse desertification and help fight global climate change. There are many critiques of Alan Savory's work saying that it wont scale enough to be sufficient for a global solution. After reading so many disagreeing points, it becomes harder and harder to accept what he says as absolute truth. Even though there is no magic "paddock" cure to the problems facing the planet, at least he is still striving to get answers. I would like to hope that people are inspired by his work (even if it's to prove him wrong) and take to heart the lesson of being willing to change and work with nature instead of burning or isolating it.

It is the scientific consensus that deserts are a natural part of global ecosystems. Alan Savory talks about using herds to stop the desertification of grasslands. Good yields from crops planted in herded areas did produce more food, even though the soil was trampled and fertilized by the cattle, Although his ideas on global climate change may be a bit far off, he at least was looking at natural ways of cattle ranching and the natural benefits to the ecosystem after the herds had passed.

Some benefits may include:
-natural fertilization without the addition of chemicals or soil preps
-breakdown of old plant material either by being eaten by the cattle or trampled into mulch to fertilize the soil for next year
-Biodiversity dispersal of different grasses and seed types due to increased range for the cattle
-CO2 sequestering by the underlying plant growth

Even if we can't solve global climate change with cows, I still think that Alan Savory's idea has a great concept. It used to be that back in the Dark Ages, humans thought the world was flat and that it had an edge. It's amazing that with all our technology, we still don't know why agricultural threats like colony collapse disorder and desertification occur.

One Ecology department at the University of Houston developed a computer model of a "virtual  prairie" [1]. They have the ability to run simulations, looking at how different communities interact and how limited resources may affect the entire ecosystem. Not only does this modeling exist, but the professors have designed it asked for volunteers to help by donating time and power of your own PC. All volunteers just download a quick file and then bam! You're helping out how to stop desertification of partially moist grasslands. It's very important to know what kind of organisms are in an ecosystem, but now you can help bioinformatics research right from your own home. Now that's science at your fingertips!



Related Article from University of Houston:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/03/07/protecting.ecosystems.pollution.remediation.goals.research.uh