1. Find link below to a recent extirpation experiment. These studies remain an important component of quantitative scientific research.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02589.x/abstract 2. I have conducted 2 rigorously-designed and a few additional opportunistic/naturalistic *invasive* experiments in the field... 3. I think that a final decision, in most instances, about whether or not to proceed with an invasive field experiment must be weighed in terms of the short-, mid-, and long-term benefits to the general body of knowledge that can be provided by scientific, including, invasive experiments. 4. There are many who would favour or disfavour invasive field experiments on the basis of Red Book status. 5. However, to the contrary, I am of the opinion that invasive experiments using endangered taxa should be prioitized because of the high likelihood that information to be gained from all levels of their biological organization and from their roles in populations, communities, and ecosystems are likely to be lost within ecological, must less, evolutionary, time. 6. A number of conservation-oriented researchers advocate for qualitative studies and descriptive work instead of invasive field experimentation. 7. However, one of many caveats to the aforementioned research strategies is that main effects cannot be isolated, research results do not permit predictive statements, &, as Stephen C. Stearns has said, highlighting the need for field experimentation: "Descriptive studies may obtain the right data for the wrong reasons." 8. Among other points that might be advanced, it should be noted that many researchers who oppose invasive field experiments for scientific reasons, support translocation for conservation reasons. 9. Translocation *experiments* are one class of invasive field research capable of testing many questions/hypotheses, particularly, with terrestrial taxa, and, very commonly, with mammals. 10. Bottom line: (a) We don't have much time to learn from many taxa that are not yet extinct [species will disappear, population numbers will decline to dispersions corroding quality of and power of data extracted, etc.]. (b) It is often possible to conduct extirpation experiments and other invasive experiments in designated landscapes and on populations that do not threaten local, regional, and "global" biogeochamical networks & processes. Islands have generally been the targets of extirpation experiments. Recall, also, that perturbations may result from invasive field experimentation but that populations are resilient. (c) Mathematical models exist to permit triage of endangered species; these models could be used to guide decisions about which organisms should be prioritized for invasive, including extirpation, field experiments. 11. There are a number of additional, controversial invasive studies that, in my opinion, require discussion by field researchers, in addition to extirpation experiments (e.g., various manipulations of limiting resource dispersions, surgical modifications of genitalia to test sexual and related theories). 12. best, clara ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Matt Chew <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:23 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Invasive Rat sp. vs. Henderson's Petrel...(etc.) To: [email protected] Yesterday's belated decontextualization of previous comments provides an opportunity to recontextualize them. Human activity generates resources for many taxa. Regardless of their intentions, researchers traveling to and entering areas otherwise unfrequented by humans are agents of change: vectors of species introduction and providers of resources for human commensals. My *rhetorical* question about whether rats on Samoa would follow humans was intended as a reminder that efforts to closely observe mau nests -- even if limited to locating nests, then installing and maintaining instrumentation -- might inadvertently lead predators to them. If so, the study could have a net negative effect on mau conservation. Since, by definition, the productivity of unmonitored mau nests cannot be recorded for comparison, this 'observer effect' cannot be accurately accounted for. Apologies for not stating the obvious more obviously the first time. The problem is not new. In a marginal note scrawled on a copy of a conservation philosophy memorandum during World War Two, Charles Elton revealed (to Aldo Leopold) that he (Elton) had once oversampled an island mouse population, possibly to the point of extinction. His research presumably generated robust information regarding a subspecies that may have ceased to exist as a result. A good outcome or a bad one, and why? For his dissertation research, Daniel Simberloff exterminated the animal (mostly arthropod) populations of entire mangrove islets to document the subsequent process of colonization (or re-colonization). E.O. Wilson was his mentor; Robert MacArthur (Wilson's mentor) was also on the committee. Would you do that today? Why or why not? If not, what has changed? In the case of the mau, is it better to leave remote nests unmonitored or to risk the complications of "invasive" procedures needed to generate further information? What if the best guarantee of population persistence is zero penetration by humans into habitat? If so, the 'safest' populations are the undocumented ones. Non-documentation conflicts with the basic goal of science, but putting a population at risk conflicts with the basic goal of conservation. I'd like to hear from anyone who made such a choice, either way: How did you decide what to do? Why? When did it come down to the very practical matter of letting 'the money' decide? Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life Sciences ASU Center for Biology & Society PO Box 873301 Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA Tel 480.965.8422 Fax 480.965.8330 [email protected] or [email protected] http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew -- clara b. jones Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943 Cell: -828-279-4429 "Where no estimate of error of any kind can be made, generalizations about populations from sample data are worthless." Ferguson, 1959
