Tale of Two Skinks

There are two edges to the sword of change that is slicing through so much of the biological skin of our planet.  The first is the staggering loss of biological diversity, adding up one of the great waves of extinction in Earth's history.  Along the trailing edge, ecosystems and the species that evolved in them are under increasing pressure from species new to the system.  We pay a lot of attention to the problem of extinction, but much less to invasion, even though it can and does contribute to the former.  It is perhaps a bit easier to rally to save a charismatic species such as a panda rather than organize to fight the diffuse threat posed by signal crayfish or purple loosestrife or kudzu.  However, scientists have started asking why some species become so destructively overabundant even though close relatives may be on an endangered list. 

Behavior alone won't dictate success.  Species that establish in new places also tend to be introduced over and over,  increasing the odds that eventually, a few individuals will survive the initial colonization event.  This in turn may be dictated by who lives where the most common transport routes start.  However, individual behavior seems to play a larger role than we expected.

Kudzu consuming a barn in North Carolina. Photo: NASA

If you want to successfully colonize a distant planet, you might consider taking a close look at how this works right here at home.  First, you've got to get yourself on some kind of transport vehicle, whether in the gut of another animal or the hold of a trading vessel or cargo plane headed elsewhere.  Realize you're probably not a welcome passenger, so you've got to be discreet.  You have to survive the journey, which means somehow finding or maintaining conditions in which you can live, with enough water, warmth and energy to avoid death.  Once you arrive, you need to sneak out of the way lest you be caught in the act and exterminated.  Very few stowaways make it this far, but the journey isn't over yet.  You need to find appropriate food, water, and shelter in these new, unknown surroundings.  Eventually, you need to reproduce successfully, which means you need to find, recognize, and successfully interact with a mate.  Next, your children must also raise children.  The resulting little community must avoid being found and eradicated, and finally, new colonists must leave and establish more communities before the invasion can be considered a success.

The odds, in short, are heavily stacked against you.  However, even if animals don't get help (in the form of deliberate introductions by people, such as starlings in North America, cane toads in Hawaii and Australia, or possums in New Zealand), some species still manage to pull it off.  We've just started to think about how animal behavior influences the risk of successful invasion.

Delicate skink. Photo: Peter Robinson, Museum Victoria, Australia

The delicate skink, Lampropholis delicata, and its cousin the garden skink (Lampropholis guichenoti), illustrate the point.  The delicate skink is native to eastern Australia, but has managed to colonize New Zealand, Hawaii, and Lord Howe Island.  The closely related garden skink, however, has stayed home even though it is quite similiar to its more adventurous cousin in many ways.  The two skinks are similar in size, have similar diets, and similar life histories.  Both species live together in urban areas in Australia, close to transport hubs such as major shipping ports and airports.  Both are common, and occur at high densities, suggesting no lack of individuals available for export.  What, then, is different?

Although both skinks like to explore new environments, the delicate skink was far more willing to move through a tube when it couldn't see the exit, enter a small black box in the test cage, and walk up a graveled ramp to reach a heat lamp suspended above the cage floor.  A greater willingness to explore, then hide, may explain a good part of why delicate skinks are called plague skinks while garden skinks have been at worst temporary tourists who never established outside their native range.  The opportunity to become a problem appears to be the same, but the behavior of the animals influences who takes advantage of that opportunity.

Garden skink.  Photo: Peter Robinson, Museum Victoria, Australia.

Not all delicate skinks successfully found the elevated basking site; animals, after all, are individuals.  Other research found that individual mosquitofish vary in their tendency to strike out for new horizons.  Interestingly, fish that chose to disperse also seemed less tolerant of other mosquito fish, and these personality traits were consistent in individuals over the study.  There may need to be a range of personalities and behavioral tendencies to support a successful invasion from start to establishment. 

We don't often think of the individuality of wild animals, or how much that might matter to the survival of a species.  If we were better at recognizing the individuality of non-domesticated animals, how might that change our view of them?



Sources
Chapple, D.G., S. M Simmonds, and B.B.M. Wong. 2012. Can behavioral and personality traits influence the success of unintentional species introductions? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27:57-64.


Chapple, D.G., S. M. Simmonds, and B.B.M. Wong. 2011. Know when to run, know when to hide: can behavioral differences explain the divergent invasion success of two sympatric lizards? Ecology and Evolution 1:278-289.


Colautti, R.I., I.A. Grigorovich, and H.J. MacIsaac. 2006. Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions. Biological Invasions 8:1023-1037.


Cote, J., S. Fogarty, K. Weinersmith, T. Brodin, and A. Sih. 2010. Personality traits and dispersal tendency in the invasive mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 277: 1571-1579.

Driloleirus macelfreshi lives!

This week marked the third anniversary of a significant scientific discovery made by my dogs.  We were out on a walk on a messy afternoon marked by mud, driving rain, and wind, courtesy of a Pacific winter storm.  Young dogs still need their walks, and so do their owners.  I can't really say quite how it happened, other than as I bent down to discharge my responsibility as a dog walker after my old dog had finished her business, I glanced back and saw the young one standing with a long pinkish stringy thing hanging from his jaws.  He looked quite pleased with himself, and was an instant away from flinging up his head and consuming his prize.  I witnessed this in the split second between discovery and annihilation. And somehow I knew that he absolutely must not be allowed to eat this thing, not for any risk to himself, but because of what it was. 

I leaped at him, howling at him to drop it, which is absolutely not how you are supposed to train a six-month old pup to surrender highly desired objects.  Fortunately for science, he was so shocked at my behavior he did drop it, and in his moment of indecision I swooped on his find and scooped it into a spare plastic bag.  The dog was utterly unimpressed at my inexusable theft of what he regarded as rightfully his.  There are times when I wonder whether he still remembers this.

At that time, however, we went home, and I laid the dog's find out on the counter.  It was an earthworm, and it measured four feet four inches long.  It was flabby, pale pinkish-gray, impossibly thin, and quite dead.  It was also the first specimen of the Oregon giant earthworm, Driloleirus macelfreshi, to be documented in twenty-seven years.  We know very little about this species, other than it seems to be endemic to the wooded bottomlands of the Willamette Valley.  It had been pretty much assumed to be extinct.

There are many little pieces to this discovery, each of which made that sudden, instinctive recognition on my part possible.  Over a decade ago, I had the great fortune to meet two of the last earthworm taxonomists in the world, Dorothy McKey-Fender and her son, Bill Fender.  This in itself was a culmination of improbable circumstances, but the crux was a workshop, conducted by Dorothy who was then in her eighties, on how to identify native earthworms.  The workshop was followed by a search for native worms in 2000.

Bill Fender and Dorothy McKey-Fender with a specimen of Driloeirus macelfreshi in their laboratory in 2000.  Photo: D. K. Rosenberg

I know a little about earthworms, as much probably as any average gardener or curious naturalist knows.  Native worms have been largely replaced by exotic species, and most of the worms we see as we go about our daily lives are descendants of recent immigrants to this continent as most of us are.  Ecologically speaking, we do not even know what we've lost, because the native worm fauna has been very poorly studied and described.  We do know that different families of worms behave differently, and affect nutrient turnover and soil humus in different ways.  We do not understand all the implications, although they include reducing the humus layer, which is itself a vital habitat for many organisms, and allowing exotic weeds to establish on the surface of soil no longer protected by that deep blanket.  For the most part, though, we just don't know what we've broken or what pieces remain somewhat intact.

There are earthworms out there, native worms, very different from the nightcrawlers we all immediately identify as the ultimate worm.  Even more amazing, there happens to be a gigantic native worm called the Oregon giant earthworm, Driloleirus macelfreshi.  Dorothy McKey-Fender herself had studied most of the specimens that have ever been collected- a scant few dozen in all.  They were far too rare to allow the workshop participants to examine, but Dorothy moved around the lab room set up with dissecting scopes and trays filled with other worms pinned to the black wax, delighted to share some of the knowledge accumulated over a lifetime.  Her love and respect for these animals was palpable, and her excitement contagious.  I've been more aware of worms since then, for their own sake, not just for what they do.

So there we were, in a wet riparian forest at the tail end of a storm dumping heavy rains, swelling the Willamette River until it licked and curled at the bases of the cottonwood trees along its banks.  A party of several people and several dogs ahead of us had walked right by the corpse of the giant worm lying on a bed of fallen leaves, not far from the floodwater's edge.  I would not have noticed it either, if my young dog hadn't loved to eat dead things.  But at least in that instant of seeing it, I was open to the existence of giant native worms.  Without that, the discovery would not have been possible, even if I had still looked straight at my dog in that instant before he snatched and swallowed.

Looking for another giant worm- the last one was right around here somewhere...

The worm is now among those in the McKey-Fender collection, although a small segment of the tail sits in a vial on my desk for possible genetic analysis.  More importantly, we know we can still look along the rivers and woods and hope for more than we recently dared hope for, that one of the unique forms of life on this planet may still be with us.  If we can be open to those possibilities, I hope we can also be open to more creative visions of how to live more gently and equitably among all of our fellow species.

How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

Q: How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: They won't change it.  It's not their problem.

I noted something in the news a few weeks ago.  Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann made a statement about the potential side effects of a vaccine for cervical cancer.  The response from the medical and public health communities was swift: the statement had no supporting evidence behind it.  Vaccines may carry some risks and cost money, but they save lives.  The benefits clearly outweigh the risks in most cases (although not all doctors agree whether teenage girls should get the vaccine for various reasons).  The rebuke got plenty of coverage, and the misinformation was effectively countered.

Contrast that with the blatantly false statement by Texas governor Rick Perry recently, that global warming is a hoax.  I heard it repeated over and over on the radio news briefs, with no countering view presented whatsoever.  Maybe some of that stems from the media's own reticence to acknowledge that there really isn't any debate at all in the world of science over the reality of human-induced climate change.  But no news outlet I follow, not even the "liberal" ones, reported on any response at all from the scientific community.  It's possible I missed it.  It's also possible that there was an outcry, but the media didn't report it.  Unfortunately, there is abundant evidence that the media tend to overplay any climate change deniers' claims compared to the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.  However, I really don't think that's what happened either, and an example of what makes me feel that way can be found in Hawaii in early November.

The Wildlife Society, the venerable professional society for wildlife ecologists and natural resource managers, is holding its annual meeting on the Big Island of Hawaii.  On their conference web site, the Society states that of all states, Hawaii "spotlights the most-pressing challenges that natural resource managers and conservationists face today—including the rapid spread of invasive species and the impacts of a changing climate."

The plight of the polar bear is probably the most widely publicized outcomes of global climate change.  Photo by Kathy Crane, NOAA Arctic Research Program.

 

Conference attendees won't be out solving those problems on the ground, they'll be attending paper sessions, networking, discussing the various topics of particular focus, and going on field trips.  The vast majority of them are going to have to fly to get there.  That adds up to a tremendous blast of carbon into the atmosphere, another blow to the goal of stabilizing emissions to try to limit the damage already underway.  That won't do much to help the highly endangered native Hawaiian ecosystems. The Wildlife Society meeting in Hawaii doesn't have a session on climate change. Presumably that will be discussed on the side.

Does The Wildlife Society really take climate science seriously?  One has to wonder.  Maybe this is why politicians and other leaders in our society go unchallenged far too often when they make blatantly ignorant statements about climate change.

Yellowstone fire. Photo by NOAA.

Unfortunately, this blind behavior isn't limited to wildlife biologists.  Virtually all of the scientific societies dealing with the biological sciences and even conservation biology hold national meetings and encourage their membership to attend.  Sometimes you can view presentations after the fact on the website, but no society to my knowledge allows members to attend remotely, or to view presentations in real time through skype, webinars, or other streaming technology.  Even the National Science Foundation expects the panelists charged with reviewing grant proposals for funding to fly in for a three-day meeting.  I found this out when I was invited to participate on a review panel.  When I asked if I could attend remotely, because the climate change science is very clear regarding the danger of carbon emissions, my email went unanswered.  Apparently not.

Individuals often do little better.  Most of us have changed our light bulbs, carry reusable grocery bags and coffee mugs, and occasionally carpool or use alternative transportation.  Very few of us have even begun to think about how we need to change the fundamental way we've begun to do business in the last few decades.  When I bring up climate change to another scientist, most often the answer is a shrug and a comment that the public is stupid, politicians are stupid, or we can't do anything about it anyway.  In short, it isn't our problem, we just do the science.

For people who profess to care about ecology and conservation, this is a travesty.  All of us need to recognize that we can either start planning how we are willing to be inconvenienced to limit the damage already in the works, or have far greater inconveniences forced on us without choice.  Not going to scientific meetings or networking in person is inconvenient.  There is a potential cost to a person's career.  But climate change and the horrendous damage that will follow from increased violence of storms, droughts, fires, and the fundamental chemical changes in the ocean and atmosphere will be far worse.

Wreckage of Hurricane Irene. Photo by Christopher Mardoff, FEMA

If we scientists, trained to evaluate evidence and respond accordingly, are unwilling or unable to take climate change seriously enough to alter how we do business, why should the reporter, the member of the general public, or the politician?

First, we have to own the problem, and be willing to recognize that we, too, are responsible both for the problem and its solution.  That is the necessary first step to being able to tackle the serious misinformation being presented by our society's leaders.  Changing a light bulb or restructuring a scientific society's annual meeting to encourage remote attendance won't save the planet all by themselves.  But if you walk your talk, people notice.  And when you also feel strongly enough about your science to call out those who would twist it to their own ends, people are much more likely to take you seriously. 

The Hawaiian honey creepers are counting on us.

'I'iwi, Vestiaria coccinea.  Photo by Jack Jeffry

Manipulative Bounty

It is late summer in western Oregon, meaning the wild blackberries are just ripening, dangling tantalizingly between the wicked thorns of canes that can arch up over fifteen feet in the air.  The canes form thickets impenetrable to animals larger than rabbits.  Come and get it- just don't forget your machete and a willingness to make a small blood sacrifice.

We don't give plants much credit for intelligence, at least not as we typically define it, but the dark, sweet fruit is all about making up for the one thing plants sorely lack once they've put down their roots: mobility on a time scale relevant to getting your kids out from underfoot.  Trouble is, if you dump your offspring right around your knees, you're liable to kill them by outcompeting them, for space, water, and especially light. You are also a magnet for seed predators, waiting for the bounty to fall.  So, somehow, plants have to get their seeds away from them.

Some plants have gone the engineering route, and over time natural selection has outfitted them with pods that burst open, giving their seeds the equivalent of a blast from a cannon, or lightweight parachutes to help them drift away.  These plants don't ask for help from another living organism.  Some plants produce seeds that float to new locations, like coconuts.  Other plants have done some modified engineering, covering their seeds with sticky coatings or grapple hooks to catch a ride on any passing animal.  They are the freeloaders, getting a lift on the sly and offering no compensation for the service.

Jewelweed, Impatiens capsensis, has exploding pods, earning it a second name, touch-me-not.  Photo by Catherine Khalar

But plants with fruits definitely do ask for help from organisms that are capable of quick movement.  They pay a fee up front, and hope the agent delivers the goods as planned.  In short, fruits are a biological bribe.

The intended agents are those animals whose guts digest the fruit but leave the seeds unharmed.  The time it takes to process the meal helps guarantee a final deposit away from the parent plant, protecting the seeds both from infanticide and from the usual buildup of seed-eating insects or fungi that prey on the fruit that drops to the ground from the parent plant.  Think of an untended feral apple tree.

Some plants have evolved to rely primarily on birds to disperse their seeds.  Bird fruits are typically fairly small so they can be swallowed whole, and are often black, blue, or red and placed out on the ends of slender branches.  Other fruits appeal more to mammals, with big green or pale yellow fruits, often with an odor.  Many other plants outfit their seeds with small fleshy bodies called eliasomes, that appeal to ants.  The ants take both the seed and the eliasome back to their nests, where the elaisomes are consumed and the seeds are discarded, often in a safe underground spot perfect for germination.  Even fish eat fruit.

The fruits of salal, Gautheria shallon.  Photo by J. A. Gervais

Some fruits are simply weird, such as the osage orange.  If you've never seen one, it is a fruit the size of a softball and about as appetizing.  You need a hammer to crack one open.  The Missouri Department of Conservation considers the fruits hazardous and advises wearing hard hats in their vicinity.  In her engaging book The Ghosts of Evolution, author Connie Barlow makes a compelling case that such fruits actually are anachronisms, whose main seed dispersers were now-extinct large mammals and possibly even dinosaurs.  These fruits now "disperse" by crashing to the ground and possibly rolling away a little, sometimes helped along by flowing water.  Seed dispersal isn't an exact match of goods for services.

There are plenty of cheats, too, animals or other organisms that take the payment without delivering the goods.  My goats eat blackberries with gusto, but no seed will survive the ghastly conditions of their rumens.  Fungi readily infest fruit, and usually also destroy the seeds.  I've found that banana slugs eat fruit, but they damage a percentage of the seeds they eat, taking a higher payment than planned for their services.  The plant has to offer enough fruit to ensure that some of it falls into the right mouths- the first step, but only the first step, in the chain of events that will ultimately lead to a new plant that will someday produce its own seed.

Animal delivery may also come with a secondary benefit.  Tapirs in South America use latrines, small areas of communal relief.  Along with the rest of the waste, they deposit the seeds of the palm, Maximiliana maripa. Over time, these turn into stands of fruit-producing trees.  Tapir poop, too, seems to discourage the beetles that eat the seeds.  Ant garbage dumps are excellent germination sites for many plants.  Bear poop contains thousands of seeds which later germinate in the clumps of calling cards the bears leave behind.

Black bear fattening up on blueberries, Sol Duc wilderness, Olympic National Park. Photo: J. A. Gervais

Hot peppers are my favorite example of botanical craftiness.  Hot peppers get their kick from a compounds called capsaicinoids, which includes capsaicin.  The capsaicin triggers a specific receptor in mammals that is infamous for its response.  It is used in many different cuisines around the world, and also mace (something to think about when contemplating how spicy-hot you want your meal).  Turns out that peppers use birds as seed dispersers.  Birds can't taste capsaicinoids because they don't have the receptors- no tear-gas effect for them.  The compounds do, however, affect how quickly the birds' guts process the meal, shaping the rain of seeds over the landscape, and preventing a huge pile of seeds  from being deposited all in one place.  When that happens, most of them die from the competition.  The capsaicinoids also protect the fruit from attack by fungi, which would destroy the seeds.

The blackberries that are so common locally involve another twist.  They are an exotic species, Rubus armeniacus, originally from the Himalayas.  In open areas with plenty of sun, they can overgrow small buildings, abandoned cars, and nearly any other plant.  They also produce prodigious quantities of very tasty fruit, which feed nearly every wildlife species in the area judging by the bright purple bird droppings deposited on the car and mammal scat along trails in the woods.  Those seeds really get around.  The plant is a pernicious challenge to people trying to restore meadows, pastures, or stream forests. 

The blackberry thickets provide shelter and food to small mammals, birds, and reptiles in the forgotten wastelands that have been badly disturbed, but never rehabilitated or fully claimed by people.  At least the thickets are a good fortress against free-roaming cats, and offer a terrific late-summer energy boost to birds about to migrate.  They also provide us with an abundant supply of local fruit for the freezer, and blackberry jam in midwinter is one of the finest wild gifts we receive from the woods and fields around us.

Blackberry thicket overgrowing a roadside.  Local bunnies taunt the dogs from under this natural razor wire. 

Photo: J. A. Gervais

Unintended Consequences

She kicked hard, flailing her sturdy legs madly, just missing my restraining hands.  She didn't have much of a range of motion because of her shell, but that didn't stop her from trying, stretching her neck around to snap at my fingers.  Once her hind leg kicked my wrist, and I was startled by how strong she was.  I had a good grip, however, and what happened next was my decision, not hers.

The turtle in my hands was a red-eared slider.  Like me, she was a native of the eastern half of the country.  I had come west a quarter-century ago, seeking broader horizons, while she had arrived here thanks to the pet trade. Whether she had once been released by a well-meaning but misguided pet owner who no longer wanted her, or had been born wild herself, I couldn't tell.

Red-eared slider, Trachemys scripta, basking in non-native waters.

It's against the law in many states to release non-native pets, and red-eared sliders are not even legally sold in Oregon in the first place.  But they're here, and they have found Oregon's waters to be enough like home to settle down and raise large families.  We don't really know all the potential consequences of this, although there is evidence that the native turtles don't do well once they're forced to share their space with this new arrival. 

My scientific permits specify that I cannot release any non-native turtles if I catch them.  This is meant to help remove the invaders, and give the native species a better chance of survival.  It isn't about just the individuals, or even individual species, but the sum of all the plants and animals, and the unique communities they form.  These communities can affect how water flows, how frequently and severe wild fires will burn, and whether soil will be swept away before the wind.  These processes are of fundamental importance to our well-being, if not our very survival.

I hold another set of permits, this set from the university.  These specify how I must handle individual animals in order to reduce any pain or suffering.  I have stated exactly how I'll keep any sliders I catch, and for how long, before delivering them to the state veterinarian for what amounts to their execution.  Under those conditions, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee gave me permission to proceed.  This set of permits is not at all concerned about ecological processes, but it is deeply concerned with the welfare of individuals.

There are very good reasons for both permits.

Turtle trap with red-eared slider inside.

Personally, I happen to really like animals.  I happily share my house with two dogs and a geriatric cat and there would be more if it didn't mean serious strife with my husband.  We raise sheep and goats, and the fact we slaughter our own meat makes us acutely aware that living beings are individuals, each with their own perspective and purpose.  I do not take killing lightly.

As a professional, I am only too aware to how careless introductions have changed everything from the composition of trees in the forests in much of the country to the soil dynamics beneath my feet.  I don't know if red-eared sliders will end up being the biological equivalents of neutron bombs in Oregon's aquatic systems, although they will have impacts.  I suspect probably not, although other invasive species may deserve the comparison.  However, I am not a policy maker, and it is not my call.  The law, and my permits, are clear.

Yet it is amazing how the ancient instructions for life have adapted these turtles to an utterly new place, one dominated by humans.  Sliders are doing fine here, and may do better still as the Pacific Northwest climate shifts to warmer and drier weather.  At some point, we may need to choose based on what can exist in the future, rather than what existed in the past.  The changes we're bringing about on our planet are so great that asking these questions is no longer only the business of theoreticians.  What do we want our future world to look like, given our past actions, and the choices we now have?

That is the big picture.  The small picture is me, holding this turtle, next to a drainage ditch near the airport, on a cool overcast windy day.

It isn't the turtle's fault.  She was only following the instincts that have carried her kind forward for millions of years before she swam into the trap baited with overripe sardines.  I personally didn't bring her here.  All that matters now, however, is that I have caught her, and what happens next is solely my decision.

I do what I must, based on what I know and what I have agreed to do, and she goes in a plastic bin filled with an inch of ditch water.  I wish her a quick and painless death as I look out over the landscape she won't see again.  I lug the sloshing bin to the truck.  It is a good deal heavier than a five-pound turtle, a gallon or so of water, and the container.  I am also weighed down with the ethical costs of undoing what never should have been done in the first place.