Return of Eden

Marsh Arabs poling a mashoof through the Mesopotamian Marshes

Covering 15,000 sq km, it was thought to be the third largest wetland in the world. An interconnected network of channels, island and lakes, teaming with fish, reptiles and amphibians, and forming a major stopping off point for migrating birds in their tens of thousands. The only mode of transport was that of boats, slowly paddling between reed beds growing 8 foot high. Lying at the confluence of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, this was the original Garden of Eden.

This is how it had been for thousands of years, with the Marsh Arabs developing their own culture and way of life, living within the wetland. The Mesopotamian Marshes were a vital source of fish, reeds, and other natural resources to the whole of Iraq and the surrounding areas. With vast desert on all sides, the marshes were a hugely important source of fresh water for all biodiversity in the region. That was until the 1990s. In a bid to punish the Marsh Arabs for an attempted revolt in 1991, Saddam Hussein had channels and canals built to divert the water away from the marshes, around the Tigris and Euphrates, to empty directly into the Gulf. Within months the wetlands started to dry, until eventually they were reduced by 93%, in what The United Nations Environmental Programme called the worst environmental disaster of the last century.   

Marsh Arab Girl, Iraq

For over a decade, what used to be a fertile, green and productive habitat, only dust and sand remained, forcing the tribes who had lived there for centuries to seek lives elsewhere. That was until the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Saddam was disposed. This gave one man, Azzam Alwash, an Iraqi who fled Saddams regime, his chance to return to his native country and try to restore this important cultural and biodiverse ecosystem. On his return he founded Nature Iraq, which now works to help restore and preserve Iraq’s natural heritage.

After destroying some of the drainage canals, Azzam started the project to restore the marshes to their former extent, re-flooding what had become arid desert. Within months the water had started to return, and in 2007 Nature Iraq had succeeded in restoring 50% of the wetlands. However, this success was short lived, with the current estimate now lying at around 30% of the marshes re-established. According to Azzam, this is due to various damming projects further up the Euphrates and Tigris, which are restricting the natural flow of water back into the wetlands. With plans to remove more drainage canals, hopefully a larger proportion of the marshes will return to its former glory.

The Southern Iraqi marshes

The past 10 years have seen monumental changes to the wetlands, and the beginnings of recovery. Around 40 species of birds have been recorded in the marsh, including the recolonisation of imperial eagles (Aquila heliaca), great white pelicans (Pelicanus onocotalus), greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus), and squacco herons (Ardeola ralloides). In 2011, with help from Birdlife International, Nature Iraq recorded a staggering 40,000 marbled ducks (Marmonaretta angustirostris) in a single flock, accounting for roughly 60% of the global population. In addition to this, they also spotted the endangered Basra reed warbler (Acrocephalus griseldis), and it is thought that the population in the Mesopotamian marshes accounts for 90% of all individuals.

Marbled duck (Marmaronetta angustirostris)

Whilst many of the mammals once present in the marshes, including Indian crested porcupines (Hystrix indica), bandicoot rats (Bandicota), and marsh grey wolves (Canis lupus) are now extirpated, it is hoped that time will allow the re-colonisation of European (Lutra lutra) and smooth coated otters (Lutrogale perspicillata), both of which species are found on the Iran-Iraq border.

This watery world has global ecological significance, and the beginning of its recovery calls for great celebration. In recognition of this turning of tides, in April 2013 Azzam was awarded the Goldman Prize, known as the “green Oscar” for environmental activism, and in August this year the Iraqi Council of Ministers have designated the Central Marshes of Iraq as the nations first National Park. Hopefully this is the beginning of a successful recovery, and if the water continues to flow for the next decade, will see the Garden of Eden continue to flourish.

Fighting for Elephants

Forest elephant emerging from a river, Gabon. Photo by Mike Nichols

So, after reporting about the recent paper documenting the dramatic decline of Forest elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) in central Africa, and the horrific mass killing in Chad of 89 elephants, apparently there has been some agreement that something needs to be done.  

The Central African Program Office of the World Wide Fund (WWF) have announced that "central African states plan to mobilize 1,000 soldiers who will launch joint military operations to save their remaining elephants which are threatened by poachers in the region". 

Apparently they're going to set out to hunt down 300 Sudanese poachers responsible not just for the 89 elephants killed in Chad, but also of 300 killed in Bouba N'Djida national park in Cameroon in 2012, and 30 in the Central African Republic at the beginning of this year. Though how they've managed to attribute all these slaughters to the same group is still a little beyond me, I still welcome the fact that some action is actually taking place. How effective 1,000 soldiers will be in stemming this is to be seen with time. 

Park ranger with skull of poached elephant, DCR. Photo by Francesca Tosarelli

Whilst this is happening in the north of the central African block, there are reports from the Democratic Republic of Congo that the militia group responsible for terrorizing the Okapi Wildlife Reserve and surrounding villages, whilst also participating in canabalism, are also supported by certain members of the security forces and army, who in return for ivory and gold, are giving the militia guns and protection from prosecution. And so the fight continues...

Anyway, its not all doom and gloom out there at the moment, and I think that its beneficial to look at some of the good things that occasionally and rarely make their way out into the public sphere, so this news from the WWF definitely warrants a mention and is gladly (if some what sceptically) welcomed with arms wide open. Again, if you fancy checking out more Forest elephanty stuff, give the guys at the Elephant Listening Project a gander.

Over and out.    

Rumbles in the Jungle

Adult male forest elephant, Loango NP, Gabon. Photo by Josh Davis

Forest elephants (Loxodonta (africana) cyclotis) are one of the most beautiful animals I've ever had the luck to see, but a paper published this month in PLOS ONE showed that quite shockingly from 2002 to 2011, forest elephant populations have declined by huge 62%. The paper concluded that the current population sits at around “less than 10% of its potential size, occupying less than 25% of its potential range”. This comes just one month after a staggering report that in Minkebe National Park, Gabon, an estimated 11,000 elephants have been killed between 2004 and 2012, averaging out at just under 4 killed per day.

The paper then went on to establish the cause of this decline, attributing it quite unsurprisingly to poaching for ivory. Whilst this might seem obvious to most, it is important if plans and strategies are to be developed to help protect and manage the remaining populations, to fully understand the reasons for a species decline. This means ruling out other potentially conflicting causes, such as habitat destruction, bush meat trade, or human wildlife conflict. Unfortunately though, due to the straighter, slightly pinkish hue, forest elephant ivory is seen by many as superior to savannah elephant (Loxodonta (africana) africana) ivory, and thus making them bigger targets.

The burning of seized forest elephant ivory, Gabon. Photo by WWF-Canon/James Morgan

African forest elephants are found within the central African forest system, and are considered a distinct population from African savannah elephants found to the east and south of the continent. How far this distinction reaches is still debated. It was suggested in 2000 that they should be a separate species in its own right, presenting the smaller body size (about half that of their south eastern cousins), shorter, straighter and downward pointing tusks, frugivorous diet, as well as many other morphological and ecological distinctions. Over the past decade this has been supported by a wealth of genetic evidence, however the IUCN (International Union for theConservation of Nature) state that “more extensive research is required to support the proposed re-classification”.

Either way, it is difficult to understate the important role that forests elephant play to the health and maintenance of the central African forests. They’re often called the ‘gardeners of the rainforest’ as they feed on 100s of species of plants as they range widely over many kilometres in one day. When they eat fruit, they eat the whole thing, seeds in all, which eventually find their way through the digestive system of the elephant to finally find itself deposited in a little pile of 100% natural compost, miles from its parent tree. The elephant’s digestion is in fact so ineffective that monkeys and forest hogs are known to go through the forest elephant dung and eat up the leftovers.

So they maintain the forest, act as main dispersers, and help the forests regenerate. But it doesn’t stop there, not by a long shot. They also act as the forests engineers. They don’t just help create the forests, they help in clearing them out. They maintain massive clearings deep in the rainforest, called ‘bais’. These are areas which often feature mineral rich soil and a water source, and act as a gathering point for elephants. They seem to frequent these clearings not just for the clays (which may help in digestion, and act as a moisturiser), but its becoming more obvious that they also do it to socialise, meeting with other elephants they may not have seen in months. Whilst the elephants maintain the bais, they benefit a great deal of other species, with gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), bongo antelope (Tragalaphus eurycerus eurycerus), forest buffalo (Syncerus caffer nanus), red river hogs (Potamocherus porcus), sitatunga (Tragalaphus spekii) and African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus erithacus) also frequenting these clearings to eat the clay and the mineral rich plants which grow in the water courses.

Dzanga bai (traslated as: "The Village of Elephants"), Central African Republic, from the air. Photo from africas-eden.co.uk  

The rarely seen bongo antelope catching some rays in a bai. Photo by Viajes Tempsdoci

A gathering of elephants at Dzanga. Photo from dzangaforestelephants.wildlifedirect.org

So this got me thinking. Considering the massive role and importance they play in shaping and maintaining their environment, why has it taken until 2013 for such research on forest elephants, the second largest land animals, to finally be collated and published? I suppose the first answer would simply be a question of logistics. As savannah elephants live in open grasslands, they’re far easier to see, track and follow, and thus have been the subject of far more research. In the dense rainforest, counting and estimating elephant numbers is clearly more difficult. This is probably carries significant weight, but at the same time, Asian elephants also live in rainforests and even a quick search on google scholar reveals many papers documenting Asian elephant declines having been published over the last few decades.  

The ecology and behaviour of forest elephants could also be to blame. They tend to live in smaller groups, normally between 2-4 individuals, compared with group sizes of around, say, 30 for savannah elephants. The carcasses of a large herd of elephants are clearly far more blatant than that of a few, as shown by the massive slaughter of 89 elephants recently reported from Chad earlier this month (including a horrifying 30 pregnant females). This might mean that people may consider forest elephant declines as less of a concern, as harrowing images such as those from Chad are not on such a large scale or nearly so common.

One of 30 pregnant elephants killed. I know its difficult to look at, but I feel its important for everyone see the horror and product of the ivory trade. Photo by SOS Elephants in Chad

The remains of 89 elephants killed. Photo by SOS Elephants in Chad.

But I feel that this lack of research into forest elephant declines is largely one of taxonomy. The fact there has only recently been this investigation into the possible speciation, and the fact that the IUCN still don’t even consider them separate species to their savannah cousins, really adversely effects their conservation. Due to the sterling efforts over the past few decades, L. africana is now listed as ‘vulnerable’. And so by the IUCN classifying both L. (africana) africana and L. (africana) cyclotis as the same species, they may be masking the widespread decline of the forest elephants. The recent paper in PLOS ONE picks up on this, and makes the suggestion that whilst L. (africana) africana should remain classed as ‘vulnerable’, the populations of L. (africana) cyclotis fulfil the requirements set out by the IUCN to actually be re-classified as ‘critically endangered’. This could have huge repercussions for the conservation of this incredibly important animal.

I feel that this is a incredibly strong illustration of how whilst on the surface, questions of taxonomy and reclassifications might seem so incredibly trivial, but in actual fact could have massive and far reaching implications for the conservation and persistence of species and their environment.

Whilst this news is obviously very depressing, I hate to leave on a note that is so full of despair. So when I bring stories such as this I'm going to try and find groups or organisations actively working to help reverse these trends of decline. And so I present to you: The Elephant Listening Project. These amazing people work all over central Africa, eves-dropping on forest elephants. As stated earlier, its incredibly difficult to study these beautiful beasts in the wild, but the guys from Cornell university realised that much can be learnt of their behaviour and life style by listening to the ultrasonic rumbles they produce to stay in contact with each other in the incredibly dense forest. If you have a spare 5 minutes of your time, and want to read a little more about these wonderful animals, or just check out some super wicked photos, I urge you to go to their website.

Mother and baby, Loango NP, Gabon. Photo by Josh Davis

Over and out. 

The Big Blue

Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) are AWESOME. I dare you to disagree. As the world’s largest extant fish they can reach a staggering 12 meters in length and weigh up to 21 tonnes. Now tell me that's not impressive. Either way, if you love them, or would love to see them turned into mega sushi, you can’t deny that a recently published paper in the open access on-line journal PLOS ONE this week is a little nugget of gold in a whole ocean of shit. It documents a newly discovered major aggregation site for this massive animal in the heart of one of the hottest most inhospitable regions on earth, the Arabian Gulf. For once a good story filtering out from the normal barrage of depressing marine news of over fishing and shark finning.

Ocean babe. And the sharks not too bad either Photo by (so OK, I lost the source for this photo, my bad. If found, please return to the comment section below)

Now when most people think of this region, they think of sand, heat and, well, more sand. But as more research is done into this region, and as technology used to monitor wildlife is becoming cheaper and more accessible, researchers are beginning to get a glimpse into this oft over looked area. And they’re beginning to reveal its rich and diverse natural history. From leopards (Panthera pardus ciscaucasica) and cheetah (Acinoyx jubatus venaticus) prowling the deserts of Iran, to wolves (Canis lupus arabs) and hyena (Hyaena hyaena) competing in the hills of Yemen, to humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) feeding off the Arabian Peninsula, there’s far more to this region then first meets the eye.

And so, 90km off the coast of that tiny nation which owns Harrods and bought the 2022 World Cup, hundreds of sharks have been found to gather in Qatari waters near the off shore platforms in the Al Saheen oil field.  Whale sharks are known to aggregate in large groups all around the world, from Mexico, to Mozambique, to Western Australia, in response to seasonal increases in plankton, but they often occur close to the shore and on reefs. Despite being the largest fish in the oceans, a lot less is known about their behaviour offshore.

The researchers used a number of techniques to study a number of different aspects. Mainly they used observations by the workers on the platforms to estimate the number of sharks seen each week, as the platforms were able to give 360° views of the gulf. But they also did boat based surveys, during which they recorded an unbelievable density estimate of up to 100 sharks within 1km². Impressive by any standards.

Community gathering (A gaggle? A pack?) of many whales. Photo by Mohammed Al Jaidah

On top of density estimates, they also looked at causes for this mass gathering. It was evident by their behaviour, swimming slowly on the surface, that these animals were feeding, but feeding on what? In other places whale sharks have been shown to feed on plankton, krill, crab lavae, and even small fish by filter feeding. Here though, it turned out that they were feeding on a mass spawning event, they were munching up the eggs of the mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis).       

This then raises the question of why large numbers of mackerel tuna have decided to spawn in the middle of an oil field, surrounded by eight different platforms?  Amazingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, these platforms might actually be the key. It has been suggested that offshore platforms in Mexico act as artificial reefs which attract spawning fish and thus the sharks, and it’s possible that the same effect is taking place here, increasing the biodiversity around the platforms compared to areas further out. This is supported by observations by platform workers and the researchers of other marine megafauna around the platforms, such as large pods of dolphins (Stenella longriostris and Tursiops aduncus), 3 species of sea turtles, 2 species of sea snakes and schools of scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini).  

Unconventional guardian. Photo by Warren Baverstock

So this oil field may actually be indirectly benefiting the sharks, and in more ways than one. As well as providing a breeding ground for their prey, the restriction of boats entering this zone (due to operational and security reasons) may also be acting as a sanctuary for the giant fish as they are partially protected. So despite these incredible animals gathering around oil platforms, which I think I speak for most when I say are often regarded with great suspicion, especially when mixed with a marine ecosystem, this might be one natural phenomenon which exists and will persist precisely due to their presence.  

If this has peaked any interest in Arabian wildlife, then I heavily suggest you get on and watch the BBC programme ‘Wild Arabia’ which was broadcast a few weeks ago. Fantastic stuff, as we've come to expect from the BBC Natural History Unit. They went out to film the whale sharks for the last episode of the series, and got some awesome footage of the artificial reefs, the fish they attract, and evidently the beauts themselves. There are also some more amazing photos of the Qatari sharks, including photos of the artificial platform reefs from the Beeb.

Over and Out.

And finally (Urgh, seriously, I'll shut up eventually), hot off the press! This photo is an incredibly rare sight indeed. It shows a baby whale shark (think just 30cm long, all together now....) spotted in St Lucian waters by the team at Scuba St Lucia. According to those clever scientists at the Marine Megafauna Foundation who deal with this stuff on a daily basis with the amazing work they do based in Mozambique, there have only ever been a couple reports of baby whale sharks worldwide, so this was truly an AMAZING spot. 

Teeny weeny! Photo by Scuba St. Lucia

Resurrecting the Past

Recently there has been a little bit of media attention focused on this rather innocuous looking frog from Queensland, Australia:

LBJ (Little Brown Job) frog. Photo by Owen Kelly

Meet Rheobatrachus silus, or better known as the gastric-brooding frog (well ok, better known to us zoologists). This might leave you wondering what all the fuss is about, but its one special little fellow. The more intuitive ones of you may have read its name and asked “Gastric-brooding? Really? Really?”. And basically the answer is simply, well, yes. This little frog got its name from the fact that it swallowed its eggs, incubated them in its stomach until they hatched, then ‘gave birth’ to the perfectly formed little froglets out of its mouth, like this:

R. silus 'giving birth' from its mouth. Photo the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

Not quite so innocuous now, huh? You may or may not have realised my use of the past tense there. It used to swallow its eggs and incubate them in its mouth, because they don’t do this anymore. The species became extinct in the mid-1980s. No one knows for sure, and in truth it was most probably a mixture of things, but its commonly thought that this was due to both habitat destruction (isn’t it always?), and the continual spread of an incredibly virulent, amphibian specific fungus called  B. dendrobatidis which causes the deadly disease Chyridiomycosis.

So I suppose you’re still wondering what all the fuss about this amphibian was for? Well, thats because the ‘Lazarus Project’ (the name for those who wondered, is taken from a story in the Gospel of John, where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead), have claimed to have successfully taken the DNA from a preserved specimen of R. Silus collected in the 70s and placed it in a surrogate egg (from a closely related living species of frog) to produce an embryo. Now unfortunately these embryos only survived for a few days, but what it shows is highly significant. It shows the possibility that the resurrection or the ‘de-extinction’ using the cells from preserved specimens could, one day, be achieved.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time this has been achieved for a recognised species (in fact more impressively, R. Silus is even in its own genus) in its own right. In 2009 scientists in Spain did successfully manage to clone, implant and bring to term a Pyrenean Ibex (Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica), a subspecies of the extant Spanish Ibex (Capra pyrenaica), which went extinct in 2000 (the foal survived for 7 hours, before it died of complications). But as stated this was just a subspecies, and not a species in its own right.    

The Pyrenean Ibex. Photo from blogueiros.axena.org 

So what does this mean? It gives weight to a growing field within conservation biology of cloning extinct species. There are many projects worldwide trying to resurrect long dead species, from mammoths (Mammuthus sp.), to aurochs (Bos primigenius) to passenger pigeons (Ectopistes migratorius), and this news to them is a huge leap forward. This experiment went to show that the limitations for cloning long  dead species is technological, not biological. But that’s not to say it will be the same situation in 10, hell even in 5 years time. And so we need to be addressing the wider issue here of not can we, but should we? 

So, what’s the point then? Why bother spending all this time, money and effort to bring back an extinct species? Well a lot of these arguments are actually very similar to those used to argue for protecting endangered, still living species. There’s the ‘ethical’ reason, that (some of) these species were driven to extinction as a direct result of the activities of man, and so what gives us the right to let some go extinct, whilst others survive? This would give us a chance to readdress this balance.

But there are people who have suggested, and indeed there are projects focussing on, bringing back species such as the Mammoth, or the Sabre-toothed cats (Smilodon sp.). Its far from certain that these animals were driven to extinction by mankind, in fact it’s quite possible that a warming climate was to blame, thus making their extinction at least partially natural. If an extinction event was natural, should we rectify that? 

This is where the ‘ecosystem function’ argument chimes in. This states that there are many species which fulfilled vital roles within a certain ecosystem which have subsequently gone extinct. One of the main examples cited for this is that of the Mammoth. It is thought that their presence helped to maintain the Russian steppe ecosystem as they pulled down trees and opened up grasslands, much as modern savannah elephants (Loxodonta africana) do today. So even if a species was driven to extinction by natural causes, there is still an argument to bring it back in order to restore an ecosystem.

The frozen carcass of a baby mammoth, and possible source of mammoth DNA. Photo from blogs.discovermagazine.com

However, there are evidently some major issues with projects such as these. The more obvious is that of cost. These projects cost money, and lots of it. Would the time, money and resources not be better spent to preserve what still survives today, rather than hankering after something from the past? Rather than recreating R. silus, should they not first try and identify what it was that drove them to extinction in the first place, and try to stem this? I mean this surely has to have priority, as even if they were successful at breeding these frogs, they have to be released somewhere after all. One of the lead scientist of the Lazarus Project, Professor Mike Archer, has already met controversy for his part in the project to clone the Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus), or Tasmanian tiger. Some claim that he diverted resources away from some more promising projects to fund one trying to extract Thylacine DNA, a project which was stopped after only 3 years.

And finally, we come to another fascinating thought. Will a clone of an extinct species still be the same species, or will it in actual fact be something different? This may sound like mindless nattering, but it raises an interesting point: Is the definition of a species what is contained in its DNA, or does it also include other external factors, such as learnt behaviour? Modern day elephants learn from older members of their group, and so I don’t think it’s too presumptuous to imagine it was the same for mammoths. If they are ever cloned, will the mammoth calves ever become true ‘mammoths’ if they weren't able to learn their behaviour from 

another one?

The cloning of extinct species will happen, there’s no doubt. As technology advances, and techniques become more refined they will be utilised by conservationist. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it can and no doubt will be used as a last ditch fail safe for many species. I just hope that it doesn’t allow people to become complacent with the degradation of the environment if extinct species could be cloned again some point further down the line.

Over and Out.

[Edit: Ibex foal survived for just 7 hours, not the 7 days originally stated]

There are no tigers in South America...

As a wise Wilderness Explorer once said: “A Wilderness Explorer is a friend to all, be a plant, a fish or a tiny mole!”

I agree with Russell and his ethos, and whilst I have a lot of time on my hands, I have decided to therefore use it productively. This has precipitated in the decision to write a blog about current zoology events (I’ll try to keep away from a vast array of other past topics I find fascinating, though I'm not promising anything there). If I can just get a couple of people who wouldn't normally read about biology/zoology/conservation news to read my posts, then BAM. Job done and I can go home satisfied. But don’t get me wrong, whilst I’d truly love it if lots of ‘the wider public’ read this, I plan on keeping it as scientifically accurate as my little brain can, but there are bound to be some mistakes that creep in and so I’ll gladly accept and welcome any corrections/criticisms/comments from zoologist and non-zoologist alike. 

Over and out.