6 ms·

This led me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia#Biological_measures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia#Biologica..., which is

by ajkjk 9y ago

This led me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia#Biological_measures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia#Biologica..., which is fascinating: it turns out that Australia has been trying to eradicate rabbits with viruses for decades. Surprising, I guess, because of how scary the same thing for humans would be.

raverbashing 9y ago
Funny how Australia's own wildlife hasn't taken care of the Rabbits Reproduction beats predators apparently
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It's not that simple though, it's also about: does predator A hunt at times and in areas when/where prey 1 lives/acts? If not, then you get a Hawaiian Rats vs. Mongeese scenario. Like so many invasive species that now run amuck on islands around the world, mongooses were intentionally introduced to Hawaii. Sugar cane farmers took their cue from Jamaican plantation owners who imported mongooses to control rat populations. In 1883 the mongooses were let loose in the fields, an approach that proved to be colossally uninformed. As it turns out, rats are nocturnal and mongooses are diurnal. The exotic predators never came in contact with their rodent prey, and native bird populations began crashing instead. https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/an-invader-advances-in-hawaii/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/an-invader-advanc... In addition Australia doesn't have many large predators that weren't introduced, except for reptiles. The most impressive of those, the saltwater crocodile, isn't exactly suited to hunt anything far from shore.
- katastic 9y ago
  >Reproduction beats predators apparently That's the entire point behind rabbits and also rat-species. Nature favors two strategies. Simple, fast, often reproduction with quick-to-sexual-maturity where they can stand to lose many of the nest and keep spreading. Or, a few babies that take (relatively) forever to mature and need protected but once mature, are stronger and more intelligent. Quality vs quantity. Both are viable strategies according to nature.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    It's rather more complicated than that, no? Turtles and tortoises sexually mature slowly and live for a very long time, but they also lay tons of eggs and don't invest anything on individual young. Are they r- or k-strategists?
    - hawski 9y ago
      Also rabbits can mate once a month. Next day after giving birth they can get pregnant again. Rabbits mature in 6 months, turtles in years.
    - jandrese 9y ago
      I don't know of any instances where turtles/tortoises were introduced and became an invasive species that pressured out native fauna.
      - com2kid 9y ago
        Hilariously enough... In Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eared_slider#An_invasive_species_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eared_slider#An_invasive_s...
        jandrese 9y ago
        But it turns out they're only outcompeting other turtles.
        lovich 9y ago
        the wikipedia article also states that they have a more varied diet than the native turtles and could be applying pressure on species that previously didnt have that predator like the mentioned frogs. In the same way that humans didnt go out and kill/eat most big predators, we just ate all their food first and they died that way
- ravitation 9y ago
  Australia actually lacks large inland predators. Because of this rabbits actually support invasive predators as well (foxes, cats, etc...) The only real "native" predator it has is the dingo, but those too were introduced by humans (only they were introduced thousands of years ago so they've been naturalized to the environment).
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    >> ...were introduced by humans (only they were introduced thousands of years ago... That is a systemic problem in conservation: where in the timeline do we say that the "natural" state existed? In Australia and similar countries we place that mark not at the point that humans arrived, but at the point white people showed up. I live in the pacific northwest where we do the same. This practice almost equates indigenous humans with animals, both being "natural" in that the do not negatively impact "their" environment. The reality is that native populations radically altered ecosystems, that any non-human state only ever existed in deep history. On long-inhabited island nations (Japan, UK Australia etc) the predator issue is a big deal only because of human efforts. Each wiped out their large predators long ago. Japan should have tigers and bears. The UK should have wolf packs. Australia too should have its big predators, but they were wiped out long before Europeans arrive. So we call that "natural". Something as simple as setting a date is in reality a twisted conflation of race, religion and political histories. These would take care of the rabbits: http://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans-wiped-out-big-animals-in-australia http://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans-wiped-out-big-animals...
    - ravitation 9y ago
      The reason the dingo is fundamentally different than the rabbit (or the invasive predators that prey on them) is it's had several thousand (4,000-12,000) years to reach a form of ecological equilibrium. Not to imply that nature is naturally balanced, but only that it is not threatening the survival of other "native" species. That's not true of the rabbit, which is why it's an invasive species and the dingo is not. Environmentalism wasn't as popular when the dingo was introduced... So there isn't much we can do about its initial impact to the ecosystem... So, yes, date does matters very much... It's not about race or religion or political history... It's actually very much about biology...
kbutler 9y ago
And the closing paragraph pointing out the possible unintended consequences: "In southern Europe, the scarcity of rabbits threatens the conservation of predator species higher up the food chain that are endangered and depend on small-game such as rabbits. These include the Iberian lynx and the Iberian imperial eagle. For that reason biological warfare in Australia is a serious concern for conservation experts working in other parts of the world where the preservation of a viable rabbit population is problematic."
- abraae 9y ago
  We have a similar situation in New Zealand. Stoats were introduced by European settlers (ironically, to deal with rabbits, which themselves were introduced, and quickly ran wild). The stoats soon started decimating the native bird population, and are now public enemy number 1. Meanwhile back in Europe, stoat populations are under threat, so NZ provides a potential source of stoats to re-stock elsewhere.

by ajkjk 9y ago

raverbashing 9y ago

Funny how Australia's own wildlife hasn't taken care of the Rabbits Reproduction beats predators apparently

QAPereo 9y ago
It's not that simple though, it's also about: does predator A hunt at times and in areas when/where prey 1 lives/acts? If not, then you get a Hawaiian Rats vs. Mongeese scenario. Like so many invasive species that now run amuck on islands around the world, mongooses were intentionally introduced to Hawaii. Sugar cane farmers took their cue from Jamaican plantation owners who imported mongooses to control rat populations. In 1883 the mongooses were let loose in the fields, an approach that proved to be colossally uninformed. As it turns out, rats are nocturnal and mongooses are diurnal. The exotic predators never came in contact with their rodent prey, and native bird populations began crashing instead. https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/an-invader-advances-in-hawaii/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/an-invader-advanc... In addition Australia doesn't have many large predators that weren't introduced, except for reptiles. The most impressive of those, the saltwater crocodile, isn't exactly suited to hunt anything far from shore.
katastic 9y ago
>Reproduction beats predators apparently That's the entire point behind rabbits and also rat-species. Nature favors two strategies. Simple, fast, often reproduction with quick-to-sexual-maturity where they can stand to lose many of the nest and keep spreading. Or, a few babies that take (relatively) forever to mature and need protected but once mature, are stronger and more intelligent. Quality vs quantity. Both are viable strategies according to nature.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  It's rather more complicated than that, no? Turtles and tortoises sexually mature slowly and live for a very long time, but they also lay tons of eggs and don't invest anything on individual young. Are they r- or k-strategists?
  - hawski 9y ago
    Also rabbits can mate once a month. Next day after giving birth they can get pregnant again. Rabbits mature in 6 months, turtles in years.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    I don't know of any instances where turtles/tortoises were introduced and became an invasive species that pressured out native fauna.
    - com2kid 9y ago
      Hilariously enough... In Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eared_slider#An_invasive_species_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eared_slider#An_invasive_s...
      - jandrese 9y ago
        But it turns out they're only outcompeting other turtles.
        lovich 9y ago
        the wikipedia article also states that they have a more varied diet than the native turtles and could be applying pressure on species that previously didnt have that predator like the mentioned frogs. In the same way that humans didnt go out and kill/eat most big predators, we just ate all their food first and they died that way
ravitation 9y ago
Australia actually lacks large inland predators. Because of this rabbits actually support invasive predators as well (foxes, cats, etc...) The only real "native" predator it has is the dingo, but those too were introduced by humans (only they were introduced thousands of years ago so they've been naturalized to the environment).
- sandworm101 9y ago
  >> ...were introduced by humans (only they were introduced thousands of years ago... That is a systemic problem in conservation: where in the timeline do we say that the "natural" state existed? In Australia and similar countries we place that mark not at the point that humans arrived, but at the point white people showed up. I live in the pacific northwest where we do the same. This practice almost equates indigenous humans with animals, both being "natural" in that the do not negatively impact "their" environment. The reality is that native populations radically altered ecosystems, that any non-human state only ever existed in deep history. On long-inhabited island nations (Japan, UK Australia etc) the predator issue is a big deal only because of human efforts. Each wiped out their large predators long ago. Japan should have tigers and bears. The UK should have wolf packs. Australia too should have its big predators, but they were wiped out long before Europeans arrive. So we call that "natural". Something as simple as setting a date is in reality a twisted conflation of race, religion and political histories. These would take care of the rabbits: http://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans-wiped-out-big-animals-in-australia http://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans-wiped-out-big-animals...
  - ravitation 9y ago
    The reason the dingo is fundamentally different than the rabbit (or the invasive predators that prey on them) is it's had several thousand (4,000-12,000) years to reach a form of ecological equilibrium. Not to imply that nature is naturally balanced, but only that it is not threatening the survival of other "native" species. That's not true of the rabbit, which is why it's an invasive species and the dingo is not. Environmentalism wasn't as popular when the dingo was introduced... So there isn't much we can do about its initial impact to the ecosystem... So, yes, date does matters very much... It's not about race or religion or political history... It's actually very much about biology...

kbutler 9y ago

And the closing paragraph pointing out the possible unintended consequences: "In southern Europe, the scarcity of rabbits threatens the conservation of predator species higher up the food chain that are endangered and depend on small-game such as rabbits. These include the Iberian lynx and the Iberian imperial eagle. For that reason biological warfare in Australia is a serious concern for conservation experts working in other parts of the world where the preservation of a viable rabbit population is problematic."

abraae 9y ago
We have a similar situation in New Zealand. Stoats were introduced by European settlers (ironically, to deal with rabbits, which themselves were introduced, and quickly ran wild). The stoats soon started decimating the native bird population, and are now public enemy number 1. Meanwhile back in Europe, stoat populations are under threat, so NZ provides a potential source of stoats to re-stock elsewhere.