|
1-10 of 10 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by MoccasinMan on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I recently had a conversation with a friend, who is a biologist, discussing the merits and faults of both concepts. Our discussion was within the context of captive breeding projects with the prospect of ultimately strengthening populations of endangered or threatened species... such as Crotalus adamanteus.
I was familiar with the concept of maintaining locality integrity. In fact I was under the impression that that was the only viable option when dealing with the introduction of species back to the wild. Hybrid vigor was unknown to me as a biological precept... although I realized that I had witnessed it in the wild, as well as captivity.
I am not talking about crosses or intergrades, but the hybridization of a single species through the mixing of localities to create a stronger more adaptable animal... in the hopes that it would be better suited to survive in a changing environment.
I would like to hear what others have to say about the pros and cons of these concepts. Please support your opinions with explanations.
Thanks,
Andrew
|
| |
|
RE: Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by Viperlady on January 30, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not against hibridization at all, and the theory of a more adaptable animal is valid, though we'd have to take into consideration the fact that frequently taxonomists tend to classify and register new sub-species just due to the morpho of an animal belonging to another locality. It happened recently with Micrurus diastema, I heard some coleagues mentioning the fact that taxonomists had mistakenly classified some different morphos of diastema as different subspecies when in fact they were all the same and the only variation was the coloring. Although, nowadays DNA technology and phylogenetic studies help identify the characteristics of a species, most of us don't have access to that kind of Hi-tech scientific exams, and could make such mistakes.
I have also kept a hybrid neonate of northern C. molossus nigrescens and southern C. m. n. (I mean N & S within the state of Mexico. They commonly vary a lot in coloration and scale design). This hybrid has been with me for over three years now, and let me tell you just for the sake of it... It is beautiful, healty and quite large for a three year old. It hasn't had any health or feeding problem. Though, I couldn't tell how it will behave in the wild, and captive life is always easier... for the snake of course!!
Hope you can carry out the project and please let me know any new information. I really don't know much about the north-american species and would like to have the info right from the people who are in touch with them.
Good luck.
Val
|
| |
|
RE: Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on January 31, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Andrew: I would have to agree that maintaining locality integrity within the populations of Crotalus adamanteus, ( or other snake populations, like timber rattlesnakes ), is of extreme importance.
Anyone who has encountered Eastern diamond-backed rattlesnakes in different areas of the South Eastern US knows that there are many, many local populations that share coloration, habitats, food items, overall size, and behaviors within those populations.
The diamond-back rattlesnakes found in middle South Georgia are different than those found on the coast. And those are different from the ones found in the pinewoods / wiregrass lands of the Carolinas, and those are different from the ones found in central Florida, as those are different from those found in the Okefenokee Swamp.
These local populations have evolved to function properly in their areas, and to use the food resources, and habitats of those areas.
If captive bred snakes were introduced back into the wild to bolster local populations, we should only put snakes back into populations that are direct decendents from snakes taken from that local population.
The idea that man can captive breed a ``super snake,`` with more vigor that could be re-introduced into the wild, and would be better suited for survival, is a very poor idea indeed.
Every time man tries something like that, he screws up something else.
Nature has developed the diamond-back rattlesnake into a wonderfull preditor that fits in well in a certain habitat.
If we create a more vigerous rattlesnake, and introduce it into a habitat that it does not match, what will happens when it out competes other animals in its habitat, and eats all of the quail and rabbits?
It is foolish for man to assume that he can do a better job than Nature in creating a unique animal to fill a particular biological niche.
If a changing environment is the problem, then Stop Changing It! Don`t try to create a ``franken-snake`` to try to adapt to it !
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by MoccasinMan on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John,
Your point is well made. My friends argument was that even with many states "protecting" this animal it is in word only because rapid habitat destruction is the real problem. Governments are unwilling to check this devistator of habitat because that is where the money is... real estate devlopment. Therefore if the animal cannot adapt to a different habitat, it may cease to exsist. But I see your point about the "Law of Unintended Consequences". It has been invoked around the world numerous times.
Thank you this is the type of debate I'm looking for.
Andrew
|
| |
|
RE: Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hybridizing worked for (or rather is working for) the Florida Panther. Hybridization is best used in cases where the population has become so small and isolated that a genetic bottleneck has occured. Otherwise (where possible) it is best to leave the population alone. Of course, this doesn't always work with anthropogenic interferece. And if I have to choose between a hybrid D-back population or no population I will choose the hybrid. I love those guys.
|
| |
|
RE: Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by rickyduckworth on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
how about doing nothing? i contacted the state department in AL and they seemed disinterested.......i put together a mini-presentation from various online resources to show that the EDB's population is declining rapidly in this state, shifting further south every year and on it's way out completely.......they didn't care.......i'm not sure you can do anything but hybridizing to re-establish the population here, of course i'm sure others are more qualified to make that assumption, but there is certainly no one stepping up to the plate......where i've been working lately, there are subdivisions being built left and right in the middle of canebrake territory......i save as many as i can, kept one, relocated 3, but still, a lot are just dying..........
i think this state hates snakes as much as any of them
the edb should at least be on one of the lists to protect it from people, but nah, who cares, the bible condemns snakes according to people here and they aren't important.......
|
| |
|
RE: Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ricky,
See if Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) is active in your area (www.parcplace.org I think). You should also try Steve Bennett (SC's state herpetologist) because EDB's are on his "important" list, and he may know some of the herpers in your area. As for the relegious zealots in your area, have them read Edmund Ruffin's "the usefulness of snakes" (1834), Ben Franklins treatise on the virtues of the rattle snake, or (gasp) the NEW TESTAMENT. Just tell them that Jesus forgave the snakes too.
|
| |
|
RE: Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by MoccasinMan on February 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think we can blame the plight of C. adamanteus on Christianity. Some of the best herpers and scientists I know are devout Christians. The problem is ignorance and apathy.
Carl... are you out there? We want to hear your thoughts on local integrity vs hybrid vigor.
Andrew
|
| |
|
RE: Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by thirdangel on February 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Andrew,
The idea of the "law of unintended consequences" may have some validity in extreme cases, but is not a likely event with EDBs, nor in many cases when we are discussing hybrid vigor.
Throughout their range, the habitat and feeding preferences of the EDB are at least similar. Though there are many differences in microhabitats, I have serious doubt about a "vigorous" EDB wiping out the local rabbit populations (in fact, human habitation favors the cottontail -- to the detriment of Jackrabbits and other sp).
Mixing the bloodlines from various clades increases the genetic pool and helps produce healthier animals; healthier animals have a better chance of adaptation (or reintroduction).
Reintroduction of a formerly extinct species (as far as I am aware, only the Red Wolf has the distinction of being totally extinct in the wild and then being reintroduced into the wild) is a dubious venture at best. Having "better" babies or juveniles (you would probably not reintro. adults) would enhance the likelihood of the population being reestablished.
In the case of the above mentioned Red Wolf, all 14 adults that were used for the project came from the Texas/Louisiana border (there were other adults, but they were not in very good shape, to say the least). The species was reintroduced to the Alligator River Wildlife Refuge in NC. They have done really well and have started to push the invasive coyotes back and retake parts of their range. If it was necessary to re-release these animals where the parents came from, the species would probably have become extinct.
I am not against the idea of keeping locality data (I do with certain species where the morphs are very different - here, selective pressure would probably be an important consideration), I am against it becoming some form of religious ideology with no scientific back-up.
Cheers, Carl
|
| |
|
RE: Maintaining Locality Integrity vs Hybrid Vigor
|
Reply
|
|
by thirdangel on February 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Andrew,
I should add the reality of the fact that most "natural" habitats in the Southern US are not comprised of virgin forests of old. Most have been completely cut down for timber in the past and have since regrown. These "new" habitats were forged by man -- though they may contain much of the original biodiversity (minus a few species here and there).
In our present world, hybrid vigor would benefit many species in their adaptation to a man made world.
Cheers! Carl
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
