On land and at sea, large animals are in 'double jeopardy'

June 9, 2016, Cell Press
Elephant. Credit: Picture by Yathin S Krishnappa. Licensed under CCBY-SA3.0

Large animals hunted for their parts—such as elephant ivory and shark fins—are in double jeopardy of extinction due to their large body size and high value, according to a new analysis reported in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on June 9. The study reveals underappreciated risk to marine species similar to that of iconic terrestrial species, but elevated by key differences in the sea.

"We typically assume that if a species is reduced to low numbers, individuals will be hard to find, hunters will stop hunting, and populations will be given a chance to recover," says Loren McClenachan of Colby College in Waterville, Maine. "But the extreme values of these species mean that without significant conservation intervention, they will be hunted to extinction."

In the new study, McClenachan, along with Andrew Cooper and Nicholas Dulvy of Simon Fraser University in Canada, identified a taxonomically diverse group of more than 100 large marine and that are targeted for international luxury markets. They estimated the value of these species across three points of sale and explored the relationships among , value, and body size. They also quantified the effects of two mitigating factors: poaching fines and geographic range size.

The analysis showed a threshold above which economic value is the key driver of extinction risk. Although lower-value species are influenced primarily by their biology, the most valuable species are at high risk of extinction no matter their size. Once mean product values are greater than US$12,557 per kilogram, no longer drives risk, the report shows.

The researchers also uncovered important differences between marine and terrestrial species that point to elevated risk in the sea: although marine products are generally less valuable on a per kilogram basis, individual animals are still just as valuable as the most valuable terrestrial species. An individual whale shark, for example, is about as valuable as the most valuable terrestrial species: rhinoceroses and tigers.

"Hunters don't kill kilograms, they kill individuals, so we need to pay attention to these high values of individual animals," McClenachan says.

The risk to isn't reduced for species with larger ranges as it is on land, either.

"The assumption that large ranges protect species from extinction is based on conservation science done on land—where animals found in multiple countries have a higher chance of protection in at least one location—and appears not to apply to marine species, where widespread and little-policed hunting contrasts with tighter controls on land," McClenachan says.

The study points to the importance of considering trade of marine animals and differences between terrestrial and marine animals when it comes to conservation.

"For too long, we have been reading wildlife trade reports with scant recognition of the diversity and value of the marine wildlife trade," Dulvy says.

"We need to pay attention to fundamental differences between marine and terrestrial species," McClenachan adds. "Conservation science began on land, so it is tempting to assume that underlying principles are the same in the ocean. However, as we found, this is far from the case. If we're not aware of these basic differences, it's impossible to design effective conservation."

The researchers say that the next step will be to design effective conservation strategies for these high-value, large-bodied, far-ranging . It's a challenging road ahead, but they say there are reasons for optimism, including signs that control of international trade via CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) is working in some cases and the increased use of new technologies like DNA forensics to detect wildlife crime.

Explore further: New research shows our seas are in trouble

More information: Current Biology, McClenachan et al.: "Rethinking Trade-Driven Extinction Risk in Marine and Terrestrial Megafauna" http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30484-5 , DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.026

Related Stories

Not Finding Nemo becomes a reality

December 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Three Simon Fraser University biologists and an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) scientist say it’s no longer fiction but fact. No one will be able to find Nemo if conservation action ...

What can extinct species do to help conservation?

May 18, 2016

The dodo, the passenger pigeon and the Tasmanian tiger are well-known victims of extinction caused by human behaviour, but could their status be used to help conservation efforts from beyond the grave?

Recommended for you

Scientists solve mystery shrouding oldest animal fossils

March 25, 2019

Scientists from The Australian National University (ANU) have discovered that 558 million-year-old Dickinsonia fossils do not reveal all of the features of the earliest known animals, which potentially had mouths and guts.

Earth's deep mantle flows dynamically

March 25, 2019

As ancient ocean floors plunge over 1,000 km into the Earth's deep interior, they cause hot rock in the lower mantle to flow much more dynamically than previously thought, finds a new UCL-led study.

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

teslaberry
3 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2016
yes, this has been a common sense observation for a long long time. all megafauna are likely to go extinct so long as civilization remains capable of hunting and eating them.

the short term panic over ivory is really avoiding the major observation that any animal over 300 pounds in weight is a rich source of meat. the paradox here is that there are so many human beings alive, that the biggest threat to large fauna is if human beings lose the technological capacity for extremely productive agriculture and livestock raising. without this, a centuries long increase in foraging will lead to the devastation of all major mega fauana as they are ALL hunted down for food.

it is indeed possible an advanced civilization can find the resources to place large megafauana in refuges and protected zoos long enough for them to possibly recover at some future point, however small bottlenecks might not be fit to survive in the wild.
Garrote
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2016
"become extinct", please. This neologism, "go extinct" is about as necessary and erudite as "yummy".

Down to marketing I guess. You create pets by keeping them in perpetual childhood.

Refuges and zoos are not an answer. It's likely that in the future you'll be at risk of attack from people who are starving and blame you for climate change. Does that mean it's a good solution to lock you all up now so you aren't exterminated?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.