Even before the study was started, it was known that some species are not male dominated. Above is a family of Bonobos, and these great apes live in a female dominated society.
Given our assumption that on male dominance, it is perhaps surprising, that only 58% of primate species have dominant males. Perhaps not surprising, as a result, every major primate group had at least one species which was female (or co-dominant) structures.
Indeed, with the gibbons (or lesser apes on this website, to check them out, click here to visit the home page, and then expand the species database, and click on lesser apes) all 5 species examined (there are a total of 20) have been classed as non-male dominant.
Amongst primates, this likelihood is (according to Lewis, the head of the study) relatively easily predicted, as tends to occur in the species, where there is little difference between the size of male and female members.
An example here, is clear: while a male gorilla can weigh twice that of a female, siamang gibbons only have males a couple of kg heavier than females – not surprisingly, while male gorillas are dominant, this is not the case with siamang gibbons.
It should be noted, therefore, that while 4 out the 5 species of great apes are male dominated (we assume this in humans as well, though, in the modern day, it would be hard to argue that we are not more of a co dominant species. Given that likely all the lesser apes (the gibbons) are more or less co-dominant, it follows, that even just looking at the apes, more are female dominant or co-dominant.
Have you heard of a pangolin? Would you recognize one? For many people, the pangolin is unfortunately known, only as a family of species, which have been poached for their scales (made of keratin, and with no medicinal basis) such that of the 8 species, half are endangered and the other half critically endangered. Click on any of the mentions of pangolin on this page to be taken to our pangolin family species page. This poaching is so extreme, that some estimate that this family of species are the most trafficked in the world.
Pangolin are very hard to take care of, which is why there are so few in zoos around the world. Indeed, the vast majority of even wildlife guides in somewhere like the Kruger have never seen a pangolin, even if they are known to exist in the park. A pangolin carers job, is to look after a pangolin, take it into the bush, and find places with many ants and termites, and generally get it ready to return to the wild.
As the temperature rises in the Amazon, Amazonian dolphins are struggling to survive. Several hundred have died in and around lake Tefe where the temperature has reached 39 degrees Celsius – for reference, a hot bath is anything above 37 degrees (at 44 degrees, people start to scald).
Their bodies along with many thousands of fish, are floating on the surface. The lake is particularly hot, as a drought has led to much of the water drying up, allowing the remaining water to take the temperature of the air more quickly. While disease and sewage contamination are being checked, the hugely high temperature has a huge impact on the bodies of everything living in the water, so even if the eventual death is caused by something else, the heat would likely have killed the dolphins in the near future anyway.
Brazil is not the only country which is struggling in this way, it is happening world wide. It is true that the world has just left the El nino period, which always has higher temperatures, but still, many species like the Amazon dolphins (which is already endangered) cannot face this pressure for long, without being pushed far closer to extinction.
The quiet bays in the Melanesian archipelago are perfect for the sea grass meadows, which in turn means that it is fantastic for dugongs – animals also known as sea cows. Just a few years ago, these animals were a regular sight. Growing up to 4m long and 400kg, just a few years ago, it would not be an unusual day when you would see one of these animals in both the morning and afternoon. Now they are rarely seen.
Officially, they are only classed as vulnerable (one of the lowest forms of endangered), but given how long it has been, it is unclear how the population is doing. However, unfortunately, given fishermen (and other people on the wate), are encountering them so rarely, it is likely to have got worse. Dogongs in this area behave differently to Australia where they have huge seagrass meadows, so this full survey is certainly required.
It would be another area, where a growth in the ecotourism industry (ethical – not damaging the animals or stressing them) could be fantastic. Many surveys done on sea mammals, take on tourists to reduce their cost. Personally, I will always look for a research boat, as they want to be there, and will not go out if there is no chance of sightings.
The next-door population of New Caledonia was recently downgraded to endagered, and the east African population is classed as critically endangered.
Globally, the threats to these animals include gill-net fishing, boat traffic, coastal development and even hunting. Unfortunately, climate change is also a threat – rainstorms are becoming far more common, and these are damaging the seagrass, alongside cyclones.
Currently, it is estimated that the world looses 7% of its seagrass meadows each year. This should be concerning, as sea grass has a roughly equal ability to draw down carbon dioxide to land rainforests – so the more we loose the harder it will become to halt global warming. It should also be noted, seagrasses grow more healthily with dugongs present – help keep seagrass beds healthy by grazing on them, which controls their growth and disperses their seeds. This process is called “cultivation grazing”. The benefits on seagrasses include growth control (rapid growth can be bad for the long-term survival of the seagrass), disperse seeds (often with some ‘fertilizer’, which can help the seeds grow particularly well- and like various plants and elephants, seeds that have gone through a dugongs digestive tract is more likely to grow than those that do not), Improve genetic diversity (dugongs move between areas of the meadow, and take seeds with them) and help recovery after cyclones (by connecting areas of the meadow, reseeding meadows in danger from elsewhere where they are doing alright).
Unfortunately, this makes the dugong a keystone species – therefore, its loss would have a very negative impact on the whole ecosystem. Other species that rely on seagrass including sea turtles, manatees, a wide array of fish, many sharks are born in the seagrass, including lemon sharks nurse sharks, and bull sharks. A wide array of birds are similarly reliant.
Elephants hunting used to be a common activity. This was banned in Kenya in 1973 and in Botswana in 2014. The trade in Elephant parts was banned in 1989.
For many years, however, conservationists have called for rich countries to ban imports of hunting trophies on a country by country basis. This is for a simple reason – a reserve like the Kruger, has a real issue with a growing elephant population, yet at the same time Nigeria has only 400 elephants left. Tanzania has seen a reduction of elephants of 63%, while Mozambique has seen a reduction of 34%.
This new ruling suggests that imports are only allowed from populations which are large enough to support the loss. Now, I would be interested as to how this is worked out. For instance, could I buy a tiny parcel of land, on the edge of a large reserve, and allow any elephants that step on my land to be hunted?
Somewhere like the Selous game reserve, would in theory be acceptable for elephant hunting. If we go back to the 1976 there were approaching 109,000 elephants. However that population is now thought to be around 13,000 – hunting should be banned until the population has recovered. If a hunting reserve cannot afford to police well enough to eliminate poaching, it should not be allowed to hunt (the number of poached and hunted elephants must be below safety levels.
The eastern black rhino is incredibly endangered, with just 1000 spread across a huge area. In this region, just 8 are known to live, so to see young is incredibly rare.
Rhino horn is incredibly valuable on the far East traditional medicine market, despite the fact that multiple scientific studies have shown that the rhino horn does nothing for humans. Never-the-less, this unmet demand for rhino horn, linked with the huge explosion of wealth in places like China, means that rhino horn is incredible valuable. While eastern black rhino horns rarely weigh more than 3kg, this can still be worth $200,000, which is very tempting, in a country where the average salary is under $200 a month.
As living conditions increase in the area, the desire to poach these animals is likely to decrease. Of course, these rhino are also likely to be worth similar amounts in tourism dollars across their lifetime, but that is a long-term thing, and something that the whole area benefits from (rather than the poacher, who is often struggling to make ends meet – though middlemen are instead making a fortune).
A small herd of 170 bison, released into a 20 square miles area of Tarcu mountains in Romania, are estimated to allow the land to capture 59,000 tones of carbon each year.
Big animals like this, stimulate the soil and plant growth, allowing the soil and plant growth to take up far more carbon than without them. Although Romania is one of the wildest countries in Europe, the European Bison was lost around 200 years ago. Between 2014 and 2021, 100 bison were reintroduced into the area, and that population has naturally grown such that there are now 170.
Scientists estimate that the lands carbon storing potential is as much as 10 times greater with the bison (they suggest that it is between 5 and 15 times more carbon.
Wolves have only recently returned to Austria, with an estimated 80 wolves spread throughout the country. It is perhaps not surprising therefore, that animal welfare activists, took the government to court, when it set cull numbers at 20, or 25% of the population a year.
The Austrian government had pointed to a condition in the 1992 EU directive on protecting wildlife, which states that wolf hunting to prevent financial damage can only be done if the population is in a favourable conservation status – something certainly not true in Austria. This condition can only apply to a wolf population which is stable.
I would also suggest that plans to kill 25% of the population each year, should also damage this, but this is a discussion for another day – when the population is far larger than it currently is. Other countries like Holland have similar sized wolf populations, and so this ruling could be applied in a variety of places.
Regional governments have absurdly argued that the wolf is no longer endangered in Austria, and that therefore its protection should be reduced. had the government listened would a ruling similar to the USA have come forward? Such that open season could be declared?
It is a good thing that wolves are so good at holding on, as we have spent much of our time attacking.
It is funny to think, that it is estimated our relationship with wolves (in the form of domesticating them as dogs) likely goes back to a similar point to the advent of growing crops, and well before the time that we started to keep livestock.
Given our fondness of dogs has deeper roots than our fear of wolves, it seems odd, that wolf persecution ever really got underway. It is true that wolf populations do need handling, but their existence is more good than bad. Places like the UK where they are missing, show this (when looked at the situation rationally)
Wentworth Group of concerned Scientists estimate that for just $7.3 billion a year for 30 years, most extinctions could be avoided as well as repairing soil and restoring rivers. That sounds like quite a lot? Well, invasive species cost the Australian government $24.3 billion a year now.
Recovery of some of the endangered species, could well save more than they cost to save, in reducing this invasive species bill. This would also improve agricultural output, as a result of improved soil health.
Around the world, there are invasive species – from grey squirrels in the UK, to Macaques on Gibraltar, however, all these pale on comparison to having to live with wild elephants.
The elephants were bought to the Andaman islands in the late 19th century, to work in the timber operation, which continued until the last few decades. Thankfully, much of the forest in the islands survives – with some islands retaining almost 90% forest cover. This means that the elephants might well be able to thrive into the future.
The islands lie 850 miles from the coast of India, which means that while elephants would not have existed natively on the islands, there are many species which would be found in the same area.
Interview Island and North Andaman hosts these elephants – though they need to be watched, as a population of 100 elephants is already small, but if split between 2 islands, humans may well have to be helped to remain genetically varied enough to survive long-term.
While some have suggested that the elephants have damaged biodiversity, with some species having become less common, this ignores the impact of the timber extraction – it is far more likely that this is an impact of the many decades of pulling specific trees out of the forest.
Given the endangered status of the Indian elephant, this population is precious, but whether it can be left where it is long-term is something we do not know. There are still roughly 30,000 elephants in India, but the Andaman island elephants are going to need to be watch, long-term, to make sure that they do not damage species only found in their new home.
