Habitat fragmentation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_fragmentation 

 

Fragmentation and destruction of Great Ape habitat in Central Africa, from the GLOBIO and GRASP projects (2002). Areas shown in black and red delineate areas of severe and moderate habitat loss, respectively.

Habitat fragmentation describes the emergence of discontinuities (fragmentation) in an organism's preferred environment (habitat), causing population fragmentation and ecosystem decay. Causes of habitat fragmentation include geological processes that slowly alter the layout of the physical environment (suspected of being one of the major causes of speciation), and human activity such as land conversion, which can alter the environment much faster and causes the extinction of many species. More specifically, habitat fragmentation is a process by which large and contiguous habitats get divided into smaller, isolated patches of habitats.

Deforestation and increased road-building in the Amazon Rainforest are a significant concern because of increased human encroachment upon wild areas, increased resource-extraction and further threats to biodiversity.

Definition

The term habitat fragmentation includes five discrete phenomena:

• Reduction in the total area of the habitat
• Decrease of the interior: edge ratio
• Isolation of one habitat fragment from other areas of habitat
• Breaking up of one patch of habitat into several smaller patches
• Decrease in the average size of each patch of habitat

"fragmentation ... not only causes loss of the amount of habitat but by creating small, isolated patches it also changes the properties of the remaining habitat" (van den Berg et al. 2001). Habitat fragmentation is the landscape level of the phenomenon, and patch level process. Thus meaning, it covers; the patch areas, edge effects, and patch shape complexity.

In scientific literature, there is some debate whether the term "habitat fragmentation" applies in cases of habitat loss, or whether the term primarily applies to the phenomenon of habitat being cut into smaller pieces without significant reduction in habitat area. Scientists who use the stricter definition of "habitat fragmentation" per se would refer to the loss of habitat area as "habitat loss" and explicitly mention both terms if describing a situation where the habitat becomes less connected and there is less overall habitat.

Furthermore, habitat fragmentation is considered as an invasive threat to biodiversity, due to its implications of affecting large number of species than biological invasions, overexploitation, or pollution.

Additionally, the effects of habitat fragmentation damage the ability for species, such as native plants, to be able to effectively adapt to their changing environments. Ultimately, this prevents gene flow from one generation of population to the next, especially for species living in smaller population sizes. Whereas, for species of larger populations have more genetic mutations which can arise and genetic recombination impacts which can increase species survival in those environments. Overall, habitat fragmentation results in habitat disintegration and habitat loss which both tie into destructing biodiversity as a whole.

Causes

Natural causes

Evidence of habitat destruction through natural processes such as volcanism, fire, and climate change is found in the fossil record. For example, habitat fragmentation of tropical rainforests in Euramerica 300 million years ago led to a great loss of amphibian diversity, but simultaneously the drier climate spurred on a burst of diversity among reptiles.

Human causes

Habitat fragmentation is frequently caused by humans when native plants are cleared for human activities such as agriculture, rural development, urbanization and the creation of hydroelectric reservoirs. Habitats which were once continuous become divided into separate fragments. After intensive clearing, the separate fragments tend to be very small islands isolated from each other by cropland, pasture, pavement, or even barren land. The latter is often the result of slash and burn farming in tropical forests. In the wheat belt of central-western New South Wales, Australia, 90% of the native vegetation has been cleared and over 99% of the tall grass prairie of North America has been cleared, resulting in extreme habitat fragmentation.

Endogenous vs. exogenous

There are two types of processes that can lead to habitat fragmentation. There are exogenous processes and endogenous processes. Endogenous is a process that develops as a part of species biology so they typically include changes in biology, behavior, and interactions within or between species. Endogenous threats can result in changes to breeding patterns or migration patterns and are often triggered by exogenous processes. Exogenous processes are independent of species biology and can include habitat degradation, habitat subdivision or habitat isolation. These processes can have a substantial impact on endogenous processes by fundamentally altering species behavior. Habitat subdivision or isolation can lead to changes in dispersal or movement of species including changes to seasonal migration. These changes can lead to a decrease in a density of species, increased competition or even increased predation.

Implications

Habitat and biodiversity loss

One of the major ways that habitat fragmentation affects biodiversity is by reducing the amount of suitable habitat available for organisms. Habitat fragmentation often involves both habitat destruction and the subdivision of previously continuous habitat. Plants and other sessile organisms are disproportionately affected by some types of habitat fragmentation because they cannot respond quickly to the altered spatial configuration of the habitat.

Habitat loss, which can occur through the process of habitat fragmentation, is considered to be the greatest threat to species. But, the effect of the configuration of habitat patches within the landscape, independent of the effect of the amount of habitat within the landscape (referred to as fragmentation per se), has been suggested to be small. A review of empirical studies found that, of the 381 reported significant effect of habitat fragmentation per se on species occurrences, abundances or diversity in the scientific literature, 76% were positive whereas 24% were negative. Despite these results, the scientific literature tends to emphasize negative effects more than positive effects. Positive effects of habitat fragmentation per se imply that several small patches of habitat can have higher conservation value than a single large patch of equivalent size. Land sharing strategies could therefore have more positive impacts on species than land sparing strategies.

Habitat fragmented by numerous roads near the Indiana Dunes National Park.

Area is the primary determinant of the number of species in a fragment and the relative contributions of demographic and genetic processes to the risk of global population extinction depend on habitat configuration, stochastic environmental variation and species features. Minor fluctuations in climate, resources, or other factors that would be unremarkable and quickly corrected in large populations can be catastrophic in small, isolated populations. Thus fragmentation of habitat is an important cause of species extinction. Population dynamics of subdivided populations tend to vary asynchronously. In an unfragmented landscape a declining population can be "rescued" by immigration from a nearby expanding population. In fragmented landscapes, the distance between fragments may prevent this from happening. Additionally, unoccupied fragments of habitat that are separated from a source of immigrants by some barrier are less likely to be repopulated than adjoining fragments. Even small species such as the Columbia spotted frog are reliant on the rescue effect. Studies showed 25% of juveniles travel a distance over 200m compared to 4% of adults. Of these, 95% remain in their new locale, demonstrating that this journey is necessary for survival.

Additionally, habitat fragmentation leads to edge effects. Microclimatic changes in light, temperature, and wind can alter the ecology around the fragment, and in the interior and exterior portions of the fragment. Fires become more likely in the area as humidity drops and temperature and wind levels rise. Exotic and pest species may establish themselves easily in such disturbed environments, and the proximity of domestic animals often upsets the natural ecology. Also, habitat along the edge of a fragment has a different climate and favours different species from the interior habitat. Small fragments are therefore unfavourable for species that require interior habitat. The percentage preservation of contiguous habitats is closely related to both genetic and species biodiversity preservation. Generally a 10% remnant contiguous habitat will result in a 50% biodiversity loss.

Much of the remaining terrestrial wildlife habitat in many third world countries has experienced fragmentation through the development of urban expansion such as roads interfering with habitat loss. Aquatic species’ habitats have been fragmented by dams and water diversions. These fragments of habitat may not be large or connected enough to support species that need a large territory where they can find mates and food. The loss and fragmentation of habitats makes it difficult for migratory species to find places to rest and feed along their migration routes.

Informed conservation

Habitat fragmentation is often a cause of species becoming threatened or endangered. The existence of viable habitat is critical to the survival of any species, and in many cases, the fragmentation of any remaining habitat can lead to difficult decisions for conservation biologists. Given a limited amount of resources available for conservation is it preferable to protect the existing isolated patches of habitat or to buy back land to get the largest possible contiguous piece of land. In rare cases, a conservation reliant species may gain some measure of disease protection by being distributed in isolated habitats, and when controlled for overall habitat loss some studies have shown a positive relationship between species richness and fragmentation; this phenomenon has been called the habitat amount hypothesis, though the validity of this claim has been disputed. The ongoing debate of what size fragments are most relevant for conservation is often referred to as SLOSS (Single Large or Several Small).

One solution to the problem of habitat fragmentation is to link the fragments by preserving or planting corridors of native vegetation. In some cases, a bridge or underpass may be enough to join two fragments. This has the potential to mitigate the problem of isolation but not the loss of interior habitat.

Another mitigation measure is the enlargement of small remnants to increase the amount of interior habitat. This may be impractical since developed land is often more expensive and could require significant time and effort to restore.

The best solution is generally dependent on the particular species or ecosystem that is being considered. More mobile species, like most birds, do not need connected habitat while some smaller animals, like rodents, may be more exposed to predation in open land. These questions generally fall under the headings of metapopulations island biogeography.

Genetic risks

As the remaining habitat patches are smaller, they tend to support smaller populations of fewer species. Small populations are at an increased risk of a variety of genetic consequences that influence their long-term survival. Remnant populations often contain only a subset of the genetic diversity found in the previously continuous habitat. In these cases, processes that act upon underlying genetic diversity, such as adaptation, have a smaller pool of fitness-maintaining alleles to survive in the face of environmental change. However in some scenarios, where subsets of genetic diversity are partitioned among multiple habitat fragments, almost all original genetic diversity can be maintained despite each individual fragment displaying a reduced subset of diversity.

Gene Flow and Inbreeding

Gene flow occurs when individuals of the same species exchange genetic information through reproduction. Populations can maintain genetic diversity through migration. When a habitat becomes fragmented and reduced in area, gene flow and migration are typically reduced. Fewer individuals will migrate into the remaining fragments, and small disconnected populations that may have once been part of a single large population will become reproductively isolated. Scientific evidence that gene flow is reduced due to fragmentation depends on the study species. While trees that have long-range pollination and dispersal mechanisms may not experience reduced gene flow following fragmentation, most species are at risk of reduced gene flow following habitat fragmentation.

Reduced gene flow, and reproductive isolation can result in inbreeding between related individuals. Inbreeding does not always result in negative fitness consequences, but when inbreeding is associated with fitness reduction it is called inbreeding depression. Inbreeding becomes of increasing concern as the level of homozygosity increases, facilitating the expression of deleterious alleles that reduce the fitness. Habitat fragmentation can lead to inbreeding depression for many species due to reduced gene flow. Inbreeding depression is associated with conservation risks, like local extinction.

Genetic drift

Small populations are more susceptible to genetic drift. Genetic drift is random changes to the genetic makeup of populations and leads to reductions in genetic diversity. The smaller the population is, the more likely genetic drift will be a driving force of evolution rather than natural selection. Because genetic drift is a random process, it does not allow species to become more adapted to their environment. Habitat fragmentation is associated with increases to genetic drift in small populations which can have negative consequences for the genetic diversity of the populations. However, research suggests that some tree species may be resilient to the negative consequences of genetic drift until population size is as small as ten individuals or less.

Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plant populations

Habitat fragmentation decreases the size and increases plant populations' spatial isolation. With genetic variation and increased methods of inter-population genetic divergence due to increased effects of random genetic drift, elevating inbreeding and reducing gene flow within plant species. While genetic variation may decrease with remnant population size, not all fragmentation events lead to genetic losses and different types of genetic variation. Rarely, fragmentation can also increase gene flow among remnant populations, breaking down local genetic structure.

Adaptation

In order for populations to evolve in response to natural selection, they must be large enough that natural selection is a stronger evolutionary force than genetic drift. Recent studies on the impacts of habitat fragmentation on adaptation in some plant species have suggested that organisms in fragmented landscapes may be able to adapt to fragmentation. However, there are also many cases where fragmentation reduces adaptation capacity because of small population size.

Examples of impacted species

Some species that have experienced genetic consequences due to habitat fragmentation are listed below:

Macquarie perch

• Macquaria australasica
• Fagus sylvatica
• Betula nana
• Rhinella ornata
• Ochotona princeps
• Uta stansburiana
• Plestiodon skiltonianus
• Sceloporus occidentalis
• Chamaea fasciata

Effect on animal behaviours

Although the way habitat fragmentation affects the genetics and extinction rates of species has been heavily studied, fragmentation has also been shown to affect species' behaviours and cultures as well. This is important because social interactions can determine and have an effect on a species' fitness and survival. Habitat fragmentation alters the resources available and the structure of habitats, as a result, alters the behaviours of species and the dynamics between differing species. Behaviours affected can be within a species such as reproduction, mating, foraging, species dispersal, communication and movement patterns or can be behaviours between species such as predator-prey relationships. In addition, when animals happen to venture into unknown areas in between fragmented forests or landscapes, they can supposedly come into contact with humans which puts them at a great risk and further decreases their chances of survival.

Predation behaviours

Habitat fragmentation due to anthropogenic activities has been shown to greatly affect the predator-prey dynamics of many species by altering the number of species and the members of those species. This affects the natural predator-prey relationships between animals in a given community and forces them to alter their behaviours and interactions, therefore resetting the so-called "behavioral space race". The way in which fragmentation changes and re-shapes these interactions can occur in many different forms. Most prey species have patches of land that are a refuge from their predators, allowing them the safety to reproduce and raise their young. Human introduced structures such as roads and pipelines alter these areas by facilitating predator activity in these refuges, increasing predator-prey overlap. The opposite could also occur in the favour of prey, increasing prey refuge and subsequently decreasing predation rates. Fragmentation may also increase predator abundance or predator efficiency and therefore increase predation rates in this manner. Several other factors can also increase or decrease the extent to which the shifting predator-prey dynamics affect certain species, including how diverse a predators diet is and how flexible habitat requirements are for predators and prey. Depending on which species are affected and these other factors, fragmentation and its effects on predator-prey dynamics may contribute to species extinction. In response to these new environmental pressures, new adaptive behaviours may be developed. Prey species may adapt to increased risk of predation with strategies such as altering mating tactics or changing behaviours and activities related to food and foraging.

Boreal woodland caribous

In the boreal woodland caribous of British Columbia, the effects of fragmentation are demonstrated. The species refuge area is peatland bog which has been interrupted by linear features such as roads and pipelines. These features have allowed their natural predators, the wolf, and the black bear to more efficiently travel over landscapes and between patches of land. Since their predators can more easily access the caribous' refuge, the females of the species attempt to avoid the area, affecting their reproductive behaviours and offspring produced.

Communication behaviours

Fragmentation affecting the communication behaviours of birds has been well studied in Dupont's Lark. The Larks primarily reside in regions of Spain and are a small passerine bird which uses songs as a means of cultural transmission between members of the species. The Larks have two distinct vocalizations, the song, and the territorial call. The territorial call is used by males to defend and signal territory from other male Larks and is shared between neighbouring territories when males respond to a rivals song. Occasionally it is used as a threat signal to signify an impending attack on territory. A large song repertoire can enhance a male's ability to survive and reproduce as he has a greater ability to defend his territory from other males, and a larger number of males in the species means a larger variety of songs being transmitted. Fragmentation of the Dupont's Lark territory from agriculture, forestry and urbanization appears to have a large effect on their communication structures. Males only perceive territories of a certain distance to be rivals and so isolation of territory from others due to fragmentation leads to a decrease in territorial calls as the males no longer have any reason to use it or have any songs to match.

Humans have also brought on varying implications into ecosystems which in turn affect animal behaviour and responses generated. Although there are some species which are able to survive these kinds of harsh conditions, such as, cutting down wood in the forests for pulp and paper industries, there are animals which can survive this change but some that cannot. An example includes, varying aquatic insects are able to identify appropriate ponds to lay their eggs with the aid of polarized light to guide them, however, due to ecosystem modifications caused by humans they are led onto artificial structures which emit artificial light which are induced by dry asphalt dry roads for an example.

Effect on microorganisms

While habitat fragmentation is often associated with its effects on large plant and animal populations and biodiversity, due to the interconnectedness of ecosystems there are also significant effects that it has on the microbiota of an environment. Increased fragmentation has been linked to reduced populations and diversity of fungi responsible for decomposition, as well as the insects they are host to. This has been linked to simplified food webs in highly fragmented areas compared to old growth forests. Furthermore, edge effects have been shown to result in significantly varied microenvironments compared to interior forest due to variations in light availability, presence of wind, changes in precipitation, and overall moisture content of leaf litter. These microenvironments are often not conducive to overall forest health as they enable generalist species to thrive at the expense of specialists that depend on specific environments.

Forest fragmentation

Forest fragmentation is a form of habitat fragmentation where forests are reduced (either naturally or man-made) to relatively small, isolated patches of forest known as forest fragments or forest remnants. The intervening matrix that separates the remaining woodland patches can be natural open areas, farmland, or developed areas. Following the principles of island biogeography, remnant woodlands act like islands of forest in a sea of pastures, fields, subdivisions, shopping malls, etc. These fragments will then begin to undergo the process of ecosystem decay.

Forest fragmentation also includes less subtle forms of discontinuities such as utility right-of-ways (ROWs). Utility ROWs are of ecological interest because they have become pervasive in many forest communities, spanning areas as large as 5 million acres in the United States. Utility ROWs include electricity transmission ROWs, gas pipeline and telecommunication ROWs. Electricity transmission ROWs are created to prevent vegetation interference with transmission lines. Some studies have shown that electricity transmission ROWs harbor more plant species than adjoining forest areas, due to alterations in the microclimate in and around the corridor. Discontinuities in forest areas associated with utility right-of-ways can serve as biodiversity havens for native bees and grassland species, as the right-of-ways are preserved in an early successional stage.

Forest fragmentation reduces food resources and habitat sources for animals thus splitting these species apart. Thus, making these animals become much more susceptible to effects of predation and making them less likely to perform interbreeding - lowering genetic diversity.

Implications

Forest fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in forests, especially in the tropics. The problem of habitat destruction that caused the fragmentation in the first place is compounded by:

• the inability of individual forest fragments to support viable populations, especially of large vertebrates
• the local extinction of species that do not have at least one fragment capable of supporting a viable population
• edge effects that alter the conditions of the outer areas of the fragment, greatly reducing the amount of true forest interior habitat.

The effect of fragmentation on the flora and fauna of a forest patch depends on a) the size of the patch, and b) its degree of isolation. Isolation depends on the distance to the nearest similar patch, and the contrast with the surrounding areas. For example, if a cleared area is reforested or allowed to regenerate, the increasing structural diversity of the vegetation will lessen the isolation of the forest fragments. However, when formerly forested lands are converted permanently to pastures, agricultural fields, or human-inhabited developed areas, the remaining forest fragments, and the biota within them, are often highly isolated.

Forest patches that are smaller or more isolated will lose species faster than those that are larger or less isolated. A large number of small forest "islands" typically cannot support the same biodiversity that a single contiguous forest would hold, even if their combined area is much greater than the single forest. However, forest islands in rural landscapes greatly increase their biodiversity. In the Maulino forest of Chile fragmentation appear to not affect overall plant diversity much, and tree diversity is indeed higher in fragments than in large continuous forests.

McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada released a university based newspaper statement stating that 70% of the world’s remaining forest stands within one kilometre of a forest edge putting biodiversity at an immense risk based on research conducted by international scientists.

Reduced fragment area, increased isolation, and increased edge initiate changes that percolate through all ecosystems. Habitat fragmentation is able to formulate persistent outcomes which can also become unexpected such as an abundance of some species and the pattern that long temporal scales are required to discern many strong system responses.

Sustainable forest management

The presence of forest fragments influences the supply of various ecosystems in adjacent agricultural fields (Mitchell et al. 2014). Mitchell et al (2014), researched on six varying ecosystem factors such as crop production, decomposition, pesticide regulation, carbon storage, soil fertility, and water quality regulation in soybean fields through separate distances by nearby forest fragments which all varied in isolation and size across an agricultural landscape in Quebec, Canada. Sustainable forest management can be achieved in several ways including by managing forests for ecosystem services (beyond simple provisioning), through government compensation schemes, and through effective regulation and legal frameworks. The only realistic method of conserving forests is to apply and practice sustainable forest management to risk further loss.

There is a high industrial demand for wood, pulp, paper, and other resources which the forest can provide with, thus businesses which will want more access to the cutting of forests to gain those resources. The rainforest alliance has efficiently been able to put into place an approach to sustainable forest management, and they established this in the late 1980s. Their conservation was deemed successful as it has saved over nearly half a billion acres of land around the world.

A few approaches and measures which can be taken in order to conserve forests are methods by which erosion can be minimized, waste is properly disposed, conserve native tree species to maintain genetic diversity, and setting aside forestland (provides habitat for critical wildlife species). Additionally, forest fires can also occur frequently and measures can also be taken to further prevent forest fires from occurring. For example, in Guatemala’s culturally and ecologically significant Petén region, researchers were able to find over a 20-year period, actively managed FSC-certified forests experienced substantially lower rates of deforestation than nearby protected areas, and forest fires only affected 0.1 percent of certified land area, compared to 10.4 percent of protected areas. However, it must be duly noted that short term decisions regarding forest sector employment and harvest practices can have long-term effects on biodiversity. Planted forests become increasingly important as they supply approximately a quarter of global industrial roundwood production and are predicted to account for 50% of global output within two decades (Brown, 1998; Jaakko Poyry, 1999). Although there have been many difficulties, the implementation of forest certification has been quite prominent in being able to raise effective awareness and disseminating knowledge on a holistic concept, embracing economic, environmental and social issues, worldwide. While also providing a tool for a range of other applications than assessment of sustainability, such as e.g. verifying carbon sinks.

Approaches to understanding habitat fragmentation

Two approaches are typically used to understand habitat fragmentation and its ecological impacts.

Species-oriented approach

The species-oriented approach focuses specifically on individual species and how they each respond to their environment and habitat changes with in it. This approach can be limited because it does only focus on individual species and does not allow for a broad view of the impacts of habitat fragmentation across species.

Pattern-oriented approach

The pattern-oriented approach is based on land cover and its patterning in correlation with species occurrences. One model of study for landscape patterning is the patch-matrix-corridor model developed by Richard Forman The pattern-oriented approach focuses on land cover defined by human means and activities. This model has stemmed from island biogeography and tries to infer causal relationships between the defined landscapes and the occurrence of species or groups of species within them. The approach has limitations in its collective assumptions across species or landscapes which may not account for variations amongst them.

Variegation Model

The other model is the variegation model. Variegated landscapes retain much of their natural vegetation but are intermixed with gradients of modified habitat This model of habitat fragmentation typically applies to landscapes that are modified by agriculture. In contrast to the fragmentation model that is denoted by isolated patches of habitat surrounded by unsuitable landscape environments, the variegation model applies to landscapes modified by agriculture where small patches of habitat remain near the remnant original habitat. In between these patches are a matrix of grassland that is often modified versions of the original habitat. These areas do not present as much of a barrier to native species.

 

Extinction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction 

The Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus) is an example of an extinct species.

Extinction is the termination of a kind of organism or of a group of kinds (taxon), usually a species. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of the species, although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost before this point. Because a species' potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively. This difficulty leads to phenomena such as Lazarus taxa, where a species presumed extinct abruptly "reappears" (typically in the fossil record) after a period of apparent absence.

More than 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth, amounting to over five billion species, are estimated to have died out. It is estimated that there are currently around 8.7 million species of eukaryote globally, and possibly many times more if microorganisms, like bacteria, are included. Notable extinct animal species include non-avian dinosaurs, saber-toothed cats, dodos, mammoths, ground sloths, thylacines, trilobites and golden toads.

Through evolution, species arise through the process of speciation—where new varieties of organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche—and species become extinct when they are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. The relationship between animals and their ecological niches has been firmly established. A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance, although some species, called living fossils, survive with little to no morphological change for hundreds of millions of years.

Mass extinctions are relatively rare events; however, isolated extinctions are quite common. Only recently have extinctions been recorded and scientists have become alarmed at the current high rate of extinctions. Most species that become extinct are never scientifically documented. Some scientists estimate that up to half of presently existing plant and animal species may become extinct by 2100. A 2018 report indicated that the phylogenetic diversity of 300 mammalian species erased during the human era since the Late Pleistocene would require 5 to 7 million years to recover.

According to the 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by IPBES, the biomass of wild mammals has fallen by 82%, natural ecosystems have lost about half their area and a million species are at risk of extinction—all largely as a result of human actions. Twenty-five percent of plant and animal species are threatened with extinction.

In June 2019, one million species of plants and animals were at risk of extinction. At least 571 species have been lost since 1750, but likely many more. The main cause of the extinctions is the destruction of natural habitats by human activities, such as cutting down forests and converting land into fields for farming.

A dagger symbol (†) placed next to the name of a species or other taxon normally indicates its status as extinct.

Definition

External mold of the extinct Lepidodendron from the Upper Carboniferous of Ohio

A species is extinct when the last existing member dies. Extinction therefore becomes a certainty when there are no surviving individuals that can reproduce and create a new generation. A species may become functionally extinct when only a handful of individuals survive, which cannot reproduce due to poor health, age, sparse distribution over a large range, a lack of individuals of both sexes (in sexually reproducing species), or other reasons.

Pinpointing the extinction (or pseudoextinction) of a species requires a clear definition of that species. If it is to be declared extinct, the species in question must be uniquely distinguishable from any ancestor or daughter species, and from any other closely related species. Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.

Skeleton of various extinct dinosaurs; some other dinosaur lineages still flourish in the form of birds

In ecology, extinction is sometimes used informally to refer to local extinction, in which a species ceases to exist in the chosen area of study, despite still existing elsewhere. Local extinctions may be made good by the reintroduction of individuals of that species taken from other locations; wolf reintroduction is an example of this. Species which are not globally extinct are termed extant. Those species that are extant, yet are threatened with extinction, are referred to as threatened or endangered species.

The dodo of Mauritius, shown here in a 1626 illustration by Roelant Savery, is an often-cited example of modern extinction.

Currently an important aspect of extinction is human attempts to preserve critically endangered species. These are reflected by the creation of the conservation status "extinct in the wild" (EW). Species listed under this status by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) are not known to have any living specimens in the wild, and are maintained only in zoos or other artificial environments. Some of these species are functionally extinct, as they are no longer part of their natural habitat and it is unlikely the species will ever be restored to the wild. When possible, modern zoological institutions try to maintain a viable population for species preservation and possible future reintroduction to the wild, through use of carefully planned breeding programs.

The extinction of one species' wild population can have knock-on effects, causing further extinctions. These are also called "chains of extinction". This is especially common with extinction of keystone species.

A 2018 study indicated that the sixth mass extinction started in the Late Pleistocene could take up to 5 to 7 million years to restore 2.5 billion years of unique mammal diversity to what it was before the human era.

Pseudoextinction

Extinction of a parent species where daughter species or subspecies are still extant is called pseudoextinction or phyletic extinction. Effectively, the old taxon vanishes, transformed (anagenesis) into a successor, or split into more than one (cladogenesis).

Pseudoextinction is difficult to demonstrate unless one has a strong chain of evidence linking a living species to members of a pre-existing species. For example, it is sometimes claimed that the extinct Hyracotherium, which was an early horse that shares a common ancestor with the modern horse, is pseudoextinct, rather than extinct, because there are several extant species of Equus, including zebra and donkey; however, as fossil species typically leave no genetic material behind, one cannot say whether Hyracotherium evolved into more modern horse species or merely evolved from a common ancestor with modern horses. Pseudoextinction is much easier to demonstrate for larger taxonomic groups.

Lazarus taxa

The coelacanth, a fish related to lungfish and tetrapods, was considered to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous Period. In 1938, however, a living specimen was found off the Chalumna River (now Tyolomnqa) on the east coast of South Africa. Museum curator Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer discovered the fish among the catch of a local trawler operated by Captain Hendrick Goosen, on December 23, 1938. A local chemistry professor, JLB Smith, confirmed the fish's importance with a famous cable: "MOST IMPORTANT PRESERVE SKELETON AND GILLS = FISH DESCRIBED".

Far more recent possible or presumed extinctions of species which may turn out still to exist include the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus), the last known example of which died in Hobart Zoo in Tasmania in 1936; the Japanese wolf (Canis lupus hodophilax), last sighted over 100 years ago; the American ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis), with the last universally accepted sighting in 1944; and the slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris), not seen since 2007.

Causes

The passenger pigeon, one of hundreds of species of extinct birds, was hunted to extinction over the course of a few decades.

As long as species have been evolving, species have been going extinct. It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct. The average lifespan of a species is 1–10 million years, although this varies widely between taxa. There are a variety of causes that can contribute directly or indirectly to the extinction of a species or group of species. "Just as each species is unique", write Beverly and Stephen C. Stearns, "so is each extinction ... the causes for each are varied—some subtle and complex, others obvious and simple". Most simply, any species that cannot survive and reproduce in its environment and cannot move to a new environment where it can do so, dies out and becomes extinct. Extinction of a species may come suddenly when an otherwise healthy species is wiped out completely, as when toxic pollution renders its entire habitat unliveable; or may occur gradually over thousands or millions of years, such as when a species gradually loses out in competition for food to better adapted competitors. Extinction may occur a long time after the events that set it in motion, a phenomenon known as extinction debt.

Assessing the relative importance of genetic factors compared to environmental ones as the causes of extinction has been compared to the debate on nature and nurture. The question of whether more extinctions in the fossil record have been caused by evolution or by catastrophe is a subject of discussion; Mark Newman, the author of Modeling Extinction, argues for a mathematical model that falls between the two positions. By contrast, conservation biology uses the extinction vortex model to classify extinctions by cause. When concerns about human extinction have been raised, for example in Sir Martin Rees' 2003 book Our Final Hour, those concerns lie with the effects of climate change or technological disaster.

Currently, environmental groups and some governments are concerned with the extinction of species caused by humanity, and they try to prevent further extinctions through a variety of conservation programs. Humans can cause extinction of a species through overharvesting, pollution, habitat destruction, introduction of invasive species (such as new predators and food competitors), overhunting, and other influences. Explosive, unsustainable human population growth and increasing per capita consumption are essential drivers of the extinction crisis. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 784 extinctions have been recorded since the year 1500, the arbitrary date selected to define "recent" extinctions, up to the year 2004; with many more likely to have gone unnoticed. Several species have also been listed as extinct since 2004.

Genetics and demographic phenomena

If adaptation increasing population fitness is slower than environmental degradation plus the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations, then a population will go extinct. Smaller populations have fewer beneficial mutations entering the population each generation, slowing adaptation. It is also easier for slightly deleterious mutations to fix in small populations; the resulting positive feedback loop between small population size and low fitness can cause mutational meltdown.

Limited geographic range is the most important determinant of genus extinction at background rates but becomes increasingly irrelevant as mass extinction arises. Limited geographic range is a cause both of small population size and of greater vulnerability to local environmental catastrophes.

Extinction rates can be affected not just by population size, but by any factor that affects evolvability, including balancing selection, cryptic genetic variation, phenotypic plasticity, and robustness. A diverse or deep gene pool gives a population a higher chance in the short term of surviving an adverse change in conditions. Effects that cause or reward a loss in genetic diversity can increase the chances of extinction of a species. Population bottlenecks can dramatically reduce genetic diversity by severely limiting the number of reproducing individuals and make inbreeding more frequent.

Genetic pollution

Extinction sometimes results for species evolved to specific ecologies that are subjected to genetic pollution—i.e., uncontrolled hybridization, introgression and genetic swamping that lead to homogenization or out-competition from the introduced (or hybrid) species. Endemic populations can face such extinctions when new populations are imported or selectively bred by people, or when habitat modification brings previously isolated species into contact. Extinction is likeliest for rare species coming into contact with more abundant ones; interbreeding can swamp the rarer gene pool and create hybrids, depleting the purebred gene pool (for example, the endangered wild water buffalo is most threatened with extinction by genetic pollution from the abundant domestic water buffalo). Such extinctions are not always apparent from morphological (non-genetic) observations. Some degree of gene flow is a normal evolutionary process; nevertheless, hybridization (with or without introgression) threatens rare species' existence.

The gene pool of a species or a population is the variety of genetic information in its living members. A large gene pool (extensive genetic diversity) is associated with robust populations that can survive bouts of intense selection. Meanwhile, low genetic diversity reduces the range of adaptions possible. Replacing native with alien genes narrows genetic diversity within the original population, thereby increasing the chance of extinction.

Scorched land resulting from slash-and-burn agriculture

Habitat degradation

Habitat degradation is currently the main anthropogenic cause of species extinctions. The main cause of habitat degradation worldwide is agriculture, with urban sprawl, logging, mining and some fishing practices close behind. The degradation of a species' habitat may alter the fitness landscape to such an extent that the species is no longer able to survive and becomes extinct. This may occur by direct effects, such as the environment becoming toxic, or indirectly, by limiting a species' ability to compete effectively for diminished resources or against new competitor species.

Habitat degradation through toxicity can kill off a species very rapidly, by killing all living members through contamination or sterilizing them. It can also occur over longer periods at lower toxicity levels by affecting life span, reproductive capacity, or competitiveness.

Habitat degradation can also take the form of a physical destruction of niche habitats. The widespread destruction of tropical rainforests and replacement with open pastureland is widely cited as an example of this; elimination of the dense forest eliminated the infrastructure needed by many species to survive. For example, a fern that depends on dense shade for protection from direct sunlight can no longer survive without forest to shelter it. Another example is the destruction of ocean floors by bottom trawling.

Diminished resources or introduction of new competitor species also often accompany habitat degradation. Global warming has allowed some species to expand their range, bringing unwelcome competition to other species that previously occupied that area. Sometimes these new competitors are predators and directly affect prey species, while at other times they may merely outcompete vulnerable species for limited resources. Vital resources including water and food can also be limited during habitat degradation, leading to extinction.

The golden toad was last seen on May 15, 1989. Decline in amphibian populations is ongoing worldwide.

Predation, competition, and disease

In the natural course of events, species become extinct for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: extinction of a necessary host, prey or pollinator, inter-species competition, inability to deal with evolving diseases and changing environmental conditions (particularly sudden changes) which can act to introduce novel predators, or to remove prey. Recently in geological time, humans have become an additional cause of extinction (some people would say premature extinction) of some species, either as a new mega-predator or by transporting animals and plants from one part of the world to another. Such introductions have been occurring for thousands of years, sometimes intentionally (e.g. livestock released by sailors on islands as a future source of food) and sometimes accidentally (e.g. rats escaping from boats). In most cases, the introductions are unsuccessful, but when an invasive alien species does become established, the consequences can be catastrophic. Invasive alien species can affect native species directly by eating them, competing with them, and introducing pathogens or parasites that sicken or kill them; or indirectly by destroying or degrading their habitat. Human populations may themselves act as invasive predators. According to the "overkill hypothesis", the swift extinction of the megafauna in areas such as Australia (40,000 years before present), North and South America (12,000 years before present), Madagascar, Hawaii (AD 300–1000), and New Zealand (AD 1300–1500), resulted from the sudden introduction of human beings to environments full of animals that had never seen them before and were therefore completely unadapted to their predation techniques.

Coextinction

The large Haast's eagle and moa from New Zealand

Coextinction refers to the loss of a species due to the extinction of another; for example, the extinction of parasitic insects following the loss of their hosts. Coextinction can also occur when a species loses its pollinator, or to predators in a food chain who lose their prey. "Species coextinction is a manifestation of one of the interconnectednesses of organisms in complex ecosystems ... While coextinction may not be the most important cause of species extinctions, it is certainly an insidious one." Coextinction is especially common when a keystone species goes extinct. Models suggest that coextinction is the most common form of biodiversity loss. There may be a cascade of coextinction across the trophic levels. Such effects are most severe in mutualistic and parasitic relationships. An example of coextinction is the Haast's eagle and the moa: the Haast's eagle was a predator that became extinct because its food source became extinct. The moa were several species of flightless birds that were a food source for the Haast's eagle.

Climate change

Extinction as a result of climate change has been confirmed by fossil studies. Particularly, the extinction of amphibians during the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse, 305 million years ago. A 2003 review across 14 biodiversity research centers predicted that, because of climate change, 15–37% of land species would be "committed to extinction" by 2050. The ecologically rich areas that would potentially suffer the heaviest losses include the Cape Floristic Region and the Caribbean Basin. These areas might see a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels and rising temperatures that could eliminate 56,000 plant and 3,700 animal species. Climate change has also been found to be a factor in habitat loss and desertification.

Mass extinctions

Marine extinction intensity during the Phanerozoic

%

Millions of years ago

(H)

K–Pg

Tr–J

P–Tr

Cap

Late D

O–S

The blue graph shows the apparent percentage (not the absolute number) of marine animal genera becoming extinct during any given time interval. It does not represent all marine species, just those that are readily fossilized. The labels of the traditional "Big Five" extinction events and the more recently recognised Capitanian mass extinction event are clickable hyperlinks; see Extinction event for more details.

There have been at least five mass extinctions in the history of life on earth, and four in the last 350 million years in which many species have disappeared in a relatively short period of geological time. A massive eruptive event that released large quantities of tephra particles into the atmosphere is considered to be one likely cause of the "Permian–Triassic extinction event" about 250 million years ago, which is estimated to have killed 90% of species then existing. There is also evidence to suggest that this event was preceded by another mass extinction, known as Olson's Extinction. The Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (K–Pg) occurred 66 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period; it is best known for having wiped out non-avian dinosaurs, among many other species.

Modern extinctions

According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70% believed that the Earth is currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction, known as the Holocene extinction. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20% of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). A 2014 special edition of Science declared there is widespread consensus on the issue of human-driven mass species extinctions. A 2020 study published in PNAS stated that the contemporary extinction crisis "may be the most serious environmental threat to the persistence of civilization, because it is irreversible."

Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all plant and animal species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. More significantly, the current rate of global species extinctions is estimated as 100 to 1,000 times "background" rates (the average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth), while future rates are likely 10,000 times higher. However, some groups are going extinct much faster. Biologists Paul R. Ehrlich and Stuart Pimm, among others, contend that human population growth and overconsumption are the main drivers of the modern extinction crisis.

In January 2020, the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity drafted a plan to mitigate the contemporary extinction crisis by establishing a deadline of 2030 to protect 30% of the earth's land and oceans and reduce pollution by 50%, with the goal of allowing for the restoration of ecosystems by 2050. The 2020 United Nations' Global Biodiversity Outlook report stated that of the 20 biodiversity goals laid out by the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in 2010, only 6 were "partially achieved" by the deadline of 2020. The report warned that biodiversity will continue to decline if the status quo is not changed, in particular the "currently unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, population growth and technological developments". In a 2021 report published in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science, some top scientists asserted that even if the Aichi Biodiversity Targets set for 2020 had been achieved, it would not have resulted in a significant mitigation of biodiversity loss. They added that failure of the global community to reach these targets is hardly surprising given that biodiversity loss is "nowhere close to the top of any country's priorities, trailing far behind other concerns such as employment, healthcare, economic growth, or currency stability."

History of scientific understanding

Tyrannosaurus, one of the many extinct dinosaur genera. The cause of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is a subject of much debate amongst researchers.

 

Georges Cuvier compared fossil mammoth jaws to those of living elephants, concluding that they were distinct from any known living species.

For much of history, the modern understanding of extinction as the end of a species was incompatible with the prevailing worldview. Prior to the 19th century, much of Western society adhered to the belief that the world was created by God and as such was complete and perfect. This concept reached its heyday in the 1700s with the peak popularity of a theological concept called the great chain of being, in which all life on earth, from the tiniest microorganism to God, is linked in a continuous chain. The extinction of a species was impossible under this model, as it would create gaps or missing links in the chain and destroy the natural order. Thomas Jefferson was a firm supporter of the great chain of being and an opponent of extinction, famously denying the extinction of the woolly mammoth on the grounds that nature never allows a race of animals to become extinct.

A series of fossils were discovered in the late 17th century that appeared unlike any living species. As a result, the scientific community embarked on a voyage of creative rationalization, seeking to understand what had happened to these species within a framework that did not account for total extinction. In October 1686, Robert Hooke presented an impression of a nautilus to the Royal Society that was more than two feet in diameter, and morphologically distinct from any known living species. Hooke theorized that this was simply because the species lived in the deep ocean and no one had discovered them yet. While he contended that it was possible a species could be "lost", he thought this highly unlikely. Similarly, in 1695, Sir Thomas Molyneux published an account of enormous antlers found in Ireland that did not belong to any extant taxa in that area. Molyneux reasoned that they came from the North American moose and that the animal had once been common on the British Isles. Rather than suggest that this indicated the possibility of species going extinct, he argued that although organisms could become locally extinct, they could never be entirely lost and would continue to exist in some unknown region of the globe. The antlers were later confirmed to be from the extinct deer Megaloceros. Hooke and Molyneux's line of thinking was difficult to disprove. When parts of the world had not been thoroughly examined and charted, scientists could not rule out that animals found only in the fossil record were not simply "hiding" in unexplored regions of the Earth.

Georges Cuvier is credited with establishing the modern conception of extinction in a 1796 lecture to the French Institute, though he would spend most of his career trying to convince the wider scientific community of his theory. Cuvier was a well-regarded geologist, lauded for his ability to reconstruct the anatomy of an unknown species from a few fragments of bone. His primary evidence for extinction came from mammoth skulls found in the Paris basin. Cuvier recognized them as distinct from any known living species of elephant, and argued that it was highly unlikely such an enormous animal would go undiscovered. In 1812, Cuvier, along with Alexandre Brongniart and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, mapped the strata of the Paris basin. They saw alternating saltwater and freshwater deposits, as well as patterns of the appearance and disappearance of fossils throughout the record. From these patterns, Cuvier inferred historic cycles of catastrophic flooding, extinction, and repopulation of the earth with new species.

Cuvier's fossil evidence showed that very different life forms existed in the past than those that exist today, a fact that was accepted by most scientists. The primary debate focused on whether this turnover caused by extinction was gradual or abrupt in nature. Cuvier understood extinction to be the result of cataclysmic events that wipe out huge numbers of species, as opposed to the gradual decline of a species over time. His catastrophic view of the nature of extinction garnered him many opponents in the newly emerging school of uniformitarianism.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a gradualist and colleague of Cuvier, saw the fossils of different life forms as evidence of the mutable character of species. While Lamarck did not deny the possibility of extinction, he believed that it was exceptional and rare and that most of the change in species over time was due to gradual change. Unlike Cuvier, Lamarck was skeptical that catastrophic events of a scale large enough to cause total extinction were possible. In his geological history of the earth titled Hydrogeologie, Lamarck instead argued that the surface of the earth was shaped by gradual erosion and deposition by water, and that species changed over time in response to the changing environment.

Charles Lyell, a noted geologist and founder of uniformitarianism, believed that past processes should be understood using present day processes. Like Lamarck, Lyell acknowledged that extinction could occur, noting the total extinction of the dodo and the extirpation of indigenous horses to the British Isles. He similarly argued against mass extinctions, believing that any extinction must be a gradual process. Lyell also showed that Cuvier's original interpretation of the Parisian strata was incorrect. Instead of the catastrophic floods inferred by Cuvier, Lyell demonstrated that patterns of saltwater and freshwater deposits, like those seen in the Paris basin, could be formed by a slow rise and fall of sea levels.

The concept of extinction was integral to Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, with less fit lineages disappearing over time. For Darwin, extinction was a constant side effect of competition. Because of the wide reach of On the Origin of Species, it was widely accepted that extinction occurred gradually and evenly (a concept now referred to as background extinction). It was not until 1982, when David Raup and Jack Sepkoski published their seminal paper on mass extinctions, that Cuvier was vindicated and catastrophic extinction was accepted as an important mechanism. The current understanding of extinction is a synthesis of the cataclysmic extinction events proposed by Cuvier, and the background extinction events proposed by Lyell and Darwin.

Human attitudes and interests

A great hammerhead caught by a sport fisherman. Human exploitation now threatens the survival of this species. Overfishing is the primary driver of shark population declines, which have fallen over 71% since 1970.

Extinction is an important research topic in the field of zoology, and biology in general, and has also become an area of concern outside the scientific community. A number of organizations, such as the Worldwide Fund for Nature, have been created with the goal of preserving species from extinction. Governments have attempted, through enacting laws, to avoid habitat destruction, agricultural over-harvesting, and pollution. While many human-caused extinctions have been accidental, humans have also engaged in the deliberate destruction of some species, such as dangerous viruses, and the total destruction of other problematic species has been suggested. Other species were deliberately driven to extinction, or nearly so, due to poaching or because they were "undesirable", or to push for other human agendas. One example was the near extinction of the American bison, which was nearly wiped out by mass hunts sanctioned by the United States government, to force the removal of Native Americans, many of whom relied on the bison for food.

Biologist Bruce Walsh states three reasons for scientific interest in the preservation of species: genetic resources, ecosystem stability, and ethics; and today the scientific community "stress[es] the importance" of maintaining biodiversity.

In modern times, commercial and industrial interests often have to contend with the effects of production on plant and animal life. However, some technologies with minimal, or no, proven harmful effects on Homo sapiens can be devastating to wildlife (for example, DDT). Biogeographer Jared Diamond notes that while big business may label environmental concerns as "exaggerated", and often cause "devastating damage", some corporations find it in their interest to adopt good conservation practices, and even engage in preservation efforts that surpass those taken by national parks.

Governments sometimes see the loss of native species as a loss to ecotourism, and can enact laws with severe punishment against the trade in native species in an effort to prevent extinction in the wild. Nature preserves are created by governments as a means to provide continuing habitats to species crowded by human expansion. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity has resulted in international Biodiversity Action Plan programmes, which attempt to provide comprehensive guidelines for government biodiversity conservation. Advocacy groups, such as The Wildlands Project and the Alliance for Zero Extinctions, work to educate the public and pressure governments into action.

People who live close to nature can be dependent on the survival of all the species in their environment, leaving them highly exposed to extinction risks. However, people prioritize day-to-day survival over species conservation; with human overpopulation in tropical developing countries, there has been enormous pressure on forests due to subsistence agriculture, including slash-and-burn agricultural techniques that can reduce endangered species's habitats.

Antinatalist philosopher David Benatar concludes that any popular concern about non-human species extinction usually arises out of concern about how the loss of a species will impact human wants and needs, that "we shall live in a world impoverished by the loss of one aspect of faunal diversity, that we shall no longer be able to behold or use that species of animal." He notes that typical concerns about possible human extinction, such as the loss of individual members, are not considered in regards to non-human species extinction.

Planned extinction

Main article: Eradication of infectious diseases

Completed

• The smallpox virus is now extinct in the wild, although samples are retained in laboratory settings.
• The rinderpest virus, which infected domestic cattle, is now extinct in the wild.

Proposed

The poliovirus is now confined to small parts of the world due to extermination efforts.

Dracunculus medinensis, a parasitic worm which causes the disease dracunculiasis, is now close to eradication thanks to efforts led by the Carter Center.

Treponema pallidum pertenue, a bacterium which causes the disease yaws, is in the process of being eradicated.

Biologist Olivia Judson has advocated the deliberate extinction of certain disease-carrying mosquito species. In a September 25, 2003 article in The New York Times, she advocated "specicide" of thirty mosquito species by introducing a genetic element that can insert itself into another crucial gene, to create recessive "knockout genes". She says that the Anopheles mosquitoes (which spread malaria) and Aedes mosquitoes (which spread dengue fever, yellow fever, elephantiasis, and other diseases) represent only 30 of around 3,500 mosquito species; eradicating these would save at least one million human lives per annum, at a cost of reducing the genetic diversity of the family Culicidae by only 1%. She further argues that since species become extinct "all the time" the disappearance of a few more will not destroy the ecosystem: "We're not left with a wasteland every time a species vanishes. Removing one species sometimes causes shifts in the populations of other species—but different need not mean worse." In addition, anti-malarial and mosquito control programs offer little realistic hope to the 300 million people in developing nations who will be infected with acute illnesses this year. Although trials are ongoing, she writes that if they fail "we should consider the ultimate swatting."

Biologist E. O. Wilson has advocated the eradication of several species of mosquito, including malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Wilson stated, "I'm talking about a very small number of species that have co-evolved with us and are preying on humans, so it would certainly be acceptable to remove them. I believe it's just common sense."

There have been many campaigns - some successful - to locally eradicate tsetse flies and their trypanosomes in areas, countries, and islands of Africa (including Príncipe). There are currently serious efforts to do away with them all across Africa, and this is generally viewed as beneficial and morally necessary, although not always.

Cloning

Some, such as Harvard geneticist George M. Church, believe that ongoing technological advances will let us "bring back to life" an extinct species by cloning, using DNA from the remains of that species. Proposed targets for cloning include the mammoth, the thylacine, and the Pyrenean ibex. For this to succeed, enough individuals would have to be cloned, from the DNA of different individuals (in the case of sexually reproducing organisms) to create a viable population. Though bioethical and philosophical objections have been raised, the cloning of extinct creatures seems theoretically possible.

In 2003, scientists tried to clone the extinct Pyrenean ibex (C. p. pyrenaica). This attempt failed: of the 285 embryos reconstructed, 54 were transferred to 12 mountain goats and mountain goat-domestic goat hybrids, but only two survived the initial two months of gestation before they too died. In 2009, a second attempt was made to clone the Pyrenean ibex: one clone was born alive, but died seven minutes later, due to physical defects in the lungs.