Student: Gabby Francolla
Graduation date: May 2018
Type: Concentration (single major)
Date approved: November 2015
Go to concentration landing page
Summary
An apex predator is an animal that resides at the top of a food chain and has no natural enemies. Apex predators are being directly and indirectly removed from countless ecosystems (Estes et al. 2011), however, their complex relationship with humans makes their conservation more difficult. In addition, the role that apex predators play in promoting biodiversity within ecosystems is highly contested. Some argue that apex predators perform the essential task of balancing the population of most other species in their ecosystem (Crooks and Soule 1999). For example, in the fragmented chaparral landscape of San Diego, canyons where coyotes roam have more biodiversity in bird species then canyons lacking them. The rationale behind this relationship is that coyotes control the population of domestic cats, which in turn, allows for birds populations to thrive. However, the transformative nature of apex predators is spatially and temporally context dependent due to the “great variability and uncertainty surrounding the ecological functions of predators” (Ritchie et al. 2012) This ecological contention surrounding the role apex predators play in promoting biodiversity is only the first of many ongoing conversations, including the social, cultural, economic, and political complications of apex predator conservation that I will attempt to synthesize here.
Humans have long been captivated by apex predators and this fascination can capitalized on to raise funds for conservation and rally public support (Sergio et al. 2008). Although, this situation poses an interesting question regarding whether it is ecologically justified to take apex predators and treat them as charismatic megafauna–larger species with widespread popular appeal, employed by activists to achieve environmental goals. It is often argued that conserving one species with the mindset that you are helping the populations of numerous other species may “divert a disproportionate amount of conservation action to a few glamorous species without delivering broader biodiversity benefits.” The role apex predators play in potentially promoting biodiversity must be weighed against the ethics of increased funding, awareness, and protection.
It can be theorized that American’s perceptions of apex predators is largely place-based. There is huge U.S. support to protect species such as polar bears and lions whose presence or absence has no direct effect on our own lives. At the same time, the protection of wolves in the American west is hugely controversial among Americans because the negative externalities of their presence in our landscape impacts us, not people in far-away lands. In addition, it is often the affluent countries and people who value biodiversity, since poverty and environmental degradation are positively correlated (Perrings and Halkos 2012). Conservation in low-income countries has been especially challenging because it is being pushed onto people who conservation is not a priority.
It is also necessary to consider the consequences of when predator conservation is directly oppositional to humans and there interests. This includes putting human lives at risk of injury or death (Ritchie et al. 2012). San Diegans would find it difficult to advocate for the protection of coyotes in this urban landscape when they see their lives, and the lives of their domestic cats, threatened. However, a human versus predator conversation goes beyond that. Conservation measures can be extremely disadvantageous to the indigenous people living on that land since “western conservation organizations have constructed a nature ideal in which there was no place for humans at all” (De Bont 2015). The approximately four hundred indigenous groups living in the Amazon can get in the way of conservation groups who want to protect apex predators such as boa constrictors and jaguars in this hotspot for biodiversity, even though research suggests that supporting indigenous people in the Amazon is beneficial to conservation (Zimmerman et al. 2001). To complicate the matter, many indigenous groups are “experiencing population growth, adopting outside technologies, and are increasingly involved in the market” intensifying their impact on ecosystems (Holt 2005). Thinking about conservation with indigenous rights in mind is an essential step in apex predator protection.
Apex predators have the ability to entice human interest and draw tourism to a region, subsequently stimulating the economy (Sergio et al. 2006). As an example, the introduction of lions into Pilanesberg National Park in South Africa attracted so much excitement that it generated an additional US$ 9 million to the regional economy. Again, this poses the problem of unequal distribution of funds to favor species that would attract revenue to the region, not necessarily the species that are in the most dire position. Although, apex predators also have the ability to decrease revenue in a region by attacking livestock (Treves et al. 2004).
The politics of apex predator reintroduction is often contentious and complicated. Conservation policy in the U.S. can be disjointed since there is not a single authority figure on habitat protection that can craft long term management plans and can make decisions without having to consult several other agencies (Primm 1996). For example, in an attempt to protect grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains, several U.S. agencies have taken action, however, “highly effective coordination and conservation have not materialized…there is no one grizzly bear policy, but rather a complex set of ‘actions and decisions [that] add up to agency policy–but policy that no one has deliberately planned.’” In addition, government agencies and politicians have to make tough decisions about the protection of apex predators that is unpopular for certain sections of the population who apex predator protection negatively affects. Various factors have been proven to influence a person’s opinion on conservation measures, rural and resource dependent groups typically expressing little concern for predator conservation (Kellert 1994). Therefore, policy on apex predators not only has to deal with the typical complexities of conservation, but additionally, has to consider the wide array of public opinion on their protection.
The situated contexts of coyotes in San Diego, indigenous groups in the Amazon Rainforest, and grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains all help me to further understand the biological, social, cultural, political, and economic actors involved in apex predator conservation.
Crooks, K. R., & Soulé, M. E. 1999. “Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system.” Nature, 400(6744), 563-566.
Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., … & Wardle, D. A. 2011. “Trophic downgrading of planet Earth.” science, 333(6040), 301-306.
Holt, Flora Lu. 2005. “The Catch-22 of Conservation: Indigenous Peoples, Biologists, and Cultural Change.” Human Ecology 33, no. 2 199–215.
Primm, Steven A. 1996. “A pragmatic approach to grizzly bear conservation.” Conservation Biology 10, no. 4 1026-1035.
Ritchie, Euan G., Bodil Elmhagen, Alistair S. Glen, Mike Letnic, Gilbert Ludwig, and Robbie A. McDonald. 2012. “Ecosystem Restoration with Teeth: What Role for Predators?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27, no. 5 265–71.
Sergio, Fabrizio, Ian Newton, Luigi Marchesi, and Paolo Pedrini. 2006. “Ecologically Justified Charisma: Preservation of Top Predators Delivers Biodiversity Conservation.” Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, no. 6 1049–55.
Sergio, Fabrizio, Tim Caro, Danielle Brown, Barbara Clucas, Jennifer Hunter, James Ketchum, Katherine McHugh, and Fernando Hiraldo. 2008. “Top Predators as Conservation Tools: Ecological Rationale, Assumptions, and Efficacy.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39 1–19.
Treves, Adrian, Lisa Naughton-Treves, Elizabeth K. Harper, David J. Mladenoff, Robert A. Rose, Theodore A. Sickley, and Adrian P. Wydeven. 2004. “Predicting Human-Carnivore Conflict: A Spatial Model Derived from 25 Years of Data on Wolf Predation on Livestock.” Conservation Biology 18, no. 1 114–25.
Zimmerman, B., Peres, C. A., Malcolm, J. R., & Turner, T. 2001. “Conservation and development alliances with the Kayapó of south-eastern Amazonia, a tropical forest indigenous people.” Environmental Conservation, 28(01), 10-22.
Questions
- Descriptive: Why are population numbers of apex predators declining? What are the negative externalities of protecting apex predators that reside near human settlements? Which species drive tourism in a region? When do conservation efforts come into direct conflict with human interests?
- Explanatory: How does our proximity to certain apex predator affect our perceptions of them and our desire to protect their habitats? Why are some species seen as more “charismatic” than others? In what ways should we balance national and local interests when considering apex predator protection?
- Evaluative: How is tourism impacting where funding for conservation goes? Is the role apex predators play in promoting biodiversity enough to justify increased conservation efforts, more funding, and heightened public awareness? Is it ethical to prioritize the conservation of some species over the conservation of others? Who are the winners and losers associated with apex predator protection? Who prioritizes biodiversity conservation?
- Instrumental: What can be done to minimize the risk associated with apex predators? How does a single-species conservation approach compare to other forms of protection in terms of successful results? How can we ensure that conservation actions are effective and will continue to be implemented over time and space?
Concentration courses
- ENVS 499 (Independent Study, 4 credits) 2 credits before and after Spring 2017. Researching apex predators and conservation efforts on a deeper level with the guidance from a faculty member.
- ENVS 350 (Environmental Theory, 4 credits) Spring 2016. This class will further my thinking in ENVS generally and translate into a deeper understanding of the theories behind my concentration.
- SOAN 306 (Social Permaculture, 4 credits) Spring 2016. By learning about the interactions of humans and ecological systems, I can furthur my understanding of environmental sociology and apply these intereactions to human-apex predator interactions for my concentration.
- ENVS 460 (Environmental Law and Policy) Fall 2016. Having a better understanding of environmental law can give me a better idea of how to make change larger scale changes. Additionally, learning more about policies such as the Endangered Species Act would deepen my thinking about my concentration.
- GEOL 170 (Climate Change, 5 credits) Fall 2017. Understanding climate change will help me furthur understands its impact on biodiversity.
Arts and humanities courses
- HIST 261 (Global Environmental History, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- PHIL 103 (Ethics, 4 credits). Moral philosophy and its contemporary applications, such as conservation.