Should species be propagated in different oceans?
- Thread starter Bill2
- Start date
Bill2":2v7cslvs said:
Hi Bill,
The link below is from the World Conservation Union's website and is there policy on introductions:
http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/transe.htm
It would be worth the clubs having a look at it.
Generally, introductions ...or moving non native species into new areas ... is considered a really bad thing. You have potential for disease introduction and disruption of native ecological communities (through competition with local species) etc.
There is a long history of introductions that have gone badly (trout stocking that wipes out native fish)... and of "invasions" (which are really just unintentional introductions) that have also been a nightmare (zebra mussels come to mind in the great lakes)
I'm also not sure about the legality but I must say, as an ecologist, I'd strongly discourage it.
Thanks for bringing this to the board.
Best wishes,
Blue hula
Bill2":3lp4bebx said:
Glad to hear Bill and thanks for the clarification ... the suggestion of bringing the link to club members' attention was more by way of fending off such approaches in the future ... the broader the awareness of the problems of moving things around (or releasing your Indopacific angel off Florida) ... the less frequently it will happen.
Cheers, Blue hula
Bill,
I think we need a little more information before we can make a judgement. What is your definition of coral farm? Is it open ocean or land based closed systems? I realize the potential harm from introduced species, but we may be applying a double standard here. I recently got a shipment from ORA in Ft. Pierce, Florida. They are culturing what appears to be Indo Pacific zooanthids and sps frags. How is that different from someone over there culturing our zoos and ricordia?
Mitch
I think we need a little more information before we can make a judgement. What is your definition of coral farm? Is it open ocean or land based closed systems? I realize the potential harm from introduced species, but we may be applying a double standard here. I recently got a shipment from ORA in Ft. Pierce, Florida. They are culturing what appears to be Indo Pacific zooanthids and sps frags. How is that different from someone over there culturing our zoos and ricordia?
Mitch
dizzy":2560icpp said:
The coral farms I'm aware of in Indo are all open systems (either in the sea or flow through) hence the direct risk of wild release ... but it would be good to know more.
Had the US signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, they would be in contravention for culturing species not found in US waters. But then, free market access to other nations' biodiversity was a major reason the US didn't sign up :wink:
Blue Hula
Hi Blue, Bill...
"Generally, introductions ...or moving non native species into new areas ... is considered a really bad thing"
Agreed, but...
What about ICLARM and the nearly foreign species of Tridacnids that were so productively propagated here, right? Nobody bothered to study any possible downside to it, and ICLARM was widely lauded for it.
I think it's sometimes a case of
"Kill one person you're a murderer. Kill a million, and you're a conqueror."
If you site this putative farm where distance and cold currents somewhat isolate a coral reef island, as with certain well-exploited *cough*"Fiji"*cough* locations, then it's perhaps politically workable, especially if you consider the increasingly global (and increasingly rapid) genetic traffic.
Useless to pretend that there can ever be zero leakage of non-native genetic material from a containment, natural or fabricated. There's really no such thing as closed-circuit in the real world --just ask the poor folks at Monaco.
"Generally, introductions ...or moving non native species into new areas ... is considered a really bad thing"
Agreed, but...
What about ICLARM and the nearly foreign species of Tridacnids that were so productively propagated here, right? Nobody bothered to study any possible downside to it, and ICLARM was widely lauded for it.
I think it's sometimes a case of
"Kill one person you're a murderer. Kill a million, and you're a conqueror."
If you site this putative farm where distance and cold currents somewhat isolate a coral reef island, as with certain well-exploited *cough*"Fiji"*cough* locations, then it's perhaps politically workable, especially if you consider the increasingly global (and increasingly rapid) genetic traffic.
Useless to pretend that there can ever be zero leakage of non-native genetic material from a containment, natural or fabricated. There's really no such thing as closed-circuit in the real world --just ask the poor folks at Monaco.
Horge, Please clarify what you mean by "the nearly foreign giant clams here". My understanding was that giant clams are native to te Philippines. Where is here? Furthermore if you were referring to the Philippines, wasn't it UPMSI and Silliman that had (have) clam propagation/restoration programs rather than ICLARM? I would be more concered about those propagating giant clams in the Caribbean Sea.
Peter
Peter
Horge,
The reason I put the link up was so that people could see under which conditions introductions would be considered appropriate ... as opposed to a blanket ban.
If the species exists in the area already (I too thought tridacna were native to the Phils) it is more of a stocking issue for which guidelines have also been developed (same website as above).
As to past sins ... I think the shift away from introductions represents an increased understanding of the down side of such activities rather than being hung for a sheep ... kind of like suntanning with oil rather than UV67.5 in Australia
Invasive species, of which introduced ones are merely a planned invasion, have been identified as a major threat to the planets biodiversity, right up there with overexploitation and habitat degradation.
There is also that niggly issue that if it ain't your biodiversity, you shouldn't be profiting from it without giving something back to the country/ies from which it came (UN Convention on Biodiversity)
Blue hula
The reason I put the link up was so that people could see under which conditions introductions would be considered appropriate ... as opposed to a blanket ban.
If the species exists in the area already (I too thought tridacna were native to the Phils) it is more of a stocking issue for which guidelines have also been developed (same website as above).
As to past sins ... I think the shift away from introductions represents an increased understanding of the down side of such activities rather than being hung for a sheep ... kind of like suntanning with oil rather than UV67.5 in Australia
Invasive species, of which introduced ones are merely a planned invasion, have been identified as a major threat to the planets biodiversity, right up there with overexploitation and habitat degradation.
There is also that niggly issue that if it ain't your biodiversity, you shouldn't be profiting from it without giving something back to the country/ies from which it came (UN Convention on Biodiversity)
Blue hula
Hi Peter,
Sorry it took so long to respond.
I just woke up an hour ago.
I never said it wasn't MSI that did the wetwork
My point was ICLARM got all the praise (didn't it?). Pretty soon everyone wanted a piece of MSI's action, from SEAFDEC to the 700 Club!
In any case, bringing Gerry Heslinga into the picture was the dealmaker, and maybe you know what inclusion of a white foreigner-consultant can do to open doors for a local project, locally.
That's all a bunch of IIRC's, as it was some time ago. For a better picture of how it started, maybe one can try to channel Romeo Liwag and Ed Gomez.Not a slam on anyone. I'd long admired Gerry's work, used to be friendly with Romy, and I'm aware IMA had a productive tie-up (reef restoration program) with MSI for clam reintroduction.
As to foreign species?
7 (nearly all) species of Tridacna are indigenous to the Philippines...so goes the rote statistic.
But the Philippines could easily be broken up into 7 countries, a thousand islands each.
It would be difficult to pretend that species profiles
heed political boundaries, in effect rendering the entire Philippine marine territory as biologically homogenous. Bolinao (I might as well zero in) never had so many species of Tridacna and Hippopus before (at least that old surveys can show). I think Edu Gomez maybe went a little crazy with the baby clam handouts, sometimes without prior survey of the target sites.
But again --geez, I'm not slamming the now-venerable effort of clam-prop, just using it as an example.
Tridacnids are relatively harmless residents, and the programs WERE a huge success by all accounts. Scleractinian coral (and even hexacorals) on the other hand are real estate hogs and can more ably push out indigenous sessile species.
My point was that not ALL introductions of foreign species carry environmental or especially political risk (Tridacnids/Phils. as an example); and no effort to insulate a foreign-species mariculture program from unwanted genetic leakage is foolproof (Monaco as an example).
***
Have you got a reliable link to this Carib clam prop, Peter? I'd never really paid heed to it, but now you've got me curious.
Thanks.
Sorry it took so long to respond.
I just woke up an hour ago.
I never said it wasn't MSI that did the wetwork
My point was ICLARM got all the praise (didn't it?). Pretty soon everyone wanted a piece of MSI's action, from SEAFDEC to the 700 Club!
In any case, bringing Gerry Heslinga into the picture was the dealmaker, and maybe you know what inclusion of a white foreigner-consultant can do to open doors for a local project, locally.
That's all a bunch of IIRC's, as it was some time ago. For a better picture of how it started, maybe one can try to channel Romeo Liwag and Ed Gomez.Not a slam on anyone. I'd long admired Gerry's work, used to be friendly with Romy, and I'm aware IMA had a productive tie-up (reef restoration program) with MSI for clam reintroduction.
As to foreign species?
7 (nearly all) species of Tridacna are indigenous to the Philippines...so goes the rote statistic.
But the Philippines could easily be broken up into 7 countries, a thousand islands each.
It would be difficult to pretend that species profiles
heed political boundaries, in effect rendering the entire Philippine marine territory as biologically homogenous. Bolinao (I might as well zero in) never had so many species of Tridacna and Hippopus before (at least that old surveys can show). I think Edu Gomez maybe went a little crazy with the baby clam handouts, sometimes without prior survey of the target sites.
But again --geez, I'm not slamming the now-venerable effort of clam-prop, just using it as an example.
Tridacnids are relatively harmless residents, and the programs WERE a huge success by all accounts. Scleractinian coral (and even hexacorals) on the other hand are real estate hogs and can more ably push out indigenous sessile species.
My point was that not ALL introductions of foreign species carry environmental or especially political risk (Tridacnids/Phils. as an example); and no effort to insulate a foreign-species mariculture program from unwanted genetic leakage is foolproof (Monaco as an example).
***
Have you got a reliable link to this Carib clam prop, Peter? I'd never really paid heed to it, but now you've got me curious.
Thanks.
Good morning, Blue
That's an interesting, if anachronistically-noble philosophy, Jessica.
I don't think it'll fly because of economic globalization. Too easy for someone to set up a shell registered to/based in the 'origin' countries, then claim it's a 'local' operation profiting the locals. Creative bookkeeping takes care of the rest.
I missed your post in replying to Peter, but I think I addressed the roblem with the definition of 'foreign' in my reply. Yes 7 species can be found in parts of the Philippines, but 7,100 islands worth of coastline, and the waters between aren't going to be biologically homogenous.
I'm off to work!
blue hula":2woxd9xq said:
That's an interesting, if anachronistically-noble philosophy, Jessica.
I don't think it'll fly because of economic globalization. Too easy for someone to set up a shell registered to/based in the 'origin' countries, then claim it's a 'local' operation profiting the locals. Creative bookkeeping takes care of the rest.
I missed your post in replying to Peter, but I think I addressed the roblem with the definition of 'foreign' in my reply. Yes 7 species can be found in parts of the Philippines, but 7,100 islands worth of coastline, and the waters between aren't going to be biologically homogenous.
I'm off to work!
Horge,
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I know that 7 out of the 9 species of giant clams are native to the Philippines, and have been cultured by the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute (Dr. Ed Gomez) and by Silliman University (Dr. Angel Alcala and associates). I visited the Silliman clam facility in Dumagete in 1987. Dr. Gomez is still collaborating with IMA in a clam restoration program and more clams have been placed on the coral farm that IMA maintains on Olango Island (created by Dr. Thomas Heeger in 1999). Your comments about not all species of clams being everywhere in PI is true, but it probably was that way historically as well. I did note giant clam shells (not sure what species) when I visited Santiago Island (near Bolinao) with Steve Robinson and Don McAllister in 1986. I certainly hope that the clam restoration programs can be expanded in PI. My TURFs paper discussed how Gerry Heslinga pioneered clam culture in Palau, and how ICLARM took up the idea and created a hatchery in the Solomons (now destroyed during civil unrest several years ago).
I am not sure where there is a hatchery tied to exports to the aquarium trade now. I was told by my local LFS that the clams they had were wild harvested in Vietnam.
As far as the issue of tranlocation of clams, translocatrion within PI is not as serious as translocation of marine inverts between different oceans. Like Blue Hula I am against tranlocations
into other oceans. However, I agree that giant clams appear to be rather benign. So, if it has already occurred in Belize or elsewhere in the Caribbean, there has yet to be a hue and cry.
I ended up announcing that Pacific white shrimp had escaped into the Lower Laguna Madre (on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico) from an aquaculture facility near Brownsville, Texas (about 1994). This put all the fisheries managers into a frenzy. There is good evidence that Pacific white shrimp carry a harmful virus. The fear was that it would jump to Atlantic white shrimp and devastate the fishery. Texas Parks and Wildlife spent months trying to recapture the escaped Pacifics using trawls.
PS-If anyone knows where to purchase cultured giant clams (legally with CITES permits), please let me know.
Peter Rubec
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I know that 7 out of the 9 species of giant clams are native to the Philippines, and have been cultured by the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute (Dr. Ed Gomez) and by Silliman University (Dr. Angel Alcala and associates). I visited the Silliman clam facility in Dumagete in 1987. Dr. Gomez is still collaborating with IMA in a clam restoration program and more clams have been placed on the coral farm that IMA maintains on Olango Island (created by Dr. Thomas Heeger in 1999). Your comments about not all species of clams being everywhere in PI is true, but it probably was that way historically as well. I did note giant clam shells (not sure what species) when I visited Santiago Island (near Bolinao) with Steve Robinson and Don McAllister in 1986. I certainly hope that the clam restoration programs can be expanded in PI. My TURFs paper discussed how Gerry Heslinga pioneered clam culture in Palau, and how ICLARM took up the idea and created a hatchery in the Solomons (now destroyed during civil unrest several years ago).
I am not sure where there is a hatchery tied to exports to the aquarium trade now. I was told by my local LFS that the clams they had were wild harvested in Vietnam.
As far as the issue of tranlocation of clams, translocatrion within PI is not as serious as translocation of marine inverts between different oceans. Like Blue Hula I am against tranlocations
into other oceans. However, I agree that giant clams appear to be rather benign. So, if it has already occurred in Belize or elsewhere in the Caribbean, there has yet to be a hue and cry.
I ended up announcing that Pacific white shrimp had escaped into the Lower Laguna Madre (on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico) from an aquaculture facility near Brownsville, Texas (about 1994). This put all the fisheries managers into a frenzy. There is good evidence that Pacific white shrimp carry a harmful virus. The fear was that it would jump to Atlantic white shrimp and devastate the fishery. Texas Parks and Wildlife spent months trying to recapture the escaped Pacifics using trawls.
PS-If anyone knows where to purchase cultured giant clams (legally with CITES permits), please let me know.
Peter Rubec
Tonga has cultured clams Durasa, squa, and max....each week...The Island is managed By the Australian fisheries...........and is not part of CITES... There are no Clams being imported illegally ...........Fish and wild life is anal about even having one too many clams in a shipment and they will confiscate all three hundred .........if they fiind 301 in the shipment............The only way to sneak clams in past Fish and Wildlife, Customs or the Airlines is to send them as general cargo...........which means they will be left out in the cold or heat and spend sixty hours in the bags.........and if one box leaks..........your busted.........Not worth the impossible odds to try and land a clam alive like that. ...............even ultra Croceas only fetch ten bucks in island money so whats the point.......... I can send you some clams if you would like? :wink:
horge":1od6tk5q said:
It ain't noble and it ain't anachronistic ...
The policy is entrenched in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. It was established primarily in response to bioprospecting in Amazonian rain forests and is broadly discussed / implemented in the pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors. Costa Rica has benefited from the policy and it is one of the reasons Australia is busy logging all of its marine sponges etc. And it is also one of the main reasons the US did not sign the treaty. Heaven forbid their ability to patent other countries' biodiversity would be infringed upon.
Although I take your point about 7000 islands ... the issue of an introduction within Phils is an ecological question (somestiems discussed under teh heading of translocations). However, the application of the Convention is done at a national level because nations are signatories.
By the by, Australia technically owes Canada and the US as Atlantic salmon is cultured here as "Tasmanian salmon". LOL.
Cheers,
Blue Hula
Re: Ballast Water. You're absolutely right ... ballast water is a potential source of invasive species and to this end, there are a number of regulations and strategies to try and reduce the likelihood of invasions via ballast water.
In considering possible ecological implications, there is however a significant difference. Larvae have an extrmely high mortality rate and the probabiity of sufficient numbers of larvae actually surviving to adult hood based on an inappropriate release of ballast water is relatively low. This would especially be the case for a coastal species released well offshore- it would have to survive, make it to the coast, settle on appropriate habitat etc., beat out the local competition, survive to adulthood, find another one to mate with and then do the bunny thing (if one were to get ecological impacts). My guess is also that fewer diseases are associated with larvae.
Indeed, establishing yourself in a new area as an invasive species usually requires a number of tries ... Jake van der Zanden has some interesting pubications in the scientific lit if anyone is interested.
This is different from someone establishing adult broodstock, caring and nuturing them such that there is a high probabiity of survivorship and high probabiity of reproductive success (plus, if the first batch dies ... send in the next).
Also, the argument that ballast water is a bigger problem so who cares about deliberate introductions is akin to Kalk's argument that since foodfishing is so huge compared to aquarium collection, we can do whatever we want.
And finally, you're still left with the equity issue based on the deliberate use of and profit from another nation's biodiversity.
Cheers, Blue Hula
In considering possible ecological implications, there is however a significant difference. Larvae have an extrmely high mortality rate and the probabiity of sufficient numbers of larvae actually surviving to adult hood based on an inappropriate release of ballast water is relatively low. This would especially be the case for a coastal species released well offshore- it would have to survive, make it to the coast, settle on appropriate habitat etc., beat out the local competition, survive to adulthood, find another one to mate with and then do the bunny thing (if one were to get ecological impacts). My guess is also that fewer diseases are associated with larvae.
Indeed, establishing yourself in a new area as an invasive species usually requires a number of tries ... Jake van der Zanden has some interesting pubications in the scientific lit if anyone is interested.
This is different from someone establishing adult broodstock, caring and nuturing them such that there is a high probabiity of survivorship and high probabiity of reproductive success (plus, if the first batch dies ... send in the next).
Also, the argument that ballast water is a bigger problem so who cares about deliberate introductions is akin to Kalk's argument that since foodfishing is so huge compared to aquarium collection, we can do whatever we want.
And finally, you're still left with the equity issue based on the deliberate use of and profit from another nation's biodiversity.
Cheers, Blue Hula
blue hula":1syjsums said:
Damn blue,
You mean to tell us that buying cultured animals from an American facility should come with a guilt trip? I guess the neon gobies, peppermint shrimp, and sea mat are still ok to feel good about. ... But wait, what's that you say? Someone is speaking at MO that may even cast doubt on some of those claims. :evil: What's left to make a person feel good about this hobby? I'm sure glad I enjoy keeping aquariums, otherwise I'd probably just get out of it.
Mitch
dizzy":2youuv04 said:
You're ok. The American Gov't didn't sign.
The spirit of the Convention is that there is some benefit to the "supply" country... a surtax (yeah, I'm Canadian) that went into conservation / environmental protection in the supply country, technology transfer etc.
Ironically, news just broke in Australia that an American company has copyrited the name "Ugg Boots", a kind of ugly (hence the term) sheepskin boot common Down Under and of which the Aussies are very fond. It is a generic term (like "car") and used by a whole host of brandname companies ... Farmer Bob's Ugg Boots for instance. The Australian companies are now being told that they can't call use the term ugg. It would be the equivalent of an Aussie company copyriting the term "hamburger" and suing McDonalds if they used it.
All the same game ... biodiversity, boots ... all about property rights and profit.
Enjoy your tank, the world is a mad place.
Blue hula
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
