conservation

editorial:-mammoth-de-extinction-is-bad-conservation

Editorial: Mammoth de-extinction is bad conservation


Anti-extinction vs. de-extinction

Ecosystems are inconveniently complex, and elephants won’t make good surrogates.

Are we ready for mammoths when we can’t handle existing human-pachyderm conflicts? Credit: chuchart duangdaw

The start-up Colossal Biosciences aims to use gene-editing technology to bring back the woolly mammoth and other extinct species. Recently, the company achieved major milestones: last year, they generated stem cells for the Asian elephant, the mammoth’s closest living relative, and this month they published photos of genetically modified mice with long, mammoth-like coats. According to the company’s founders, including Harvard and MIT professor George Church, these advances take Colossal a big step closer to their goal of using mammoths to combat climate change by restoring Arctic grassland ecosystems. Church also claims that Colossal’s woolly mammoth program will help protect endangered species like the Asian elephant, saying “we’re injecting money into conservation efforts.”

In other words, the scientific advances Colossal makes in their lab will result in positive changes from the tropics to the Arctic, from the soil to the atmosphere.

Colossal’s Jurassic Park-like ambitions have captured the imagination of the public and investors, bringing its latest valuation to $10 billion. And the company’s research does seem to be resulting in some technical advances. But I’d argue that the broader effort to de-extinct the mammoth is—as far as conservation efforts go—incredibly misguided. Ultimately, Colossal’s efforts won’t end up being about helping wild elephants or saving the climate. They’ll be about creating creatures for human spectacle, with insufficient attention to the costs and opportunity costs to human and animal life.

Shaky evidence

The Colossal website explains how they believe resurrected mammoths could help fight climate change: “cold-tolerant elephant mammoth hybrids grazing the grasslands… [will] scrape away layers of snow, so that the cold air can reach the soil.” This will reportedly help prevent permafrost from melting, blocking the release of greenhouse gasses currently trapped in the soil. Furthermore, by knocking down trees and maintaining grasslands, Colossal says, mammoths will help slow snowmelt, ensuring Arctic ecosystems absorb less sunlight.

Conservationists often claim that the reason to save charismatic species is that they are necessary for the sound functioning of the ecosystems that support humankind. Perhaps the most well-known of these stories is about the ecological changes wolves drove when they were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park. Through some 25 peer-reviewed papers, two ecologists claimed to demonstrate that the reappearance of wolves in Yellowstone changed the behavior of elk, causing them to spend less time browsing the saplings of trees near rivers. This led to a chain of cause and effect (a trophic cascade) that affected beavers, birds, and even the flow of the river. A YouTube video on the phenomenon called “How Wolves Change Rivers” has been viewed more than 45 million times.

But other scientists were unable to replicate these findings—they discovered that the original statistics were flawed, and that human hunters likely contributed to elk population declines in Yellowstone.Ultimately, a 2019 review of the evidence by a team of researchers concluded that “the most robust science suggests trophic cascades are not evident in Yellowstone.” Similar ecological claims about tigers and sharks as apex predators also fail to withstand scientific scrutiny.

Elephants—widely described as “keystone species”—are also stars of a host of similar ecological stories. Many are featured on the Colossal website, including one of the most common claims about the role elephants play in seed dispersal. “Across all environments,” reads the website, “elephant dung filled with seeds serve to spread plants […] boosting the overall health of the ecosystem.” But would the disappearance of elephants really result in major changes in plant life? After all, some of the world’s grandest forests (like the Amazon) have survived for millennia after the disappearance of mammoth-sized megafauna.

For my PhD research in northeast India, I tried to systematically measure how important Asian elephants were for seed dispersal compared to other animals in the ecosystem; our team’s work, published in five peer-reviewed ecological journals (reviewed here), does find that elephants are uniquely good at dispersing the seeds of a few large-fruited species. But we also found that domestic cattle and macaques disperse some species’ seeds quite well, and that 80 percent of seeds dispersed in elephant dung end up eaten by ants. After several years of study, I cannot say with confidence that the forests where I worked would be drastically different in the absence of elephants.

The evidence for how living elephants affect carbon sequestration is also quite mixed. On the one hand, one paper finds that African forest elephants knock down softwood trees, making way for hardwood trees that sequester more carbon. But on the other hand, many more researchers looking at African savannas have found that elephants knock down lots of trees, converting forests into savannas and reducing carbon sequestration.

Colossal’s website offers links to peer-reviewed research that support their suppositions on the ecological role of woolly mammoths. A key study offers intriguing evidence that keeping large herbivores—reindeer, Yakutian horses, moose, musk ox, European bison, yaks, and cold-adapted sheep—at artificially high levels in a tussock grassland helped achieve colder ground temperatures, ostensibly protecting permafrost. But the study raises lots of questions: is it possible to boost these herbivores’ populations across the whole northern latitudes? If so, why do we need mammoths at all—why not just use species that already exist, which would surely be cheaper?

Plus, as ecologist Michelle Mack noted, as the winters warm due to climate change, too much trampling or sweeping away of snow could have the opposite effect, helping warm the soils underneath more quickly—if so, mammoths could be worse for the climate, not better.

All this is to say that ecosystems are diverse and messy, and those of us working in functional ecology don’t always discover consistent patterns. Researchers in the field often struggle to find robust evidence for how a living species affects modern-day ecosystems—surely it is far harder to understand how a creature extinct for around 10,000 years shaped its environment? And harder still to predict how it would shape tomorrow’s ecosystems? In effect, Colossal’s ecological narrative relies on that difficulty. But just because claims about the distant past are harder to fact-check doesn’t mean they are more likely to be true.

Ethical blind spots

Colossal’s website spells out 10 steps for mammoth resurrection. Steps nine and 10 are: “implant the early embryo into the healthy Asian or African elephant surrogates,” and “care for the surrogates in a world-class conservation facility for the duration of the gestation and afterward.”

Colossal’s cavalier plans to use captive elephants as surrogates for mammoth calves illustrate an old problem in modern wildlife conservation: indifference towards individual animal suffering. Leading international conservation NGOs lack animal welfare policies that would push conservationists to ask whether the costs of interventions in terms of animal welfare outweigh the biodiversity benefits. Over the years, that absence has resulted in a range of questionable decisions.

Colossal’s efforts take this apathy towards individual animals into hyperdrive. Despite society’s thousands of years of experience with Asian elephants, conservationists struggle to breed them in captivity. Asian elephants in modern zoo facilities suffer from infertility and lose their calves to stillbirth and infanticides almost twice as often as elephants in semi-wild conditions. Such problems will almost certainly be compounded when scientists try to have elephants deliver babies created in the lab, with a hodge podge of features from Asian elephants and mammoths.

Even in the best-case scenario, there would likely be many, many failed efforts to produce a viable organism before Colossal gets to a herd that can survive. This necessarily trial-and-error process could lead to incredible suffering for both elephant mothers and mammoth calves along the way. Elephants in the wild have been observed experiencing heartbreaking grief when their calves die, sometimes carrying their babies’ corpses for days—a grief the mother elephants might very well be subjected to as they are separated from their calves or find themselves unable to keep their chimeric offspring alive.

For the calves that do survive, their edited genomes could lead to chronic conditions, and the ancient mammoth gut microbiome might be impossible to resurrect, leading to digestive dysfunction. Then there will likely be social problems. Research finds that Asian elephants in Western zoos don’t live as long as wild elephants, and elephant researchers often bemoan the limited space, stimulation, and companionship available to elephants in captivity. These problems will surely also plague surviving animals.

Introduction to the wild will probably result in even more suffering: elephant experts recommend against introducing captive animals “that have had no natural foraging experience at all” to the wild as they are likely to experience “significant hardship.” Modern elephants survive not just through instinct, but through culture—matriarch-led herds teach calves what to eat and how to survive, providing a nurturing environment. We have good reason to believe mammoths also needed cultural instruction to survive. How many elephant/mammoth chimeras will suffer false starts and tragic deaths in the punishing Arctic without the social conditions that allowed them to thrive millennia ago?

Opportunity costs

If Colossal (or Colossal’s investors) really wish to foster Asian elephant conservation or combat climate change, they have many better options. The opportunity costs are especially striking for Asian elephant conservation: while over a trillion dollars is spent combatting climate change annually, the funds available to address the myriad of problems facing wild Asian elephants are far smaller. Take the example of India, the country with the largest population of wild Asian elephants in the world (estimated at 27,000) in a sea of 1.4 billion human beings.

Indians generally revere elephants and tolerate a great deal of hardship to enable coexistence—about 500 humans are killed due to human-elephant conflict annually there. But as a middle-income country continuing to struggle with widespread poverty, the federal government typically budgets less than $4M for Project Elephant, its flagship elephant conservation program. That’s less than $200 per wild elephant and 1/2000th as much as Colossal has raised so far. India’s conservation NGOs generally have even smaller budgets for their elephant work. The result is that conservationists are a decade behindwhere they expected to be in mapping where elephants range.

With Colossal’s budget, Asian elephant conservation NGOs could tackle the real threats to the survival of elephants: human-elephant conflict, loss of habitat and connectivity, poaching, and the spread of invasive plants unpalatable to elephants. Some conservationists are exploring creative schemes to help keep people and elephants safe from each other. There are also community-based efforts toremove invasive species like Lantana camara and restore native vegetation. Funds could enable development of an AI-powered system that allows the automated identification and monitoring of individual elephants. There is also a need for improved compensation schemes to ensure those who lose crops or property to wild elephants are made whole again.

As a US-based synthetic biology company, Colossal could also use its employees’ skills much more effectively to fight climate change. Perhaps they could genetically engineer trees and shrubs to sequester more carbon. Or Colossal could help us learn to produce meat from modified microbes or cultivated lines of cow, pig, and chicken cells, developing alternative proteins that could more efficiently feed the planet, protecting wildlife habitat and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The question is whether Colossal’s leaders and supporters are willing to pivot from a project that grabs news headlines to ones that would likely make positive differences. By tempting us with the resurrection of a long-dead creature, Colossal forces us to ask: do we want conservation to be primarily about feeding an unreflective imagination? Or do we want evidence, logic, and ethics to be central to our relationships with other species? For anyone who really cares about the climate, elephants, or animals in general, de-extincting the mammoth represents a huge waste and a colossal mistake.

Nitin Sekar served as the national lead for elephant conservation at WWF India for five years and is now a member of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Species Survival Commission The views presented here are his own.

Editorial: Mammoth de-extinction is bad conservation Read More »

federal-firings-could-wreak-havoc-on-great-lakes-fishery

Federal firings could wreak havoc on Great Lakes fishery

Her performance reviews for the last year had been glowing, so the letter made no sense. “It’s not a real explanation,” she said.

The USFWS layoffs will not affect the sea lamprey control program in Canada, McClinchey said. “The Canadian government has assured us that the money from Canada will continue to be there and we’re on track to deliver a full program in Canadian waters,” he said. “That’s great, but this program works because it’s border blind.”

In other words: Cuts to lamprey control in US waters are a threat to fish and fishermen everywhere on the Great Lakes.

Just a week ago, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission faced a more dire staffing situation, as the USFWS informed directors they’d also be unable to hire seasonal workers to spread lampricide come April. Within a few days, that hiring freeze was reversed, said McClinchey.

This reversal gives him a bit of hope. “That at least tells us no one is rooting for the lamprey,” he said.

McClinchey is currently in DC for appropriation season, presenting the commission’s work to members of Congress and defending the agency’s budget. It’s an annual trip, but this year he’s also advocating for the reinstatement of laid-off lamprey control employees.

He is optimistic. “It seems clear to me that it’s important we preserve this program, and so far everyone we’ve encountered thinks that way and are working to that end,” he said.

Cutting back the program isn’t really on the table for the commission. Even minor cuts to scope would be devastating for the fishery, he said.

Even the former USFWS employee from Marquette is remaining hopeful. “I still think that they’re going to scramble to make it happen,” she said. “Because it’s not really an option to just stop treating for a whole season.”

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Federal firings could wreak havoc on Great Lakes fishery Read More »

return-of-the-california-condor

Return of the California Condor


North America’s largest bird disappeared from the wild in the late 1980s.

The spring morning is cool and bright in the Sierra de San Pedro Mártir National Park in Baja California, Mexico, as a bird takes to the skies. Its 9.8-foot wingspan casts a looming silhouette against the sunlight; the sound of its flight is like that of a light aircraft cutting through the wind. In this forest thick with trees up to 600 years old lives the southernmost population of the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), the only one outside the United States. Dozens of the scavenging birds have been reintroduced here, to live and breed once again in the wild.

Their return has been captained for more than 20 years by biologist Juan Vargas Velasco and his partner María Catalina Porras Peña, a couple who long ago moved away from the comforts of the city to endure extreme winters living in a tent or small trailer, to manage the lives of the 48 condors known to fly over Mexican territory. Together—she as coordinator of the California Condor Conservation Program, and he as field manager—they are the guardians of a project whose origins go back to condor recovery efforts that began in the 1980s in the United States, when populations were decimated, mainly from eating the meat of animals shot by hunters’ lead bullets.

In Mexico, the species disappeared even earlier, in the late 1930s. Its historic return—the first captive-bred condors were released into Mexican territory in 2002—is the result of close binational collaboration among zoos and other institutions in the United States and Mexico.

Beyond the number on the wing that identifies each individual, Porras Peña knows perfectly the history and behavior of the condors under her care. She recognizes them without needing binoculars and speaks of them as one would speak of the lives of friends.

She captures her knowledge in an Excel log: a database including information such as origin, ID tag, name, sex, age, date of birth, date of arrival, first release, and number in the Studbook (an international registry used to track the ancestry and offspring of each individual of a species through a unique number). Also noted is wildlife status, happily marked for most birds with a single word: “Free.” Names such as Galan, Nera, Pai Pai, La Querida, Celestino, and El Patriota stand out in the record.

The California condor, North America’s largest bird, has taken flight again. It’s a feat made possible by well-established collaborations between the US and Mexico, economic investment, the dedication of many people, and, above all, the scientific understanding of the species—from the decoding of its genome and knowledge of its diseases and reproductive habits to the use of technologies that can closely follow each individual bird.

But many challenges remain for the California condor, which 10,000 years ago dominated the skies over the Pacific coast of the Americas, from southern Canada to northern Mexico. Researchers need to assemble wild populations that are capable of breeding without human assistance, and with the confidence that more birds are hatched than die. It is a tough battle against extinction, waged day in and day out by teams in California, Arizona, and Utah in the United States, and Mexico City and Baja California in Mexico.

A shift in approach to conservation

The US California Condor Recovery Program, initiated in the 1970s, represented an enormous change in the strategy of species conservation. After unsuccessful habitat preservation attempts, and as a last-ditch attempt to try to save the scavenger bird from extinction, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Fish and Game Commission advocated for a decision as bold as it was controversial: to capture the last condors alive in the wild and commit to breeding them in captivity.

Some two dozen condors sacrificed their freedom in order to save their lineage. On April 19, 1987, the last condor was captured, marking a critical moment for the species: On that day, the California condor became officially extinct in the wild.

At the same time, a captive breeding program was launched, offering a ray of hope for a species that, beyond its own magnificence, plays an important role in the health of ecosystems—efficiently eliminating the remains of dead animals, thus preventing the proliferation of diseases and environmental pollution.

This is what is defined as a refaunation project, says Rodolfo Dirzo, a Stanford University biologist. It’s the flip side to the term defaunation that he and his colleagues coined in a 2014 article in Science to refer to the global extinction or significant losses of an animal species. Defaunation today is widespread: Although animal diversity is the highest in the planet’s history, modern vertebrate extinction rates are up to 100—even 1,000—times higher than in the past (excepting cataclysmic events causing mass extinctions, such as the meteorite that killed off the dinosaurs), Dirzo and colleagues explain in an article in the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics.

Refaunation, Dirzo says, involves reintroducing individuals of a species into areas where they once lived but no longer do. He believes that both the term and the practice should be more common: “Just as we are very accustomed to the term and practice of reforestation, we should do the same with refaunation,” he says.

The map shows the regions where the California condor is currently found: northern Arizona, southern Utah, and California in the United States and Baja California in Mexico.

Credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service

The map shows the regions where the California condor is currently found: northern Arizona, southern Utah, and California in the United States and Baja California in Mexico. Credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service

The California Condor Recovery Program produced its first results in a short time. In 1988, just one year after the collection of the last wild condors, researchers at the San Diego Zoo announced the first captive birth of a California condor chick.

The technique of double or triple clutching followed, to greater success. Condors are monogamous and usually have a single brood every two years, explains Fernando Gual, who until October 2024 was director general of zoos and wildlife conservation in Mexico City. But if for some reason they lose an egg at the beginning of the breeding season—either because it breaks or falls out of the nest, which is usually on a cliff—the pair produces a second egg. If this one is also lost or damaged, they may lay a third. The researchers learned that if they removed the first egg and incubated it under carefully controlled conditions, the condor pair would lay a second egg, which was also removed for care, leaving a third egg for the pair to incubate and rear naturally.

This innovation was followed by the development of artificial incubation techniques to increase egg survival, as well as puppet rearing, using replicas of adult condors to feed and care for the chicks born in captivity. That way, the birds would not imprint on humans, reducing the difficulties the birds might face when integrating into the wild population.

Xewe (female) and Chocuyens (male) were the first condors to triumphantly return to the wild. The year was 1992, and the pair returned to freedom accompanied by a pair of Andean condors, natural inhabitants of the Andes Mountains in South America. Andean condors live from Venezuela to Tierra del Fuego and have a wingspan about 12 inches larger than that of California condors. Their mission here was to help to consolidate a social group and aid the birds in adapting to the habitat. The event took place at the Sespe Condor Sanctuary in the Los Padres National Forest in California. In a tiny, tentative way, the California condor had returned.

By the end of the 1990s, there were other breeding centers, such as the Los Angeles Zoo, the Oregon Zoo, the World Center for Birds of Prey in Boise, Idaho, the San Diego Zoo and the San Diego Zoo Safari Park. Then, in 1999, the first collaboration agreements were established between the United States and Mexico for the reintroduction of the California condor in the Sierra de San Pedro Mártir National Park. The number of existing California condors increased from just over two dozen in 1983 to more than 100 in 1995, some of which had been returned to the wild in the United States. By 2000, there were 172 condors and by 2011, 396.

By 2023, the global population of California condors reached 561 individuals, 344 of them living in the wild.

Genetics: Key ally in the reintroduction of the condor

In a laboratory at the San Diego Zoo in Escondido, California, a freezer full of carefully organized containers with colored labels is testament to the painstaking scientific work that supports the California Condor Recovery Program. Cynthia Steiner, a Venezuela-born biologist, explains that the DNA of every individual California condor is preserved there. This includes samples of birds who have died and those that are living, some 1,200 condors in total.

This California condor was hatched in 2004 as part of a breeding program and released in Arizona in 2006. In the 1980s, just 27 of the birds remained in existence. A recovery program has boosted the species’ numbers to more than 500, with several hundred living once more in the wild.

This California condor was hatched in 2004 as part of a breeding program and released in Arizona in 2006. In the 1980s, just 27 of the birds remained in existence. A recovery program has boosted the species’ numbers to more than 500, with several hundred living once more in the wild. Credit: Mark Newman via Getty Images

“If science wasn’t behind the reintroduction and recovery program it would have been very complicated, not only to understand what the most important hazards are that are affecting condor reproduction and survival, but also to do the management at the breeding centers and in the wild,” says Steiner, who is associate director of the Genetic Conservation Biology Laboratory at the Beckman Center for Conservation Research.

As she and colleagues outlined in an article in the Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, genomic information from animals at risk of extinction can shed light on many aspects of wildlife biology relevant to conservation. The DNA can reveal the demographic history of populations, identify genetic variants that affect the ability of populations to adapt to changing environments, demonstrate the effects of inbreeding and hybridization, and uncover the genetic basis of susceptibility to disease.

Genetic analysis of the California condor, for example, has led to the identification of inherited diseases such as chondrodystrophy—a disorder that causes abnormal skeletal development and often leads to the death of embryos before eggs can hatch. This finding served to identify carriers of the disease gene and thus avoid pairings that could produce affected offspring.

Genetic research has also made it possible to accurately sex these birds—males are indistinguishable from females to the naked eye—and to determine how individuals are related, in order to select breeding pairs that minimize the risk of inbreeding and ensure that the new condor population has as much genetic variability as possible.

Genetics has also allowed the program to determine the paternity of birds and has led to the discovery that the California condor is able to reproduce asexually using parthenogenesis, in which an embryo develops without fertilization by sperm. “It was an incredible surprise,” says Steiner, recalling how the team initially thought it was a laboratory error. They later confirmed that two chicks had, indeed, developed and hatched without any paternal genetic contribution, even though the females were housed with fertile males. It was the first record of this phenomenon in a bird species.

The complete decoding of the California condor genome, published in 2021, also revealed valuable information about the bird’s evolutionary history and prehistoric abundance. Millions of years ago, it was a species with an effective population of some 10,000 to 100,000 individuals. Its decline began about 40,000 years ago during the last ice age, and was later exacerbated by human activities. Despite this, Steiner says, the species retains a genetic variability similar to birds that are not endangered.

A problem with lead

Despite these great efforts and a renewed understanding of the species, threats to the condor remain.

In the 1980s, when efforts to monitor the last condors in the wild intensified, a revealing event took place: After 15 of them died, four were necropsied, and the cause of death of three of them was shown to be lead poisoning.

Although these Cathartiformes—from the Greek kathartes, meaning “those that clean”—are not usually prey for hunters, their scavenging nature makes them indirect victims of hunter bullets, which kill them not by their impact, but by their composition. Feeding on the flesh of dead animals, condors ingest fragments of lead ammunition that remain embedded in the carcasses.

Once inside the body, lead—which builds up over time—acts as a neurotoxin that affects the nervous, digestive, and reproductive systems. Among the most devastating effects is paralysis of the crop, the organ where condors store food before digesting it; this prevents them from feeding and causes starvation. Lead also interferes with the production of red blood cells, causing anemia and progressively weakening the bird, and damages the nervous system, causing convulsions, blindness, and death.

Efforts in the United States to mitigate the threat of lead to the condors have been extensive. Since the 1970s, several strategies have been implemented, such as provision of lead-free food for condors, campaigns to educate hunters about the impact of lead bullet use on wildlife, and programs showing conservation-area visitors how important birds are to the ecosystem. Government regulations have also played a role, like the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act of 2007, which mandates the use of lead-free ammunition for big-game hunting within the condor’s range in California. However, these efforts have not been sufficient.

According to the 2023 State of the California Condor Population report, between 1992 and 2023, 137 condors died from lead poisoning—48 percent of the deaths with a known cause recorded in that period. The only population partially spared is in Baja California, where hunting is much less common. Only 7.7 percent of the deaths there are attributable to lead, according to Porras Peña’s records.

Will the condors become self-sufficient again?

The 1996 California Condor Recovery Plan notes that a self-sustaining condor population must be large enough to withstand variations in factors such as climate, food availability, and predators, and permit gene flow among the various clans or groups. The document establishes the objective of changing the status of the California condor from “endangered” to “threatened” under the US Endangered Species Act. To achieve this, there must be two reintroduced populations and one captive population, each with at least 150 individuals, including a minimum of 15 breeding pairs to ensure a positive growth rate—meaning that more condors are born than die.

Closeups of two California Condors.

Closeups of two California Condors. Credit: Mark Newman/Getty

Today, released California condor populations are distributed in several regions: Arizona and Utah are home to 90 birds in the wild, while California has 206. In Baja California, 48 condors fly in the wild. According to the calculations of Nacho Vilchis, associate director of recovery ecology at the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, it will take 10 to 15 years to have a clearer picture of how long it will take for the reintroduction program to be a complete success—to make condor populations self-sustaining.

So far, the reality is that all populations depend on human intervention to survive. It is a task carried out by biologists, technicians and conservationists, who face steep cliffs, rough terrain, and other obstacles to closely monitor the progress of the released birds and, above all, the development of chicks born in the wild.

Juan Vargas Velasco tells epic stories of how he has rappelled down steep cliffs in San Pedro Mártir National Park, facing attacks from the nest’s parent defenders in order to examine the chicks. “There is a perception that when you release a condor it is already a success, but for there to be real success, you have to monitor them constantly,” he says. “We follow them with GPS, with VHF telemetry, to make sure that the animals are adapting, that they find water and food. To release animals without monitoring is to leave them to their fate.”

The costs of managing the species in the field are not small. For example, the GPS transmitters needed to track the condors in their natural habitat cost $4,000, and subscription to the satellite system costs $80 per month per bird, Vilchis says. Other costs associated with the project, he adds, involve the construction of pre-release aviaries, laboratory analyses to monitor the birds’ health, and the provision of supplementary food in the initial stages of reintroduction. A key to ensuring the survival of the California condor is to secure funding for the species’ recovery program, notes the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s five-year report.

Each of the California Condor Recovery Program’s breeding and release sites in the United States operates as a nongovernmental organization that raises funds to finance the program. On the other side of the border, the program receives logistical support and equipment from US organizations, as well as funding from the philanthropic program “I’m Back BC Condor,” which helps to support the birds in the wild through private donations.

From Chapultepec to the San Pedro Mártir Mountain Range

A California condor hatchling peeks timidly through the protective mesh of the aviary at the Chapultepec Zoo, as one of its parents spreads its vast wings and flies over the enclosure. This space in the heart of Mexico City, one of the largest and most populated metropolises in the world, is part of the condor reintroduction effort in Mexico, a program that has been key to the recovery of the population in the Sierra de San Pedro Mártir in Baja California.

In 2002, the first condors released in Mexico came from the Los Angeles Zoo. In 2007, the Chapultepec Zoo received its first two male condors, with the goal of implementing an outreach and environmental education program while the team learned to handle the birds. After an assessment in 2014, it was confirmed that the zoo met the requirements for reproduction, permitting the arrival of two females. Breeding pairs were successfully formed, and, in 2016, the first hatchlings were born.

Today, Chapultepec Zoo not only houses a breeding center but also has built its own “frozen zoo,” formally known as the Genomic Resource Bank, which stores sperm, ovarian tissue, and DNA samples from nearly 100 wild animal species, many of them endangered. “More than a zoo, it’s a library,” says Blanca Valladares, head of the Conservation Genomics Laboratory within the Mexico City Conservation Centers.

Collaboration between Mexican institutions, such as the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, has been key in the development of the project in Baja California. What began in the United States has expanded across borders, creating a binational effort in which Mexico has taken an increasingly prominent role. This cooperative approach reflects the very nature of the species, which does not recognize borders in its historical habitat.

The hatchling in the aviary is preparing for its trip to Baja California. Over the next few months, it will be transported through air and over land, under the care of dozens of people, to the pre-release aviary in San Pedro Mártir, where it will spend a period of adaptation before being released. Baja California has been recognized by specialists as one of the best places for the recovery of the species, thanks to its pristine forest, a human population a tenth the size of California’s (4 million versus 40 million), and a low level of lead and diseases. Porras Peña says that the condor population in the region seems to have reached a point of stability: It remained stable for seven years without the need to release new condors bred in captivity.

Despite titanic efforts, strict protocols, and painstaking care at every stage of reintroduction, things don’t always go smoothly. In 2022, a puma attacked a pre-release aviary in the Sierra de San Pedro Mártir, where four condors, two from San Diego and two from Mexico City, were being prepared for release. The puma found a weak spot in the mesh and, with its claws, managed to reach the two condors from the United States. Porras Peña sadly describes the desperate efforts the team made to save the life of one of the injured birds, but in the end, it died. It was a devastating blow for the team, who saw years of work lost in an instant.

The incident is an ironic lesson from nature: While for decades condors were decimated as a consequence of human activity, today a natural predator snatches in seconds what has taken tireless efforts to recover—a brutal reminder that even if we rebuild a species by dint of science and sacrifice, nature will always have the last word.

Article translated by Debbie Ponchner.

This story originally appeared in Knowable Magazine.

Photo of Knowable Magazine

Knowable Magazine explores the real-world significance of scholarly work through a journalistic lens.

Return of the California Condor Read More »

an-ultra-athlete-goes-head-to-head-with-the-world’s-most-formidable-sharks

An ultra-athlete goes head-to-head with the world’s most formidable sharks

Mano a sharko —

Ross Edgley faces a challenge like no other in NatGeo’s Shark vs. Ross Edgley.

Man in scuba gear on ocean floor standing next to giant hammerhead shark

Enlarge / Extreme sportsman Ross Edgley comes face to face with a great hammerhead shark in the waters of Bimini in the Bahamas.

National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

Ultra-athlete Ross Edgley is no stranger to pushing his body to extremes. He once ran a marathon while pulling a one-ton car; ran a triathlon while carrying a 100-pound tree; and climbed a 65-foot rope over and over again until he’d climbed the equivalent of Mt. Everest—all for charity. In 2016, he set the world record for the world’s longest staged sea swim around the coastline of Great Britain: 1780 miles over 157 days.

At one point during that swim, a basking shark appeared and swam alongside Edgley for a day and a half. That experience ignited his curiosity about sharks and eventually led to his new National Geographic documentary, Shark vs. Ross Edgleypart of four full weeks of 2024 SHARKFEST programming. Edgley matches his athletic prowess against four different species of shark. He tries to jump out of the water (polaris) like a great white shark; withstand the G forces produced by a hammerhead shark‘s fast, rapid turns; mimic the extreme fasting and feasting regimen of a migrating tiger shark; and match the swimming speed of a mako shark.

“I love this idea of having a goal and then reverse engineering and deconstructing it,” Edgley told Ars. “[Sharks are] the ultimate ocean athletes. We just had this idea: what if you’re crazy enough to try and follow in the footsteps of four amazing sharks? It’s an impossible task. You’re going to fail, you’re going to be humbled. But in the process, we could use it as a sports/shark science experiment, almost like a Trojan horse to bring science and ocean conservation to a new audience.”

And who better than Edgley to take on that impossible challenge? “The enthusiasm he brings to everything is really infectious,” marine biologist and shark expert Mike Heithaus of Florida International University told Ars. “He’s game to try anything. He’d never been in the water with sharks and we’re throwing him straight in with big tiger sharks and hammerheads. He’s loving the whole thing and just devoured all the information.”

That Edgley physique doesn’t maintain itself, so the athlete was up at 4 AM swimming laps and working out every morning before the rest of the crew had their coffee. “I’m doing bicep curls with my coffee cup and he’s doing bicep curls with the 60-pound underwater camera,” Heithaus recalled. “For the record, I got one rep in and I’m very proud of that.” Score one for the shark expert.

(Spoilers below for the various shark challenges.)

Ross vs. the great white shark

  • Ross Edgley gets some tips on how to power (polaris) his body out of the water like a white shark from synchronized swimmer Samantha Wilson

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • The Aquabatix synchronized swim team demonstrates the human equivalent to a white shark’s polaris.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • Edgley tries out a mono fin to improve his polaris performance.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • Edgley propelling 3/4 of his body out of the pool to mimic a white shark’s polaris movement

    National Geographic/Bobby Cross

For the first challenge, Edgley took on the great white shark, a creature he describes as a “submarine with teeth.” These sharks are ambush hunters, capable of propelling their massive bodies fully out of the water in an arching leap. That maneuver is called a polaris, and it’s essential to the great white shark’s survival. It helps that the shark has 65 percent muscle mass, particularly concentrated in the tail, as well as a light skeleton and a large liver that serves as buoyancy device.

Edgley, by comparison, is roughly 45 percent muscle mass—much higher than the average human but falling short of the great white shark. To help him try to match the great white’s powerful polaris maneuver, Edgley sought tips on biomechanics from the Aquabatix synchronized swim team, since synchronized swimmers must frequently launch their bodies fully out of the water during routines. They typically get a boost from their teammates to do so.

The team did manage to boost Edgley out of the water, but sharks don’t need a boost. Edgley opted to work with a monofin, frequently used in underwater sports like free diving or finswimming, to see what he could achieve on his own power. After a bit of practice, he succeeded in launching 75 percent of his body (compared to the shark’s 100 percent) out of the water. Verdict: Edgley is 75 percent great white shark.

Ross vs. the hammerhead shark

  • Edgley vs. a hammerhead shark. He will try to match the animal’s remarkable agility underwater.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • A camera team films a hammerhead shark making sharp extreme turns

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • Edgley prepares to go airborne in a stunt plane to try and mimic the agility of a hammerhead shark in the water.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • A standard roll produces 2 g’s, while pulling up is 3 g’s

    YouTube/National Geographic

  • Edgley is feeling a bit queasy.

    YouTube/National Geographic

Next up: Edgley pitted himself against the remarkable underwater agility of a hammerhead shark. Hammerheads are known for being able to swim fast and turn on a dime, thanks to a flexible skeleton that enables them to bend and contort their bodies nearly in half. They’re able to withstand some impressive G forces (up to 3 G’s) in the process. According to Heithaus, these sharks feed on other rays and other sharks, so they need to be built for speed and agility—hence their ability to accelerate and turn rapidly.

The NatGeo crew captured impressive underwater footage of the hammerheads in action, including Edgley meeting a 14.7 hammerhead named “Queenie”—one of the largest great hammerheads that visits Bimini in the Bahamas during the winter. That footage also includes shots of divers feeding fish to some of the hammerheads by hand. “They know every shark by name and the sharks know the feeders,” said Heithaus. “So you can safely get close to these big amazing creatures.”

For years, scientists had wondered about the purpose of the distinctive hammer-shaped head. It may help them scan a larger area of the ocean floor while hunting. Like all sharks, hammerheads have sensory pores called ampullae of Lorenzini that allow them to detect electrical signals and hence possible prey. The hammer-shaped head distributes those pores over a wider span.

But according to Heithaus, the hammer shape also operates a bit like the big broad flap of an airplane wing, resulting in excellent hydrodynamics. Moving at high speeds, “You can just tilt the head a tiny bit and bank a huge degree,” he said. “So if a ray turns 180 degrees to escape, the hammerhead can track with it. Other species would take a wider turn and fall behind.”

The airplane wing analogy gave Edgley an idea for how he could mimic the tight turns and high G forces of a hammerhead shark: take a flight in a small stunt plane. The catch: Edgley is not a fan of flying. And as he’d feared, he became horribly airsick during the challenge, even puking into a little airbag at one point. “It looks so cool in the clip,” he said. “But at the time, I was in a world of trouble.” Pilot Mark Greenfield finally cut the experiment short when he determined that Edgley was too sick to continue. Verdict: Edgley is 0 percent hammerhead shark.

Ross vs. the tiger shark

  • Shark expert Mike Heithaus holds a gelatin shark “lolliop” while Edgley flexes.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • Edgley and Heithaus underwater with a tiger shark, tempting it with a gelatin lollipop.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • Success! A tiger shark takes a nice big bite.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • Edgley flexes with the giant gelatin lollipop with a large bite taken out of it by a tiger shark

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • Edgley gets his weight and body volume measured in the “Bodpod” before his tiger shark challenge.

    National Geographic/Bobby Cross

  • Edgley fasted and exercised for 24 hours to mimic a tiger shark on a migration route. He dropped 14 pounds.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • After all that fasting and exercise, Edgley then gorged himself for 24 hours to put the weight back on. He gained 22 pounds.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

The third challenge was trying to match the fortitude of a migrating tiger shark as it makes its way over thousands of miles without food, only feasting at journey’s end.  “I was trying to understand the psychology of a tiger shark because there’s just nothing for them to eat [on the journey],” said Ross. And once they arrive at their destination, “they can chow down on entire whale carcasses and eat just about anything. That idea of feast and famine is something we humans used to do all the time. We live quite comfortably now so we’ve lost touch with that.”

The first step was to figure out just how many calories a migrating tiger shark can consume in a single bite. Heithaus has been part of SHARKFEST for several years now and recalled one throwback show, Sharks vs. Dolphins, in which he tried to determine which species of of shark were attacking dolphins, and just how big those sharks might be. He hit upon the idea of making a dolphin shape out of gelatin—essentially the same stuff FIU’s forensic department uses for ballistic tests—and asked his forensic colleagues to make one for him, since the material has the same weight and density of dolphin blubber.

For the Edgley documentary, they made a large gelatin lollipop the same density as whale blubber, and he and Edgley dove down and managed to get an 11-foot tiger shark to take a big 6.2-pound bite out of it. We know how many calories are in whale blubber so Heithaus was able to deduce from that how many calories per bite a tiger shark consumed (6.2 pounds of whale meet is equivalent to about 25,000 calories).

Such field work also lets him gather ever mire specimens of shark bites from a range of species for his research. “The great thing about SHARKFEST is that you’re seeing new, cutting-edge science that may or may not work,” said Heithaus. “But that’s what science is about: trying things and advancing our knowledge even if it doesn’t work al the time, and then sharing that information and excitement with the public.”

Then it was time for Edgley to make like a migrating shark and embark on a carefully designed famine-and-feast regime. First, his weight and body volume were measured in a “Bodpod”: 190.8 pounds and 140.8 pints. Then Edgley fasted and exercised almost continuously for 24 hours with a mix of weight training, running, swimming, sitting in the sauna, and climate chamber cycling. (He did sleep for a few hours.)  He dropped 14 pounds and lost twelve pints, ending up at a weight of 177 pounds and a volume of 128.7 pints. Instead of food, what he craved most at the end was water. “When you are in a completely deprived state, you find out what your body actually needs, not what it wants,” said Edgley.

After slaking his thirst, it was time to gorge. Over the next 24 hours, Edgley consumed an eye-popping 35,103 calories in carefully controlled servings. It’s quite the menu: Haribo mix, six liters of Lucozade, a Hulk smoothie, pizza, five slices of lemon blueberry cheesecake, five slices of chocolate mint cheesecake, fish and chips, burgers and fries, two cinnamon loaves, four tubs of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, two full English breakfasts, five liters of custard, four mars bars, and four mass gainer shakes.

When his weight and volume were measured one last time in the Bodpod, Edgley had regained a whopping 22 pounds for a final weight of 199 pounds. “I wish I had Ross’s ability to eat that much and remain at 0 percent body fat,” said Heithaus. Verdict: Edgley is 28 percent tiger shark.

Ross vs. the mako shark

  • In 2018, Edgely set the world record for longest assisted sea swim.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

  • Edgley tries to match the speed of a mako shark in the waters of the Menai Strait in Wales.

    National Geographic/Nathalie Miles

Finally, Edgley pitted himself against the mighty mako shark. Mako sharks are the speediest sharks in the ocean, capable of swimming at speeds up to 43 MPH. Edgley is a long-distance swimmer, not a sprinter, so he threw himself into training at Loughborough University with British Olympians coaching him. He fell far short of a mako shark’s top speed. The shape of the human body is simply much less hydrodynamic than that of a shark. He realized that despite his best efforts, “I was making up hundredths of a second, which is huge in sprinting,” he said. “That could be the difference between a gold medal at the Paris Olympics and not. But I needed to make up many kilometers per hour.”

So Edgley decided to “think like a shark” and employ a shark-like strategy of riding the ocean currents to increase his speed. He ditched the pool and headed to the Menai Strait in Wales for some open water swimming. Ultimately he was able to hit 10.24 MPH—double what an Olympic swimmer could manage in a pool, but just 25 percent of a mako shark’s top speed. And he managed with the help or a team of 20-30 people dropping him into the fastest tide possible. “A mako shark would’ve just gone, ‘This is a Monday morning, this isn’t an event for me, I’m off,'” said Edgley. Verdict: Edgley is 24 percent mako shark

When the results of all four challenges were combined, Edgley came out at 32 percent overall, or nearly one-third shark. While Edgley confessed to being humbled by his limitations, “I don’t think there’s anyone else out there who could do so as well across the board in comparison,” said Heithaus.

The ultimate goal of Shark vs. Ross Edgley—and indeed all of the SHARKFEST programming—is to help shift public perceptions of sharks. “The great Sir David Attenborough said that the problems facing us in terms of conservation is as much a communication issue as a scientific one,” Edgley said. “The only way we can combat that is by educating people.”

Shark populations have declined sharply by 70 percent or more over the last 50 years. “It’s really critical that we protect and restore these populations,” Heithaus said. Tiger sharks, for instance, eat big grazers like turtles and sea cows, and thus protect the sea grass. (Among other benefits, the sea grass sequesters carbon dioxide.) Sharks are also quite sophisticated in their behavior. “Some have social connections with other sharks, although not to the same extent as dolphins,” said Heithaus. “They’re more than just loners, and they may have personalities. We see some sharks that are more bold, and others that are more shy. There’s a lot more to sharks than we would have thought.”

People who hear about Edgley’s basking shark encounter invariably assume he’d been in danger. However, “We were friends. I’m not on its menu,” Edgley said. “There are so many different species.” He likened it to being chased by a dog. People might assume it was a rottweiler giving chase, when in fact the basking shark is the equivalent of a poodle. “Hopefully what people take away from this is moving from a fear and misunderstanding of sharks to respect and admiration,” Edgley said. “That’ll make the RAF fighter pilot plane worth it.”

And he’s game to take on even more shark challenges in the future. There are a lot more shark species out there, after all, just waiting to go head-to-head with a human ultra-athlete.

Shark vs. Ross Edgley premieres on Sunday, June 30, 2024, on Disney+.

trailer for Shark vs. Ross Edgley.

An ultra-athlete goes head-to-head with the world’s most formidable sharks Read More »