> As a field
> worker though I don't see how relavent it is to save one species here or
> there if its habitat or eco-system are being extinguished. My belief is that
> single species protection is only relavent if it is part of a much more
> complex habitat/eco-system protection or conservation plan.
Species have far more importance than just being parts within ecosystems
in my opinion. An example I like to use is two Mexican pupfishes, one is
described, Cyprinodon pachycephalus, the other is still undescribed.
These pupfishes live and breed at temperatures up to 44oC, (~111oF).
This is higher than any other fish has been recorded living at
_permanently_ (the highest ever recorded being Cyprinodon atrorus
temporarily at 47-8oC). Should we try and conserve this species if it's
habitat dries up due to groundwater pumping? Definately. Who knows what
useful information this species may reveal if anyone bothered to study
it. Amongst fishes it presumably has some relatively specialized enzymes
that allow it to survive where no other fish can. It may even one day
have a medical use for humans or some other desirable traits. Once this
fish is gone it is gone forever. Perhaps once people realize the south
western North American deserts don't have ever lasting water supplies
some of these springs will eventually begin flowing again. Wouldn't it
be a pity if we had none of their original inhabitats to put back.
> However, since fish are their focus I'm not sure how important they
> feel it is to save insect or crustean that may unique to a particular species
> diet in the wild. There may be some unique natural complex or characteristic
> of environment that ensures a particular species survival "in situ". If we
> are not protecting the whole complex and only saving the species the animal
> is reduced to a curiosity, a rare on but, a much reduced one.
I think that most folks would love to be able to save all the inverts and
other little critters that are just as threatened as the fishes. We need
to put the stepping stones in place before one can walk across a river
without getting their feet wet. Meaning, we still don't have any
co-ordinated effort amongst aquarists for conservering fish, thus what
chance would we have with invertebrates?
Further to this, ecosystems are a constantly changing entity. Most
ecosystems we see today around us are vary between a few years old to
perhaps a few or tens of thousands of years old on a larger scale. Most
of the species we see today have been around for far longer, 10,000 years
and up. ie, most of them existed before todays ecosystems (in their
present forms) and, if allowed to survive, most will continue on after
these ecosystems have changed, ie savannah changing towards desert as the
climate gets drier or visa versa etc etc. Many species are probably far
more adaptable than we perhaps give them credit for. Sure, there may be
some good specific example you could come up with (there always are in
ecology), but I am refering to the more common situation.
Toot
Peter