Pandas Are Less Over

“THE GIANT PANDA IS NOW VULNERABLE WE CAN’T PICK ON PANDAS ANYMORE”

— franzanth

2008 IUCN assessment (”Endangered”)* 

• estimated the population at 1000-2000 individuals, definitely <2500

• protected habitat minimal, extremely fragmented populations

• <250 mature adults in each isolated population

• “Until recently there has been a general population decline, although there is hope that this has been reversed by general habitat improvements — nevertheless, this remains an uncertainty.”

2016 IUCN assessment (”Vulnerable”)

• estimated total population at 2060 individuals, ~1040 mature adults

• protected habitat much larger, populations less fragmented, but still several large, distinct, disconnected areas

• <1000 mature adults in each isolated population (now that many of the 2008 subpopulations have merged)

• “it is widely believed that the population has stabilized and has begun to increase in many parts of the range”

• “Although the population is currently increasing, climate change is predicted to eliminate >35% of the Panda’s bamboo habitat in the next 80 years, and thus the Panda population is projected to decline”

• “The Giant Panda will remain a conservation-dependent species for the foreseeable future.”

Summary: I’ll give up my panda-conservation-hate when you pry it from my COLD, DEAD HANDS.

Real talk: as I see it, this assessment will either a) result in a “WE DID IT, WE’RE DONE HERE” mentality that will ultimately lead to their extinction, or b) change nothing, and pandas will continue to be the face of a conservation standard that absorbs ludicrous amounts of money for painfully incremental progress like some kind of demonic portal to the charismatic megafaunal void realm

*2008 IUCN assessment can be downloaded from the 2016 assessment page

Conservation Triage

“Q: could you tell us a bit more about conservation? like, what are the ‘truly integral’ species that we should be trying the hardest to protect?”

— Anonymous

“Q: In light of the pandas post, if I wanted to donate to some conservation effort, do you know if there are ones that make a “better” use of their money than others? ”

— Anonymous

When I call a species “more important”, that is, of course, a hella oversimplification, and you would be right in asking me but how can you really decide which ones are more important? Ecosystems are so complex and interconnected that, when it comes down to it, every species is important - but the loss of certain species would result in greater repercussions than others. For example:

• Keystone species: a species whose presence affects a disproportionate number of other species, such as predators that control prey populations (sharks, sea otters)

• Ecosystem engineers: sub-group of keystone species, these guys affect the environment in such a way that it drastically changes the resources available for other species (beavers, crocodilians)

• Umbrella species: species that require such a large habitat that protecting them would mean thousands of other species would benefit from that protection (bison, or like, monarch butterflies)

• Flagship species: this is the category the panda falls into - species that capture the hearts of the masses and garner loads of media attention and money; could also act as umbrella species

To protect species, we have to protect environments, and once again we get bogged down with nuances and priorities. Do we protect areas of high biodiversity, like tropical rainforests, where there are hundreds of species within a few metres of each other, that aren’t found anywhere else? Or do we protect areas of high population, like the Canadian boreal forests, where there are few species but so many trees that it stores twice as much carbon as a tropical rainforest?

Conservation is messy and overwhelming, and as I mentioned before, there’s never enough money or interest to protect everything. If you do want to help, do some research on your local zoos or aquariums - certain facilities will have programs for captive breeding, rescue work, research, or other environmental aid. For example, the Vancouver Aquarium runs a sustainable seafood program, and Monterey Bay Aquarium is just a conservation dreamboat, so supporting places like these means you can feel good and have fun all at once.

I don’t know of any independent conservation programs in particular to support over others - though I imagine programs like World Wildlife Fund, the IUCN Red List, and National Wildlife Federation are solid places to start. If anyone has some personal experience, though, I would be more than happy to pass it on.

---

[SOURCES YO]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320797000815

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712003898

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712000821

http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/reptiles-and-amphibians/reptiles/gopher-tortoise/

https://conbio.org/publications/conservation-biology/

How To Google Science

“Q: Hey biologizeable, I was wondering if you knew of a good site to find articles on the declining bee population? You’re the only science blog I follow so I thought I’d ask. Thanks!”

— Anonymous

Hello! As with any form of online research, even such a deceptively simple one, it will likely take longer than you first imagine. But do not fear. You can do it.

Instead of doing your homework for you, however, I am instead going to provide you some super pro tips on finding information online. Way more useful, in the long run, and this way I don’t end up with 300 more questions like this! Everybody wins.

In general, a good launching point for research is (and I will fight you over this) Wikipedia. It’s a great place to get a mildly useful summary, keywords to use in further searches, and most importantly, a list of potentially legitimate sources. Never use Wikipedia as your only source of information, but I cannot stress how useful it is in starting out.

When doing general Google searches, a moderately solid rule of thumb for finding information is that any site ending with .edu or .org is probably more credible than a .com. Obviously, this is not always true, but it’s good to keep in mind.

Finally, for some serious science, Google Scholar is your new best friend. Provided your best friends are just really frustrating people. Most of the papers you’ll find are behind paywalls, and you’re gonna have to use all of the fancy new keywords you’ve discovered during your researches to find exactly what you’re looking for.

Anyway, I know this doesn’t immediately help you, so off the top of my head for specific bee things:

• Check out some beekeeper association websites (the Ontario one is pretty great)

• Bees and neonicotinoid pesticides

• Colony Collapse Disorder

• Also some links I found around a year ago