Rabbits and hares a conservation nightmare?

Throughout history, humans have deliberately translocated rabbits and hares (leporids) around the world, so they now occupy every continent, with the exception of Antarctica.

But our bunnies are not always lovable, at least not from a conservationist viewpoint. They can be a pest, creating economic and ecological mayhem.

A new Mammal Review article examines studies on the twelve leporid species that have been introduced by humans to areas beyond their native ranges, highlighting the effects on the ecosystem at different levels.

Rabbits and Hares breed fast

One thing is certain about rabbits. Rabbits breed like rabbits, and that means fast!

Most leporids have multiple litters per year with litter sizes varying from 1 to 11 individuals, and each female produces between 10 and 45 young per year. This makes them resilient to predation, and enables them to adapt rapidly to environmental change. They can also rapidly colonise a range of environments.

Thus, measures to eradicate invasive leporid species usually end in failure. Their impact on the ecosystem is deep and far reaching. They literally dig in.

Photo credit: Gonzalo Ignazi

Impact on nutrition and landscape

Rabbits and hares can affect their surroundings by chemically and physically changing their environment and landscape, and profoundly affecting soil nutrient availability.

The authors of the review note that leporids can provide food resources to predators, modify nutrient availability and soil structure, compete with native herbivores, consume crops, and have other major impacts, all of which affect other native species.

In exotic locations their impact can be detrimental

In their native ranges, leporids are widely known to benefit plant community richness, composition, and succession. But, in exotic locations their effects can be detrimental.

In their native range, leporids commonly compete with several other mammal species, whilst in their exotic locations they put pressure on native herbivores. The native species have little time to adapt to the changes made by the invaders.

Conservation strategies

For all these reasons, the authors suggest conservation biologists should carefully consider the effects of leporids when planning management strategies that include these species.

Researcher and co-author of the report Dr. Facundo Barbar, of Universidad Nacional del Comahue, in Argentina says:

“Although conservation issues and economic costs produced by rabbit introductions around the world are well known, there is a lack of systematic information about this regarding their closest relatives."

Hares and rabbits share some biological traits which could make them successful invaders and profoundly change the invaded regions. Perhaps one of the most notorious effects (among the many that they produce), is that they constitute a new and abundant food resource to a wide variety of predators, ultimately changing biological communities.

He goes on to conclude:

Considering all introduced leporid species and their many effects on the ecosystems is crucial at the time of planning conservation strategies.

If you like this article, please help us by subscribing and getting the latest updates.

Subscribe to The Thin End

Follow @Ray_Noble1

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'. Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...

The Thin End

Search This Blog