Skip to main content

Forensic survey of endangered species

DNA traces are being used to monitor endangered species.

What animals leave behind has long been used to track them, whether it is their poo or their foot markings.   Animals leave signs intentionally or otherwise.  They mark their territory, they leave deposits, they rub, scratch, dig, muzzle, lick, and almost everything they do will leave some kind of trace for a time.  Animal tracking is forensic craft.

Just as DNA traces can be left at crime scenes, so animals leave their trace too.  Forensic scientists are able to analyze smaller and smaller biological samples to develop a DNA profile - a person touched an object or weapon, skin cells may have been left behind or from their saliva.

Now, DNA traces left in water are being used to monitor endangered species that would otherwise be difficult to survey.

In a study just published, the authors have used DNA traces to monitor the presence of the endangered Gouldian finch, Erythrura gouldiae, a small bird endemic to northern Australia.

The DNA test for finches and the Gouldian finch-specific test were positive for waterholes where Gouldian and other finch species were observed each morning over 3 days.

When no Gouldian finches were observed for up to 72 h prior to water sampling, the Gouldian test was negative.

The authors say

 "This approach could be developed for broad-scale monitoring of this endangered species, and potentially applied to a much broader range of terrestrial species that shed DNA into water bodies."
This is significant because it enables biologists and conservationists to focus not just on animals that are easily seen or heard, but also those whose trace can be minute.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As