Skip to main content

Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit

Increasing global temperatures are affecting the populations of rabbits with an increased risk of soil parasite infections. 

We are used to seeing rabbits as the epitome of rapid population growth - "they breed like rabbits' - is often used as a disparaging social comment.  Even Pope Francis has used the figurative term.  Rabbit numbers have fallen by up to 80% in the UK since 1995.  That is a big fall. However, rabbits are certainly fast in the breeding league. 

Like most fast-breeding species, rabbits don't live long.  The average life span of a wild rabbit is just two to three years, with many falling victims to predators. 

It is not uncommon for the average female rabbit to have several litters in a year because gestation is only about 1 month. Thus, each litter can have three or four babies to seven, eight, nine, and sometimes more.

  But even the breeding of rabbits is dependent on conditions.  If conditions are right, they will breed quickly; if not, they will breed less.  So, could rabbits be a barometer for the impact of global warming? Indeed, they can, and in some perhaps surprising ways.  

One reason populations of rabbits might fall is through the spread of disease carried by parasites. Global climate change is predicted to alter the distribution and dynamics of soil-transmitted helminth (parasitic worm) infections. Yet, host immunity can also influence the impact of warming on host-parasite interactions and mitigate the long-term effects.  Studies suggest that young rabbits' less well-developed immune system allows a deleterious effect on the population because of the weaker defense against such parasites. 


Photo by Fidel Fernando on Unsplash

Author: Ray Noble is a Chartered Biologist. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
Read more

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...
2 comments
Read more

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...
2 comments
Read more