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. 

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

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

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