Category: Animals

What do you get when two giraffes collide? A giraffic jam. The giraffe’s elongated shape and rather large body size causes it to have some unique aspects. Some of these aspects can be seen in some of their organ systems, such as the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. These exclusive aspects also make the giraffe very different in many ways when compared to the animals dissected in the laboratory. Because of this distinctiveness, there are always new and current studies being done on giraffes to develop a better understanding of them and how they function. Some of these studies includes testing giraffe sperm in ultra-rapid freezing cryopreservation to determine if it is possible to genetically help reproduction in a controlled environment and conducting multi-locus analysis to determine the true amount of species of giraffes there are. First, some of the unique aspects of the many organ systems of the giraffe will be discussed.

The Cardiovascular System of the Giraffe

A giraffe has some organ systems that aren’t like any other living creature on earth. This is because of their elongated shape, which affects their structure and how things function inside their bodies. For starters, giraffes have an extraordinarily unique cardiovascular system. Giraffes have an exceptionally high blood pressure when compared to humans (Gaitan, 2015). This could cause plenty of problems for them internally. They have four mechanisms inside that help prevent those problems from occurring. The first mechanism is their jugular valves that prevent blood from flowing back into their jugular vein when they tilt their head down. It essentially keeps the blood from rushing to their heads. Giraffes also have a built in ‘G-suit’, which is a flight suit worn by aviators and astronauts that prevents deprivation of blood to the brain while flying. This built in ‘G-suit’ prevents leakages due to hypertension from the capillaries in their legs. The last two mechanisms are the rete mirabile and complex series of mechanisms that prevent too much or too little blood flow to the head.

In addition to the high blood pressure, giraffes have extremely strong hearts. “In order for the heart to pump the blood up the carotid artery to the brain, the heart must be strong enough and be able to overcome the hydrostatic, or pressure due to gravity” (Gaitan, 2015). This strength comes from the structure of their hearts, which is determined by a giraffe’s neck length. A part of this strengthening structure is the left ventricle in the heart. A giraffe’s left ventricle has more hypertrophy, or thickness, to it than most living creatures because of the length of their necks and how hard it has to work to get blood to the brain. As a giraffe’s neck grows, this thickness increases.

The Nervous and Skeletal Systems of the Giraffe

Two more unique organ systems of the giraffe are the nervous system and the skeletal system. The brain of the giraffe is comparable to other terrestrial Cetartiodactyla without the rotations and compressions found in more distant Cetartiodactyla such as the bottlenose dolphin. It also shows a high degree of gyrification, which is the process of forming folds of the cerebral cortex. In other words, a giraffe’s brain is very developed, and it suggests surface enhancement in a relatively smaller space compared to species with a similar brain weight. As for the skeletal system, giraffes have a very special first thoracic vertebra in their necks. It “provides higher flexibility to the neck and may provide advantages for high browsing and/or male competition behaviors specific to giraffes” (Gunji, Endo, 2016).

The Reproductive System of the Giraffe

Another organ system that has a distinctive characteristic for the giraffe is the reproductive system. “Giraffes are one of the few species of large mammals capable of directly nurturing two individuals of different ages: one a fetus and one a rapidly growing young calf” (Deacon et al., 2015). Speculated traits of the giraffe that may have an effect on their unusual reproductive abilities occurring include “non-seasonal breeding, slow embryonic development and rapid calf growth” (Deacon et al., 2015). In the even that this unusual ability occurs for a female giraffe, there are some great reproductive costs for her, which means that reproduction is costly to an organism in terms of its future survival and reproduction, when it does happen to occur. This ability to be, or get, pregnant and still be nursing a new-born calf causes “increased nutritional demands upon females” (Deacon et al., 2015). An increased nutritional demand could then cause a physical strain.

The Respiratory System of the Giraffe

Last, and certainly not the least, unique organ system of the giraffe is the respiratory system. There has been no noted sighting of a giraffe panting. This is because of their peculiar respiratory system mechanics and narrow trachea that make it impossible for them to do so even for short periods (Mitchell, Skinner, 2004). Something else that is special to the giraffe’s respiratory system is that their long necks contain long tracheas and this means a large respiratory dead-space, which is a volume of breathing that does not exchange gases (Harrison, 1980). Their dead-space is approximately nine times greater than humans’ and their total lung capacity about eight times larger than humans’ (Harrison, 1980).

Cryopreservation Study Being Conducted on Giraffes

A new, or more recent, study that is being conducted on giraffes, and many other animals, is ultra-rapid freezing cryopreservation of sperm from endangered species. This study has been tested on multiple endangered or becoming endangered species, similar to the giraffe. Some background of the study includes the process of cryopreservation, which is the ultra-low temperature storage of living cells, tissues and organs capable of resuming normal functions after retrieval from a cryobank (Day et al., 2008). The ultra-rapid freezing part of involves rapid cooling of small samples that do not involve no permeating cryoprotectant, which is recommended for cryopreservation of sperm in giraffes.

The study found, conducted by Obrien et al., was the first study of its kind on giraffes. The results of the study were relatively promising. Values for the studied sperm variables declined after freezing-thawing, and epididymal samples always returned better results, suggesting that these sperms to be more cryo-resistant than ejaculated sperm (Obrien et al., 2019). This means that there is some promise to the study, and eventually there might actually be a way to help endangered species, like the giraffe, reproduce in a controlled environment.

Recent Research Supporting Four Species of Giraffes

For many years, it was originally believed that there was only one true species of giraffes with around nine or eleven different subspecies. In a study conducted in 2016 by Fennessy et al., “Coalescence-based multi-locus and population genetic analyses identified at least four separate and monophyletic clades, which should be recognized as four distinct giraffe species under the genetic isolation criterion”. This was the first study of its kind of analyzed nuclear gene data done of giraffes, proving that some formerly recognized subspecies were actually genetically identical, suggesting that they all belonged as one species.

The results of the study, conducted by Fennessy and colleagues, showed that there was reproductive isolated between the newly discovered four species of giraffes. This was indicated, or supported, by the “concordance between maternally inherited mitochondrial and biparentally inherited nuclear markers” (Fennessy et al., 2016). Resulting data from this study has also contributed to further conversation research on two of the four species of giraffes due to the discovery of the newly found genomes for them. So, instead of one species with multiple subspecies, there are four genetically different species of giraffes. These four species of giraffes consist of the following: the southern giraffe, which includes what used to be the two subspecies of the Angolan and South African giraffes, the Masai giraffe, which includes the former Thornicroft’s giraffe, the reticulated giraffe, and the northern giraffe, which includes what used to be the four subspecies of the Nubian, Rothschild’s, Kordofan, and West African giraffes.

Comparison Between Giraffes and Animals Dissected in Lab

As for the comparison to the animals dissected in the laboratory, the giraffe is a relatively large animal compared to all of the dissected animals. This would make it extremely difficult to dissect if wanted to, even if the giraffe was still a baby. Their babies are still a much larger scale than the rat or pigeon dissected in the lab. Though, if one wished to dissect a giraffe, it would be a lot easier to see and examine all of the different organ systems. It would also be a lot more difficult to destroy or tear an organ on accident while dissecting owing to the fact of their large-scale body size. Most of the animals dissected in lab are relatively small and it is hard to see all of the organ systems without accidentally ruining one or more of the organs.

Another area that is different between the giraffe and all of the animals dissected in the laboratory is that the giraffe has a lot of distinctive aspects to their organ systems that no other animal has. This means that there would be a lot of benefits in dissecting a giraffe due to the fact of how different it is from the normally dissected animals. Giraffes are also way more exotic than any of the animals dissected in the lab. Most of those animals are local animals that could be found around American wildlife and oceans. Giraffes, on the other hand, live in Africa, and the only way they are seen in America are in zoos or sanctuaries for endangered species.

Conclusion

Because of the long, stretched-out shape and large body of the giraffe, it has unique aspects to make sure that everything inside is working like it should. These differences can be greatly seen in many of the giraffe’s organ systems and also make them differ greatly from the animals dissected in the lab. To develop a better understanding of the distinctive aspects of the giraffe, there are also always new and current studies being done on them, such as the ultra-rapid freezing cryopreservation of their sperm and multi-locus analysis. Overall, the giraffe is an incredibly, extraordinary creature that is still being learned from today.

Ever wonder how humans are affecting biodiversity through their daily tasks? Every day there are workers building new homes, shopping malls, and schools. To have enough space, they’ll have to clear forest out with the animals. This is causing the US tons of money and loss in plants and animals. Although the biodiversity in the United States is decreasing tremendously due to loss and degradation of suitable habitat, it can be slowed down or even stopped, by building sanctuaries, reserving forests, recycling, etc. Biodiversity or biological diversity is a collection of life, habitat, or ecosystem in the world. Biological diversity is the resource which families, communities, nations and future generations depend on, WWF said. Biodiversity is the building block that holds every organism on planet earth together. Biodiversity is important to mostly everything living. Without it there would not be many basic needs humans need to survive in our world such as food, fuel, shelter and even medicine. The ecosystem provides services like pollination for the flowers, climate change, water cleanses, etc. Humans are the cause of the lack of biodiversity today!

The main cause that is causing species to die is habitat loss. Habitat loss can be caused my many different things like infrastructure, pollution, overpopulation, etc. Infrastructure is the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities built. Due to the amount of infrastructure being done a huge amount of habitats have been destroyed. This causes the animals/plants to become isolated due to the lack of space. Once they become isolated, they tend to die off which can cause some species to become extinct. While species start to go extinct it will be harder for humans to survive. Without certain species food would be lost and everything will eventually die off because of starvation or dehydration.

Not only is infrastructure causing a weak biodiversity, but pollution causes a lot of damage to our biodiversity as well. Air pollution affects the ecosystem by sulfur and nitrogen emissions. These emissions settle into water, vegetation, and soil this is then called ‘acid rain’. When acid rain is released, this will then cause the ecosystem to stop providing its services. These services include: Provisional such as food and water; regulation such as flood and disease control; cultural, such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting such as nutrient cycling that maintain conditions. When acid rain goes into soil not only does, it affects the ecosystem but it also affects humans drinking water, through groundwater seepage.

While acid rain is bad, overpopulation can be just as bad. Overpopulation can cause a shortage in certain natural resources like food, water, and supplies needed for shelter. Due to overpopulation, there are currently forty million people in the US without food, said the USDA. Out of those forty million only fifteen million had shelter. We can fix all of these problems with some very helpful solutions like building sanctuaries. Due to overpopulation, the amount of food available has decreased extensively. A substantial amount of plant species will generally mean that a greater variety of available food crops. The global food supply is now being viewed as somewhat questionable because of the widespread use of just a few genetic varieties of the major crops. This raises the specter of widespread famine should a disease or parasite emerge, that attacks one or more major crops. This disease can be spread worldwide by modern transportation, could eliminate a large part of global grain production in a short period of time. Disease can be spread through crops by animals consuming them then humans eating the animals or by humans consuming the crop. Either way it will cause a widespread of diseases and without a cure or medicine everything in the world would eventually die.

“Building more sanctuaries in city like areas would help the world from crumbling down. This will help the lost and abandoned animals have a home to live and it will keep the biodiversity high. A wildlife sanctuary is a place of refuge where abused, injured and abandoned captive wildlife may live in for the rest of their lives” (‘Performing Animal Welfare Society – PAWS’) . When there are more animals in the US this lowers the chance of starvation and dehydration. With the animals in sanctuaries and shelters they can be bred and this will cause the animal population size to grow and the more it grows the less people in the US will be starving. Most sanctuaries do not allow breeding so it will be hard to reproduce. Reproducing is important animals are needed so that humans can have a good source of meat and other foods.

Pollution could be slowed down by having the US recycle more so that they can be reused for something useful. Instead of having multiple trash cans everywhere we should have multiple recycling cans and reduce the amount of trash cans. By doing so US citizens will then be forced to recycle instead of throwing things away. The trash is dumped in landfills which eventually causes glasses to escape into the air. When water gets in the trash it then creates a toxic liquid called leachate which can get into water pipes if people live near landfills. This is why recycling is so important instead of dumping everything out. Using renewable resources can reduce the amount of acid rain that is produced from harmful gasses. When using natural resources, they will not harm the biodiversity. Not everyone in the US will actually care enough to recycle which causes a problem when it comes to landfills. The more trash is thrown away into landfills the more harmful gasses are released into the oxygen that humans breathe. When released in the air that cause the acid rain mentioned earlier.

A great way to stop infrastructure from occurring in the US is to make more forest reserves. Forest reserves are portions of state land, where taking trees down is prohibited so that the biodiversity can stay manageable. There are small reserves with small amounts of land that are capable of holding rare species this is called a patch. Patch reserves will typically be relatively small (tens or hundreds of acres) and will be defined by the extent of the unique resources intended for conservation. A matrix however, is a large reserve that will support a wider diversity of tree sizes and ages than typically occurs on sustainably harvested sites, and will also support structures and processes associated with extensive accumulations of large woody debris that are typically absent from harvested sites. Matrix reserve size should be based on the expected extent of natural disturbance events. Reserves show how forest ecosystems work when timber and other wood products that are normally taken for human use remain in place. In order to support human society, it is important to retain portions of forested landscapes in a condition where all components of the ecosystem remain in place. “Forest reserves allow us to more fully assess human impacts on harvested sites, and may provide insights into how extractive management of harvested forestlands can be improved” (‘Sustainable Forest Management’). The US has a lot of forests already but is it enough forest to maintain the United States biodiversity?

National parks can help plants and animals be healthy and strong. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “There is nothing so American as our national parks…the fundamental idea behind the parks…is that the country belongs to the people, that it is in the process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us”. Although national parks are beautiful, they also help bring in more oxygen due to the amount of plants and trees that are in the park. Not only that but it also may have rare species because of the rare habitats that some of these parks may have. There are all kinds of different wildlife in national parks, but certain species such as the gray wolf have been brought back from the brink of extinction due to the efforts of the park service. These wolves, and similar animals elsewhere, play a vital role in their ecosystem and ensure its health in the long term.

Biodiversity has seen a significant decrease in the United States because of the loss of habitat caused by so many things. There are so many solutions that could be used to solve this problem. The main solutions are recycling, more forest reserves, national parks and sanctuaries. The US should respond immediately with this problem before it is too late!

Noted Irish playwright and political activist George Bernard Shaw once said: “The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them but to be indifferent to them. That is the essence of inhumanity. But each and every animal on earth has as much right to be here as you and me” (Shaw). The main threat to animal extinction is the climate change that happens often. Animal extinction is a serious threat to mankind because when a species becomes endangered, it is a sign that the ecosystem is slowly falling apart. Each species that is lost triggers the loss of other species within its ecosystem (‘Endangered Species Coalition’). Humans depend on healthy ecosystems to purify our environment. Without healthy forests, grasslands, rivers, oceans and other ecosystems, we will not have clean air, water, or land. If we allow our environment to become contaminated, we risk our own health (‘Endangered Species Coalition’). Tens of thousands of Americans die every year from illnesses for which there is no known cure. The cures for these diseases may eventually come from plants, therefore, we must protect all species before they are lost forever from nature’s medicine cabinet (‘Endangered Species Coalition’). Animal extinction is a serious threat to mankind because it is a sign of an unhealthy ecosystem, humans require a healthy ecosystem in order to survive, and the cures for many diseases may be found in plants or animals facing extinction.

Historically, animal extinction has happened in the past and is still happening today. Beverly Stearns, a freelance writer who works primarily as a health and environment reporter, reports that “At least 31 surviving species are in imminent danger of extinction. But few species have experienced elevated rates of species loss over the past 11,000 years, and continue to be disproportionately threatened with extinction. Five major mass extinctions and about 20 minor ones have occurred over the past 540 million years” (Stearns). Larry Gilman, who has extensive healthcare experience through his work with hospitals, managed care providers, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, also has deep experience in the technology and entertainments sectors, stated, “the extinctions that occurred some 225 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period and some 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, are particularly well known” (Gilman). The difference between our current situation and these past extinctions is that our current situation is caused by humans.

Stewart Brand, a legend in the tech community and a life-long environmentalist, provides an example of a species that went extinct because of hunting by poachers: the passenger pigeons which were hunted for meat that was sold by the ton, and it was easy to do because when those big flocks came down to the ground, they were so dense that hundreds of hunters and netters could show up and slaughter them by the tens of thousands (Brand). These iconic birds’ population crashed from billions to zero in just fifty years. Professor Shapiro elaborated in email. “In large populations, natural selection is highly efficient. This suggests that if the environment had changed slowly as it may have after the end of the last ice age, they would be able to adapt to these changes as they did at the end of the last ice age” (Shapiro). However, in the 1800s, the passenger pigeon environment changed suddenly due to hunting because we killed millions of passenger pigeons over the course of only a few passenger pigeon generations. “The passenger pigeon probably was unable to survive in small relict populations. Their vast numbers were probably one of their most effective survival strategies. They did not die because they had very little diversity but because they suddenly found themselves living in an environment that was very different from the one to which they were adapted, still being overexploited by a highly skilled predator, and now lacking an efficient means to evolve in response to this environmental change” (Shapiro). That is why the passenger pigeons got extinct from this world.

Animals from all over the world are still endangered by poachers who hunt them for food or their skin. Larry Gilman finds, “The present mass extinction is unique in that it is being caused by a single species—ours—rather than by natural events; furthermore, biologists agree that the effects may be so profound as to threaten the human species itself” (Gilman). Patricia Medici is a Brazilian conservation biologist with a BA in Forestry Sciences from the São Paulo University, an MA in Wildlife Ecology, Conservation and Management from the Federal University of Minas Gerais, and a Ph.D. degree in Biodiversity Management from the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology in University of Kent, United Kingdom, illustrates, “Tapirs help shape and maintain biological diversity in the areas they inhabit, which can include forests, grasslands, floodplains, and even high altitude environments” (Medici). In order to save the tapirs, we need to stop the poachers who are hunting them for their meat and skin. Today, the animals are threatened by poachers, who hunt them for their meat and skins, habitat fragmentation and the pollution that’s rampant in quickly industrializing Brazil (Medici).

The threat of animal extinction is rising at a high rate and if we don’t change or make a difference by saving them, their extinction may also affect us. Patricia Medici, claims “the lives of these solitary tapirs, nocturnal creatures have remained a mystery. But threats from poachers, deforestation, and pollution is quickly industrializing Brazil. We need to learn more about the tapirs and protect them from extinction because they might help us shape and maintain our environment” (Medici). As Medici points out, when one organism is taken out of an ecosystem, that ecosystem becomes unbalanced, and the result can threaten the other animals that share the same ecosystem.

Tropical forests and other ecosystems are being destroyed, climate change, so many species on the brink of extinction: tigers, lions, elephants, rhinos, tapirs (Medici). Our planet is getting warmer. The threat of climate change is real, and our dependence on fossil fuels is the biggest contributor. Unless we make some radical changes, global temperatures will continue to rise and it will have severe consequences for humans and animals (‘One Kind Planet’). Larry Gilman noted: “Over 99.9 percent of all plant and animal species that have ever lived are now extinct. Extinction has always occurred at a fluctuating background rate” (Gilman). Experts calculate, “that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year. The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate” (‘World Wide Fund for Nature’). Humans are now causing the rapid loss of species because they are responsible for almost all of the increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. Since 1990, gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 1.3 percent (‘Environmental Protection Agency’). From year to year, emissions can rise and fall due to changes in the economy, the price of fuel, and other factors (‘Environmental Protection Agency’). We can change that by using a solar car instead of fuel and choose a utility company that generates at least half its power from wind or solar also saving water reduces carbon pollution, too. That’s because it takes a lot of energy to pump, heat, and treat your water. So, take shorter showers, turn off the tap while brushing your teeth, and switch to water sense labeled fixtures and appliances. That is how we can change our climate.

In conclusion, many species are at a high risk of becoming extinct if no steps are taken to protect and restore their habitats (‘Conserving Wildlife’). So, the first step to take is to know what species in your area are endangered and then you let everyone around you know so that they are able to act in a way that will not put these animals’ lives in danger (‘Conserving Wildlife’). We also need to stop cutting out trees that are home to many animals and if we cut them out, we need to make sure that we replace them as soon as we cut them down because many animals depend on trees either to protect themselves from predators or for food. Lastly, support zoos and other wildlife parks because zoos and other wildlife parks have actually done a lot to teach humans about the species and even protect them and help them to grow in population. Most people who want to protect wildlife are against animals being held in captivity, but understanding this means that you understand the importance of these places and what they do to help the situation.

Introduction

Australia is a unique continent that is home to some of the most diverse and interesting creatures in the world. Many of these animals have evolved to survive in the harsh conditions of their environment. This essay will discuss how Australian animals have adapted to their environment to ensure their survival.

Camels

Australian animals have developed a wide range of adaptations to survive in the harsh, dry environments found throughout the continent. From freshwater crocodiles that can survive in both salt and fresh water, to dingos that can go for long periods without water, Australian animals have evolved to survive in the extreme conditions. Many species have also adapted to the arid conditions of the interior by becoming more nomadic, such as the camel, which can travel vast distances in search of food and water. In some areas, the camel has become an integral part of the local economy and culture. For example, in Central Australia, camels are used to transport goods and people across arid landscapes, as well as provide meat and milk. Camels are also able to go for long periods without water, making them even more suited to the harsh climate.

Koalas

Koalas have adapted to their environment in Australia by having thick fur to protect themselves from the elements, strong claws for climbing trees, and a specialized digestive system for a diet of eucalyptus leaves. They have also adapted their sleeping patterns to the extreme temperatures, sleeping for up to 20 hours a day during hot weather. They have also developed a unique form of communication to communicate with each other, using a range of noises and scents. The koala’s ability to climb trees is an important adaptation, giving them access to food and protection from predators. Koalas also have large cheek pouches, which they use to store food when feeding. All these adaptations help koalas survive in the wild, and have made them one of the most iconic Australian animals.

Kangaroos

Kangaroos have adapted to their environment in a variety of ways. They have evolved to survive in the harsh Australian environment, with their strong muscular legs and powerful tail to help them move quickly across the land. Their unique ability to hop and jump enables them to cover large distances quickly, and to quickly escape from predators. They are also able to conserve energy by resting in the shade during the heat of the day. Kangaroos have also adapted to the varying climates in Australia, with some species living in cold mountain regions and others living in hot, arid deserts. Their thick fur and long ears help to keep them cool in the heat, whilst their thick fur also helps to insulate them from the cold. Additionally, their well-developed sense of smell and hearing allow them to detect potential predators and take evasive action quickly. These adaptations have allowed kangaroos to survive and thrive in the Australian environment for centuries.

Tasmanian Devils

The Tasmanian Devil is one of the most adaptable creatures in the world and has been able to thrive in a variety of environments. They are able to survive in cold climates and have a unique ability to hunt in the dark. Their fur provides excellent insulation, while their long claws help them to climb and dig. They also have a unique diet which includes carrion, insects, birds, and small mammals. This allows them to survive in habitats with limited food sources. Tasmanian Devils are also very social and form large social groups in order to hunt, forage, and mate. This ability to adapt to their environment has allowed them to survive for centuries.

Benefits of Adaptations

Physical adaptations can include features such as camouflage, the ability to burrow, the ability to swim, and thick fur to protect from extreme temperatures. Behavioral adaptations can include the ability to forage for food, migrate during times of drought, and social behavior to protect against predators.

One of the key ways that many of these animals have adapted is through better reproduction. Animals such as the echidna and the kangaroo have developed various strategies to ensure that their offspring are well protected and nurtured. The echidna, for example, has developed a pouch in which its young can grow and develop. The kangaroo, on the other hand, carries its young in a pouch and has developed a unique form of “pouch hopping” which enables it to move quickly and safely with its young in tow. These adaptations ensure that the offspring of these animals have a much better chance of surviving in the wild.

Challenges to Adaptation

This adaptation has faced a number of challenges. One of the major challenges is the changing climate, with rising temperatures, more erratic weather patterns and the increased risk of bushfires. This has the potential to significantly reduce the available habitats for many species, leading to a decrease in their population. Additionally, the spread of human settlements has limited the areas in which some animals can live, leading to further reductions in population numbers. The introduction of new predators to the environment can also be a major strain on the ability of species to adapt and survive. Finally, the spread of disease, from both native and non-native species, can lead to localized extinctions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Australian animals have adapted to their environment over time, allowing them to survive and thrive in the unique and diverse environment of Australia. They have done this through the development of specific behaviors and physical characteristics that help them to better survive in their particular environment. These traits, such as the ability to climb trees or dig for food, have enabled animals to better survive and thrive in their environments. Additionally, the adaptation of animals to the climate of Australia has allowed them to better cope with changes in the environment. Australian animals have thus adapted to their environment in a variety of ways and have continued to do so as the environment has changed over time.

Introduction

Cloning is a scientific process that has been around for over a hundred years. When one thinks of a clone and the techniques used to create them, it often seems like something out of science fiction. Not many realize that cloning has been happening naturally for millions of years, such as in identical twins and some forms of asexual reproduction. Cloning is most simply defined as taking genetic information from an organism and copying it. There are three different types of artificial cloning processes: gene, reproductive, and therapeutic. The first cloning study took place in 1885 by German scientist Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch. “In 1902, he… create[d] a set of twin salamanders by dividing an embryo into two separate, viable embryos, according to the Genetic Science Learning Center” (Bradford, 2017). Arguably the most famous case of cloning took place in 1996 when a female sheep gave birth to a Finn Dorset lamb named Dolly. Dolly was the first mammal to be cloned from the cells of an adult animal. However, Dolly did not live a very full life because she had multiple debilitating diseases. As the idea of cloning has become more widespread, opinions differ vastly on this subject not only in the scientific community but among many other groups as well.

Procedure

As stated before, there are three different types of artificial cloning. Gene cloning involves the extraction of DNA from an organism and breaking the bonds between the nucleotides with specific enzymes. Plasmids are combined with the genes and then transferred to living bacteria. Bacteria are not the only means by which this is done, but they are among the most common. The bacteria, known as a vector, implanted with the genetic material grow into colonies. When a gene of interest is spotted in a specific colony, the bacteria in the colony are propagated and millions of copies of the plasmid are made. This technique is primarily used by scientists wishing to study specific genes as it creates exact copies of genes or segments of DNA.

The second method of cloning is reproductive. In this process, a mature somatic (non-reproductive) cell is removed from an organism. The cell’s DNA is transferred into an egg cell that has just had its DNA removed. The egg is then chemically induced to start the reproductive process and implanted into a female uterus of the same species as the egg. When the offspring is produced, its genetic makeup is the same as the donor of the somatic cell. An important thing to note is that the idea of a clone in this case refers to DNA in the nucleus (from one genetic parent, the donor) and not mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria are organelles in the cell that have their separate DNA and are not included in the process of reproductive cloning in cases of somatic DNA transfer. Reproductive cloning is the process that produced Dolly, the cloned sheep mentioned before. Embryo splitting is another form of reproductive cloning. This is done by in vitro fertilization, or the union of gametes outside the body to create a zygote. The zygote divides into four identical cells. The cells are then separated and implanted into the female uterus after developing into blastocysts. Embryo splitting is a process that results in identical nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, unlike somatic DNA transfer. When individuals think of cloning, they often think of multiple humans, which would be achieved by reproductive cloning.

The last method of cloning is known as therapeutic. Therapeutic cloning is like reproduction in its process, but the results are different. Therapeutic cloning does not involve directly copying genetic material for “making” a copy of an organism. In Alina Bradford’s Live Science article, she describes therapeutic cloning as “[a] cell [being] taken from an animal’s skin and… inserted into the outer membrane of a donor egg cell. Then, the egg is chemically induced so that it creates embryonic stem cells.” The stem cells can be used to treat disease as they can replace damaged and dysfunctional cells within the body. They are known as pluripotent cells or cells that can boost all cells in the body except for embryos. Immunological rejection is eliminated with this process since the patient’s genetic material is used. Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic.

Application

Cloning is used in a myriad of areas. One of the main things it is used for is the advancement of medicine and how patients are cared for. Studies of disease can be performed by cloning a population of animals that all carry the same disease. This alleviates the time-consuming nature of manipulating genes to carry the disease-causing mutations, as the process is very much trial-and-error and takes several generations to produce enough progeny to study the disease effectively. As mentioned before, stem cells and their development can also be a form of cloning. In medicine, they are used to replace damaged tissue in patients. Those suffering from severe burns can have stem cell treatments to induce new and healthy skin cell growth. When stem cells are not clones of the original patient, an immunological rejection can occur. Cloned stem cells do not have this risk involved. Stem cells taken and cloned from a patient with a disease can then be used to further study that specific ailment and develop new and better treatments for it. Cloning can also be used to revive endangered or extinct animals as well. A well-preserved sample of DNA and a currently living and closely related species that could be an egg donor would be used in cases of extinction. However, this process has not been completely successful as the offspring of the resurrected species have rarely been viable. Endangered animals are much easier to work with in the sense that they can donate healthy, living cells. An issue with this process arises in the lack of genetic diversity among clones and the possibility of being unable to adapt to changes in the environment among future generations. The number of endangered species could rise exponentially, but this result could be short-lived. Other areas of cloning include cloning deceased pets by companies that charge upwards of $100,000 for their services and cloning livestock. Superior genes seen in some cows, pigs, etc. can be cloned to make for better meat or milk. Once an animal is slaughtered, its genes can be harvested to be passed on to future generations. Currently, there is a large amount of research into the process of cloning humans, something that is seen as immoral by some members of the public. Overall, cloning can be used to create better opportunities for research and genetically superior organisms.

Opinions

Opinions regarding cloning and its specifics vary widely among different groups. Human cloning is currently still illegal Some scientists and lawmakers view human reproductive cloning as immoral, while others see it as a way to solve infertility issues. There are no federal laws that regulate human cloning in the United States, but several states have adopted various policies that directly or indirectly prohibit human cloning for research or producing children. In part three of The Threat of Human Cloning by the New Atlantis, it is stated that “[t]he central moral objection to cloning-for-biomedical-research is that it involves the deliberate killing of human embryos.” In the opinion of this publication, embryos are just as much human as anyone else, and “killing” them for research or otherwise is morally wrong. It is also stated that the gathering of eggs for cloning research is problematic. Dr Brendan Curran, Researcher in Genetics, Cloning and the Public Perception of Science at Queen Mary, University of London believes that if human cloning were ever to be achieved humans would still retain their individuality because everyone is a product of multiple factors and not just their genetic makeup. He also states that scientists do everything in their power to prevent the production of offspring that are severely ill or disabled. Some animal suffering may be involved, but “[t]he potential gains for humanity have to be weighed against the potential suffering of the animal” (Curran, 2019). For some, the risks involved and the potential for a life of suffering for a cloned organism are not to be outweighed by the scientific benefits it could pose. The topic of cloning and what exactly it entails are a hot topic whether it be for financial, scientific, ethical, religious, or any other number of reasons.

Conclusion

To summarize, cloning is the copying of genetic material either naturally or in a lab. The term itself is comprised of three processes: gene, reproductive, and therapeutic, and each process yields different results. Gene cloning involves replicating a small section of a genome for research, reproductive cloning involves cloning an entire complex organism, and therapeutic cloning is done for the sake of creating healthy cells that will multiply and possibly increase an individual’s quality of life. Animal cloning has been occurring for years, but human cloning is illegal and generally unaccepted. Regardless of the reason for cloning taking place, some feel as if it is morally wrong to manipulate science and subsequently genetics this way. Human cloning will most likely not be achieved for a very long time due to expenses, difficulty, and conflict. There are pros and cons alike in different areas of cloning. Hopefully, the research being done can help scientists and others better understand genetics.

References

1. (US), National Academy of Sciences, et al. “Cloning: Definitions And Applications.” Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Jan. 2002, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223960/.
2. “Appendix: State Laws on Human Cloning.” The New Atlantis, The Center for the Study of Technology and Society, 2015, www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/appendix-state-laws-on-human-cloning.
3. Bradford, Alina. “Facts About Cloning.” LiveScience, Future US, Inc., 2 Mar. 2017, www.livescience.com/58079-cloning-facts.html.
4. “Cloning Fact Sheet.” Genome.gov, National Human Genome Research Institute, 21 Mar. 2017, www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-Fact-Sheet.
5. “Dr Brendan Curran, Researcher in Genetics, Cloning and the Public Perception of Science at Queen Mary, University of London.” Centre of the Cell, Centre of the Cell, 2019, www.centreofthecell.org/learn-play/ethics/cloning/dr-brendan-curran/.
6. Murnaghan, Ian. “Therapeutic Cloning.” ExploreStemCells, ExploreStemCells, 10 Feb. 2020, www.explorestemcells.co.uk/therapeuticcloning.html.
7. “The Case Against Cloning-for- Biomedical-Research.” New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, vol. 46, Summer 2015, pp. 51–73. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=112289885&site=ehost-live.
8. “Why Clone?” Genetic Science Learning Center, University of Utah, 10 July 2014, learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/whyclone/.

Agricultural cloning is used widely by farmers hoping to produce the most efficient and advantageous crops. One reason that a farmer would clone a specific plant within a crop is because that plant may demonstrate resistance toward a pest or infection. (“Why successful plant cloning is important”, 2017). Additionally, a farmer may want to clone a plant due to a high yield of fruit or other desirable or profitable resource. With agricultural cloning, it is possible to reproduce pest resistance. This is also one of the numerous reasons why it is common among farmers. A strong mother with strong resistance to pests and disease will pass that trait onto its clones.

For example. the commercial Cavendish banana is the most common and the most popular variety of bananas sold worldwide. Nearly all these commercial banana plants are perfect clones of one another and have ‘more nutrition content than other varieties of banana’ (“Cavendish banana nutrition facts and how to enjoy them. It contains less sugar than other types but is packed with potassium.

As for cloning in livestock, many species have been cloned since Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell in 1996. ‘There are now estimated to be around 6000 farm animal clones worldwide’ (“A Primer on Cloning and Its Use in Livestock Operations”, 2018), with livestock species that have previously and are currently cloned being cattle, swine, sheep, and goats.

Farmers have strived for years to select animals with the best traits and breed them together. This elevates the chance these good traits will be passed on and become more common in livestock herds. Cloning such animals allows the farmer to control the offspring’s inherited traits, such as increased milk production. Therefore, a farmer who clones an especially desirable, but aging or injured animal knows in advance that the clone will have the genetic potential to be an especially good, younger animal.’ (“A Primer on Cloning and Its Use in Livestock Operations”, 2018). The process of cloning in livestock varies from agricultural cloning: farmers and scientists use nuclear transfer, which involves removing the nucleus from an unfertilized egg and replacing it with a nucleus from an adult somatic cell. The egg is then returned to a host mother, where it will develop into a new individual.

Controversy

There is vast controversy surrounding cloning plants and animals, covering ethical, social, biological, and other categories of implications.

Controversy of plant cloning:

The disadvantages of plant cloning are now a topic of concern for environmentalists and botany scholars who are concerned with some features of plants being destroyed due to cloning.

There is a lack of genetic diversity in the population of cloned plants; ‘if a single disease harms one plant it will likely harm all the crop because they are all identical’ (Cattle, McCreanor, Mago, 2008). In contrast, variations in a population offer different disease-resistance levels which protect crops from susceptibility to one disease that could wipe the whole population out. Plant cloning ‘helps in producing individuals of same species faster and in desired quantities’ (Pandey, 2018) and provides insight for geneticists and scientists in terms of cloning research.

The debate on plant cloning has no end especially when both pros and cons are weighed. While commercially, it is great for agricultural purposes, nobody can predict how harmful it can be if farmers adopt cloning instead of traditional and successful methods of farming. Moreover, with food scarcity becoming a global problem for third-world countries, it can be said that the future of plant cloning will certainly be of more significance.

Controversy of animal cloning

Cloning Dolly, the first cloned sheep through nuclear transfer, was a massive achievement for science. However, ‘the cloning process is far too costly to be commercially viable for farmers and breeders’ (“Pros & Cons of Cloning Plants & Animals”, n.d). One of the benefits of cloning animals is the ‘exciting prospect of re-introducing a recently extinct species’ (“Pros & Cons of Cloning Plants & Animals”, n.d.) such as the Tasmanian Tiger, and its potential use for protecting other endangered and vulnerable species. One disadvantage of animal cloning would also be the population’s susceptibility to being wiped out by the same disease due to the identical genomes and lack of genetic variation.

Moreover, only a tiny percentage of cloning attempts have successful births with very few offspring being healthy. Without strict controls, cloning may spark significant animal welfare issues, as well as changes to the nature of the animals involved.

Advantages of cloning in agriculture

• Many plants can be produced in a short amount of time.
• Due to all cloned plants growing in a fixed period, it is easier to predict the time between planting and harvesting. In an agricultural economy, this can be a valuable boost to crop cultivation and earnings for farmers.
• Plants with excellent nutritional benefits can be cloned to get plants with the same benefits. This aids in solving issues of poor vegetable and fruit quality.

Advantages of cloning livestock

• Clones allow farmers to upgrade the overall quality of their herds by providing more copies of the best animals in the herd with desirable characteristics like disease resistance, suitability to climate, and quality body type (farmers naturally desire an animal whose body is well suited to its production function).
• The agricultural industry can benefit from animal cloning by reproducing animals with superior genes that have livestock yielding more meat and milk.
• Livestock are excellent sources of protein that are required in medicine, specifically in the research on human blood clotting. And ‘by cloning animals, the problem with the shortage of protein sources and vaccines that are derived from animals can be resolved’ (“9 Advantages and Disadvantages of Cloning Animals”, 2019).

Ethical guidelines

In addition to concern for animal welfare, many people have ethical and moral concerns about animal cloning. Many believe that just because scientists can clone animals for food, doesn’t mean they should, because cloning promotes the objectification of animals, treating them as mere machines for human manufacture. Hence, from this, it can be concluded that scientists must first fully consider the welfare and health of animals, as well as the ethics involved before studies regarding the cloning of livestock are carried out.

Primary people who have ethical objections to cloning in agriculture

Many feel that cloning is ‘unnatural’ because, overall, it requires a “significantly greater level of involvement and interference with animals’ reproductive functioning” (Ethics, n.d.) compared to other conventional production methods. Several religious groups, including Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths, have rejected animal cloning due to their ethical objections to the process. In such faiths, cloning and genetic engineering are viewed as equivalent to “playing God”.

This is a biased opinion since people of such faiths are incorporating their religious values and beliefs into them. Those who would have a more objective approach to the issue are atheists and agnostic scientists. Some responses to this objection are:

• The objection to “playing God” claims to know what God’s will is concerning scientific advancements such as cloning. However, since ‘key religious texts (e.g., The Bible, or the Qu’ran) make no mention of such advancements, it is presumably impossible to decide what God would have to say about them’ (Manninen, n.d). In other words, inferences about God’s decision on such matters are weak because there is little basis to draw these moral conclusions (Pence, 2008).
• Those harboring this objection must define exactly what “playing God” means. One possible definition of “playing God” is that anything that “interferes with nature, interferes with God’s plan for mankind, and is hence morally wrong” (Glannon, 2005). But this is too vague; humans continually interrupt nature in ways that are not morally criticized. For example, vaccines against diseases, respirators, and pacemakers interfere with nature in the sense that they stop harmful or fatal afflictions to the human body. 

The earth revolves around captivating animals, that form the globe’s ecosystem. The wildlife assists in ecology, economics, and biomedicine; these idioms will keep the planet safe because humans will have access to clean air, food, and water. Sadly, there’s a vast extinction of animals due to deforestation. Deforestation removes tropical forests to create empty land. For many reasons, this occurs, including agriculture, and logging for material and growth. But if animals are not in their habitat, they can’t survive. This is an issue because food chains display energy transferring from one species to another. Meaning every living organism depends on each other to survive, so its prime to stop deforestation and save wildlife.

The wildlife has a variety of benefits like removing biological debris. Debris contains medical waste with infectious material. It’s necessary to remove debris because humans can catch diseases when exposed to them. Also, the wildlife is a large gene pool, which helps maintain a public’s health. The gene pool stocks different genes in an interbreeding population. Sustaining miscellany permits the earth a guard against change, letting everyone adapt. Assuming the ecosystem changes, a populated world with higher gene variation will adapt more closely to other climates, saving our earth from future disasters (‘Benefits of Wildlife’). Unfortunately, the world loses these resources due to wildlife extinction. Most people believe that animal extinction occurs because of poaching, but deforestation is the main reason.

First, animals will lose their habitats. “Seventy percent of Earth’s land animals and plants live in the forest and many cannot survive the deforestation that destroys their homes” (‘Effects of Deforestation’). The trees protect the animals and provide a temperature-controlled canopy. Canopy is the aboveground portion of the forest that regulates the temperature for the wildlife. The removal of trees permits a more severe day-to-night temperature similar to a desert because the aboveground vanished (‘Effects of Deforestation’). The wildlife is adapted to the forest weather. The removal of the trees will change the temperature of the forest and animals won’t know how to adapt to a new climate.

Animals look for shelter that offers trees. With unlimited trees, habitats are too small to maintain multiple populations of animals. The wildlife is competitive, they don’t enjoy sharing food or land. Animals fight to be the leader of the territories, which leads to injuries and death. Additionally, when a variety of animals are clustered together, they don’t feel comfortable breeding near predators, stopping the reproductive system. These reasons cause animals to search for another territory. When attempting to migrate between habitats, they can get hit by vehicles or unknowingly eat toxic food (‘How Does Deforestation Affect’).

Secondly, the removal of trees affects the animals because the air will not contain enough oxygen. Trees and plants utilize carbon dioxide to fabricate chemical vitality, producing oxygen. Trees are the main oxygen-producing element. Trees breathe carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen, while animals and humans breathe out carbon dioxide and breathe oxygen (Larson). Additionally, without oxygen, a higher percentage of greenhouse gases are released to the atmosphere. The rainforest of South America produces twenty percent of the earth’s oxygen. However, it’s disappearing at a rate of four hectares a decade and adding fifteen through twenty percent more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Jason Schwartz). The fewer oxygen organisms receive, the more stress their body becomes (Bottan). When animals are stressed, a physiological response to a stimulus attacks them. Epinephrine rises, resulting in an increased heart rate and blood pressure, weakening the immune system. This increases the rate of heart attacks and arrhythmias on the animals. (‘Anieasesmal Ethic’).

Continuing, trees help regulate the amount of water in the atmosphere by controlling the hydrologic cycle. Hydrology is the movement of water that interacts with the environment’s living and material properties. Trees are associated with the hydrologic cycle by stopping the arrival of condensation. They stop water from moving the soil and increases infiltration. With barely any trees left, there is less water in the atmosphere returning to the ground, resulting in dry soil. Soil sustains life because it purifies the water and supplies nutrients to the forest, regulating the Earth’s temperature. Because soil contains nutrients, oxygen, and water, it’s the most recognized feature for food production support. Ninety-five percent of the earth’s food utilizes soil. (‘Let’s Mind the Soil’). Without it, the wildlife struggles to find food. The food contains carbohydrates, protein, and fats. These are the three main elements that give organisms energy. Energy is important because it helps repair the body. The energy will allow animals to hunt and protect themselves from predators.

Additionally, soil and the hydrological cycle take part in providing pure water and controls floods and droughts. Rich soil holds the highest proportion of water because the infiltration of soil captures contaminants in water and restrains the runoff of groundwater. The infiltration will soak the water, allowing the water to move through cracks and rocks. During a massive rainfall its beneficial because it slows the release of water into the streams, allowing safe access to water for the wildlife (‘Let’s Mind the Soil’). Everything that includes cells, organs, and tissues, use water to help regulate their temperature and maintain body function. When breathing and digesting, the wildlife loses water, so they must rehydrate by drinking a lot of water daily. Animals need to drink two gallons of water per hundred pounds. If animals don’t drink enough water, they can experience fevers, diarrhea, vomiting, and fatigue.

Furthermore, when the water cycle changes, it influences the production of carbon dioxide, causing climate change and global warming (Nanda). If the water cycle stops soil production, crops won’t grow, meaning carbon dioxide can’t take CO2 from plants. Climate change will cause droughts, storms, heatwaves, and rising sea levels. When animals aren’t comfortable living under these conditions, their natural elements vanish because they don’t know how to protect themselves from the new climate. Since the wildlife lives in the forest, they’re used to the climate being around seventy degrees. If a heat wave occurs, it will cause drought and the animals won’t have easy access to water. If a storm occurs it will cause rising sea levels, and most wild animals struggle swimming and staying in cold climates. One million species are facing extinction, and eighty-two percent of the global biomass dropped due to the high percentage of climate change. When researched why climate change has increased, the majority was because of deforestation (Wenston).

Numerous people believe that deforestation does not cause the extinction of animals because it creates agriculture plantation. Agriculture plantation is a method of profiting crops. Animals don’t gain profit from agriculture plantation because the crops are sold to the public, it’s not meant for the animals. Only thirty-three percent of the food goes to the animals (Arianna Pittman). Additionally, not all wild animals have access to that food because deforestation also occurs to create roads, houses, paper, and log. It depends on why the forest got removed.

Continuing, people believe the main reason for animal extinction is poaching. Poaching is a form of hunting or killing animals. People hunt animals to sell locally or for global trade. Global trade allows countries to buy animals from other nations. This occurs with animals that look valuable. An example is their fur or ivory (‘World Wildlife’). However, not a lot of people hunt for animals because it became illegal in various countries. People can get up to ten years in prison if they get caught hunting for animals (Thye). Also, the government strengthened the enforcement agencies to prevent poaching activities. One hundred fifty-four countries signed treaties to end animal hunting. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stated that thirty percent of animal extinction is due to poaching, while deforestation causes sixty-five percent of animal extinction. (Shadow). Animals are created by their natural habits. If the forests are destroyed, animals wouldn’t have a place to breed; stopping the animal reproductive system, meaning animal hunting wouldn’t be possible.

Studies show that only two thousand four hundred Sumatran elephants are left, eighty-four Amur leopards are left, and thirty tigers from South China are left. To continue, there was a sixty percent fall in the gorilla population, and the Bornean orangutan dropped by fifty percent. Lastly, only two percent of the black rhino is left, and these are just a few of the many animals at risk of extinction due to deforestation (Damiana).

Right now, forests are only covering thirty percent of the earth’s land. Governments throughout the world are putting restrictions on deforestation, but forests are still being cut down illegally. Deforestation increased by twenty-eight percent (Jason Schwartz). People say that removing a few trees won’t hurt us, but we’re losing seven hundred sixty-eight thousand acres of land per year. At this rate, no forest will be left by 2100 (Jason Schwartz). Animal management benefits both the environment and human interests. People should consider the greater picture when making decisions about wildlife and think outside the quick-term effects. People shouldn’t destroy the forest when there are enough agriculture plantations and construction on earth. When destroying forests we’re losing, water, soil, oxygen, food, medicine and most importantly the animals that created our ecosystem.

As human activities lead to rising greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere, less incoming solar energy is released back into space, causing a net energy gain that increases global temperatures. Climate change will be an important driver of biodiversity loss into the foreseeable future. Habitat degradation, phenological shifts and ecosystem change are expected to result in an increasing number of species of conservation concern.

The Arctic is warming at a rate three times greater than the global average and Arctic sea-ice extent is declining rapidly. The Arctic Ocean is expected to be seasonally ice-free by as early as the 2030’s. Arctic marine mammals depend on sea ice for many aspects of their life history and some are particularly vulnerable due to specialized feeding or habitat requirements. Sea-ice declines represent losses of shelter from inclement weather, protection from open-water predators and many forms of human disturbance, foraging habitats, platforms for birthing, nursing, resting and molting in the case of ice-associated seals and in a loss of hunting habitat and transport platforms for polar bears.

Projected sea-ice loss in the 21st century is expected to negatively affect polar bears throughout much of their range, because the species depends fundamentally on sea-ice for access to its primary prey. Polar bears are dependent on a sea-ice platform for hunting seals that are hauled out on sea ice or still-hunting at breathing holes. Sea-ice melting reduces the opportunities for polar bears to capture seals, leaving them at risk of expending more energy in the pursuit of food than they can obtain. Animal energy use is typically described by two terms. The resting metabolic rate (RMR) includes the energy cost of basic organismal functions, such as blood circulation and breathing. The field metabolic rate (FMR) includes RMR as well as the energy cost of additional activities, such as movement and foraging. Because energy balance influences whether an animal survives and reproduces, RMR and FMR are critical variables in ecology and conservation. Spring is a critical hunting period for polar bears; after the long dark winter when many female bears have been in the den rearing young and fasting, finding food quickly to replenish depleted energy stores is important.

Polar bears in most Arctic regions primarily hunt ringed seals and their pups. Do to broken glacier ice, polar bears must do aquatic approaches, sneaking in on seals and then bursting onto the ice to capture their prey. This hunting technique has been suggested to be a ‘specialty’ hunting strategy, only used by some bears. Longer periods of ice melt are lengthening the time during which polar bears much endure food deprivation. Polar bears move longer distances per day in the summer months, but have smaller home ranges in August, suggesting that polar bears are searching more for food but are restricted in the area that they search, potentially due to reductions in sea ice. Declines of sea ice in coastal areas has decreased the ability of polar bear to hunt traditionally, ice-associated prey during summer and autumn, leading to increased usage of alternate prey resources to meet energy demands. Increases in the number of human-bear conflicts also suggest that more bears are on shore or that changes in their movement patterns are bringing them into contact with people more frequently.

Consequently, near-term management actions will likely focus on secondary factors or threats with the intent of protecting populations until global action leads to a stabilized climate system. Polar bear subsistence harvest is important because it has cultural, nutritional, and economic value to native people in the Arctic. Fifteen polar bear subpopulations currently support a legal subsistence harvest, although this is not considered a threat to polar bears at a species level, there are concerns about harvest for individual subpopulations. Habitat loss could increase vulnerability to overutilization if populations become smaller or less resilient and removal levels are not adjusted accordingly. The best possible outcomes for polar bears include control hunting and other factors in an effect to make populations with the lower numbers sustainable. However, a ban on hunting would be a serious cultural loss for the Arctic’s aboriginal people. The future remains uncertain, but it is now more clearly in the hands of policy-makers. There is cause for optimism, but that requires optimism about our ability to change.

The process of diffusion is the exchange of nutrients and wastes between a cell and its environment. For instance, amoeba, a single-celled microorganism can get all the nutrients it needs and get rid of its wastes through diffusion. However, diffusion is more effective in specific distance, hence it limits the size that an individual cell can attain. This means that the larger the size of the animal, the less surface area for diffusion it has (OpenStax Biology, 2015).

Larger animals are multicellular, and they have various systems that allow them to get nutrients and remove wastes, for instance, the circulation brings nutrients and removes wastes, while the respiratory system brings O2 and removes CO2 from cells (OpenStax Biology, 2015).

An example of small animals can be sponges. Sponges have many limitations as they are fixed in one place and cannot go looking for food. Another limitation, which I will be focusing on, is that it has no respiratory organs or system; in fact, the sponge is so simple that it does not have a special area for gas exchanges, therefore they have developed other ways of exchanging gases with the environment (Moore, 2017). Sponges have small pores, called ostia which is where oxygen-containing water is drowned into them, then the water circulates throughout the sponges’ body through an action of cells called phagocyte. The phagocyte cells contain flagella, a structure that moves the water around and through the sponge. Through this process food and oxygen are brought to the sponge and wastes and CO2 are removed. Specifically, the exchange of gas in Sponges occurs through simple diffusion across each cell membrane (Moore, 2017).

An example of complex animals can be humans. As we all know human and sponges have different ways of breathing and exchanging gas with the environment (Moore, 2017). Humans have the respiratory system which is a network of organs and tissues including lungs and blood vessels. All these parts work together to remove CO2 and to get O2 (Moore, 2017). The respiratory system has various function other than exchanging gases with the environment in fact it allows us to talk and smell, it brings air to the body temperatures and protects the airways from harmful substances (Cleveland Clinic, n.d.). The respiratory system is composed of many parts that work together like mouth and nose, trachea, bronchiole tubes and lungs. From the lungs the oxygen goes to the bloodstream and delivers oxygen to all the organs and tissues. When a person breathes out the blood carries the CO2 and other wastes of the body. The human respiratory system is connected to the circulatory system as O2 needs to be distributed through the bloodstreams (Cleveland Clinic, n.d.).

If we were to compare the sponge and human circulatory system, we can see that the sponge has a less complicated process that works through diffusion, while the human circulatory system is far more complicated as it includes more organs and tissues. Human beings cannot breathe or exchange gases through diffusion as it is too slow for the needs of the human body (Moore, 2017).

The increased size in animals is an adaption, in fact bigger body sizes increase tolerance to extreme environments, reduce mortality, and it reduces the change of the animal to become prey. For instance, throughout the observation of mammalian fossil records, we can see that mammals have evolved to bigger a size which is most likely because of selection pressure.

References

1. OpenStax, Biology. OpenStax CNX. May 13, 2015. Chapter 33. The Animal Body: Basic Form and Function. Retrieved from: http://cnx.org/contents/185cbf87-c72e-48f5-b51e-f14f21b5eabd@9.85
2. Moore, 2017. How Do Sponge Breath? Staining. Retrieved from: https://sciencing.com/do-sponges-breath-6549077.html
3. Cleveland Clinic, n.d. Respiratory System. Retrieved from: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/healtharticles/21205-respiratory-system
4. Baker, J. , Meade, A., Pagel, M. and Venditti, C. (2015). Adaptive Evolution Toward Larger Size in Mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(16). http://doi.org/10.1073pnas.1419823112

What really happened to the buffalo? Buffalo is one of Canada’s known animals. They play a huge part in Canadian history and why the world is the way it is today and part of why the government and the aboriginal people are where they are today. The average buffalo is between seven feet and eleven feet tall and weighs anywhere from 660-2,200 pounds. They are huge creatures and have been around for a long time. Over the years the looks of the buffalo have changed a bit because of the great loss and not always having the right breed of buffalo to breed back to each other because of the limited amount of buffalo. This drastic event hit the aboriginal people the hardest, buffalo to them was everything. The world started to demand/depend on the buffalo until the loss. The loss of the buffalo drastically impacted modern Canada. This paper will discuss the context of how and why they disappeared, and then discuss the environmental impacts of no longer having many wild buffalo.

In the early 19th century, there were millions of buffalo across North America, and in just one herd there were tens of thousands of buffalo (Foster, par.2). Two different waves of buffalo hit Canada. The first one being from Eastern Siberia, where the glaciers retreated and exposed the land connecting Siberia to North America. While the glaciers were connected different species traveled from both places and in all the different animals were the buffalo, they were the first in Canada (Olson, par.6-7). The second time was from Asia, they crossed the Bering land bridge into North America. Both groups of bison had to readjust to a new environment this caused, “… forced Bison latifrons to slowly evolve into Bison antiquus, then Bison occidentalis and eventually into the extant North American bison, the plains bison (Bison bison bison) and the wood bison (Bison bison athabascae)” (Olson, par.8). The buffalo came from a different continent and were able to adapt to the environment and make a home for themselves. There were so many buffalo back then because the only people that hunted them were mestizos and that was after they were already a huge population.

The aboriginal colony relied heavily on the buffalo, the buffalo was their primary food source (Foster, par.2). To the tribes, it was such cultural importance to them, “The hunt and its products gave rise to, and supported, complex social, political and cultural institutions” (par.7). It was not just a hunt or a food source, the animal was important to them and they were grateful for it and would give back in return to the buffalo. When they killed, they used every last piece of the animal and each part was as important as the next. The meat provided good nutrition for the people and kept them strong; they ate liver, brain and nose gristles as a treat and were eaten raw. The dried meat was food that was eaten over the winter. The bones were turned into tools such as knives and if they boiled the bones, they could make glue. The skin was used for shelter (building tipis), they made clothes, moccasins, bedding, saddle covers, and water bags. The feces were used to fuel the fires. The horns and hooves made cups, the fat as soap, the tails as fly swatters, and the rough tongues as hairbrushes (BBC no.1-11). It meant a lot more than just a kill to the mestizo people, they used every inch of the buffalo and didn’t let anything go to waste. They relied on them for so much and wanted to cherish every bit of it.

Before the Europeans came the buffalo population was fine. They hunted and killed what they needed and the rest reproduced. The methods the mestizos people used was, “They used stealth or subterfuge—by cloaking themselves in wolf skin or mimicking the cries of a bison calf—to get within bow and arrow range, or co-operated in funneling the herd towards a cliff (buffalo jump) or a strongly-built corral (pound), permitting a larger kill” (Foster, par.3). There are methods that never hurt the large population, only small herds. When the Europeans arrived everything changed, they brought horses and rifles. The horses were faster and made hunting easier for the hunters. They were able to get right up close to the buffalo instead of having to wait it out and could travel farther distances from the living area. Then in the 1860s rifles came into play, increased the capacity of the killings. This caused a great decrease in the population (par.4). The Europeans then ten years later made killing buffalo a sport, for the whole point of starving out the aboriginal people and making them dependent on the Europeans. The Europeans wanted the power.

When the Europeans arrived in Canada, they started taking everything from the First Nations, the most important being the buffalo. They let the whole world know about the buffalo and how everyone could use their resources for leisure instead of what it was intended for (Foster, par.5). When the Europeans wanted aboriginals to be dependent, they established buffalo hunting everywhere, “In the 1870s, these conditions were met with a steady price for buffalo products, a lack of regulation of the hunt and new tanning processes that rendered buffalo hides a valuable commodity. These conditions encouraged massive slaughter in Canada and the United States, resulting in the near extinction of the bison” (Foster, par.5). The Europeans did not even consult with the aboriginal people, they just came in and made a huge demand for buffalo worldwide. What the Europeans did was horrible to the aboriginal people and ruined the buffalo population forever. This was the complete downfall of the buffalo, the Europeans. What happens next? How does this affect the future?

After the near-extinction experience, the buffalo had a hard recovery and have never fully recovered since. Conservationists were the ones to save the buffalo by protecting the wild herds that made them a real herd again in the United States (Foster, par.6). But how did the buffalo return to Canada? In 1909 Canadas minister found news that a group of buffalo were up for sale in the United States from the conversations and wanted to buy them as it would be the greatest animal come back in history. When they first arrived, the Canadian government got land near a town called Wainwright, Alberta, and called this land the Buffalo National Park which was later turned into Wood Buffalo National Park. Once the buffalo were returned to Canada the recovery didn’t move faster, there were management issues with the herd and disease came into play. To this day there is hardly any wild buffalo in Canada, two herds of plains buffalo, and ten of the wood buffalo. Although there is not a lot of wild lefts, consumers are still in high demand for buffalo, so the amount of commercial buffalo farming has grown and expanded (par.6). In 2016 there was on average about 12,200 buffalo in Canada, 2,200 plains, and 10,000 wood. In this number, it includes the free ranging buffalo and the captivity buffalo (Clifton, par.2).

Rhinos are a lot like buffalo in the way that they are both herbivores, live in the same type of climates and have the same footprint on the world, this makes them able to compare to the buffalo. What would happen if the rhinos disappeared? If the rhinos disappeared there would be a drastic downfall in the ecosystem (Sterbenz, par.4). Just like buffalo, they are on a grass diet, the grazing that they do helps to keep the land sustained for the rest of the species. There was a study done in a National Park in South Africa that states, “rhinos’ decline has already started to affect the structure and composition of grasslands. In areas with a high density of rhinos, the researchers found more short grasses — an important metric for biodiversity, Goldman explains. Although seemingly counterintuitive, grazers, like rhinos, increase biodiversity by selecting certain plants over others, giving other species more ability to grow” (Sterbenz, par.5). This shows that animals like a rhino or buffalo increase diversity and keep all other species at bay, if they became extinct what would happen to the other species. The animals and plants need them a whole lot more than humans do.

Elephants are the engineers of the ecosystem. They may not be as closely similar as the rhino and buffalo, but they do still possess the same footprint on the earth. What would happen if an elephant went extinct? Elephants just like buffalo replenish vegetation which helps the plants grow and maintain the structure and in return, the food supply will always be there (Lindsay, par.2). Elephants greatly increase biodiversity, they benefit almost every species (par.6), a little bit more than a buffalo because they are more just birds and plants (Picardi, par.2). There is a higher diversity of plants and animals in places where elephants are than in places where elephants are not (Lindsay, par.7). Elephants are the main key to the savanna and if the elephant went extinct the savanna would become less diverse and for some places, the ecosystem would collapse (par.10). Just like elephants being the main key to the savanna the buffalo is the main key to Canada not only for the other species but for the First Nations as well.

The loss of the buffalo has had a substantial impact on how the First Nations live today. A researcher for Indian Country Development found that there was not a lot of information about what happened after the buffalo for the First Nations and she wanted to fix that (Kaul, par.9). She was so curious about the matter and just couldn’t understand how everything just changed so drastically for the First Nations and just had to find out. Feir did some research of her own, she “separated bison-reliant tribes from non-bison reliant tribes, then divided bison-reliant tribes into two groups: those that lost the bison slowly over the course of about a century, through hunting, competition with settlers’ cattle and displacement, and those that lost the bison quickly” (Kaul, par.13). Her dividing the tribes into two groups helped in her later studies where she found out that the group that lost the buffalo shrunk in height, anywhere from two to four inches. She also found that the ones that lost the buffalo rapidly are worse off today than the one that lost the buffalo at a slower pace (par.17-18). In today’s world reservations have made the understanding that the tribes that lost the buffalo slow or fast have a lower income than the ones that are not bison-reliant tribes, the slow group has a lower income of $1600 per-capita and the group that lost the buffalo fast has a lower income of $3800 per-capita (par.16). Not only were the effects of the loss of the buffalo economic they were also personal, Feir found that the rates of suicide mortality were higher (par.20). As Donna Feir puts it, “The loss of the North American bison was arguably one of the largest economic shocks in history” (Kaul, par. 21). This loss hit the First Nations the hardest and they are still paying for it to this day.

Canada had a huge roll in what happened to the buffalo and how they dealt with the aftermath. The Canadian government and the military were part of the reason the buffalo almost went extinct, they were with the Europeans and wanted the aboriginals to be dependent, the Europeans and the government made killing the buffalo a sport (CBC, par.5). The government wanted the prairies for the European settlement, so they forced the aboriginals off the land (Olson, par.26). The aboriginals after the destruction of the buffalo were faced with a huge decision on what to do next, with alcoholism rising, disease and starvation they decided to move west and consulted the Canadian Nation (CBC, par.7). Prime Minister John A. Macdonald formed mounted police to have law and order in the west, which ordered the aboriginals into signing treaties with the Canadian government (par.8). The treaties signed were a part of Treaty no.6, this was the promise of food that they were told they could hunt. Reserves were then made for the people that wanted to farm and live off the land. It was also to keep the aboriginals from tampering with the European settlement (par.9). The way Canada handled this situation was not in the best interest of everyone. The loss of the buffalo has greatly impacted Canada and how the government now has more control over the aboriginals than they did before the loss of the buffalo.