[Image from >>> http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KJke5fE5BNKEMAOyujzbkF/SIG=11lmaq5bc/EXP=1301316575/**http%3a//www.tuitionassignment.org/]
I got an assignment requiring us to evaluate either
ex-situ conservation possible to provide enough amount of genetic diversity of species before introduce back into its nature. Well the typical answer is either yes or no... but since this in like an opinion based answer + this is ecology biology, the only relevant answer I could think is depends on the target species.
When talking about conservation in
ex-situ, and to preserve genetic diversity. there are several answer that you need to find, such as could it? what is the effective population size? how many the diversity in organism itself? do we have the efficient method? how big the space required? enough cost?
I think I have make your self dizzy with all the questions. Endangered organism do need special attention from us, their habitat loss are due to over
Homo sapiens domination of nature resources without thinking the relevance and consequences. Therefore, the intervention of human in this matter is really crucial because they cant survive in their natural condition not due to natural selection but due to our own act. If you ask me "so,
ex-situ important?", I would say "Yes", but with other question, "would it be successful when we reintroduce back?"
There are several studies indicate that,
ex-situ conservation cause the loss of trait due to adaptation organism evolved through several generation when breed captivity. In nature, natural selection may work on organism by eliminating bad trait or in other mean organism with unfavorable gen. but in captivity, those selection is barely work, because lost of fear to human, cared, given special attention and others. For hatcheries with focus to fish, there are little success in introduction, most of the reintroduction of fish population in the hatchery into its wild environment face failure. While zoo, with focus to rhinoceros and elephants; they (refer to female) might suffer aging in reproduction (just like if you wont married, your reproductive system became dis-functional), and that what happen to most of animal in the zoo. Their behavior for interest for reproduction got disturbed with unsuitable environment (Hello, give little privacy, we trying to mate LOL) and some required special condition or requirements, birds especially like stork bald bird aka local name burung botak upih
(Scientific name
= Mycteria cinerea) which I have saw one at Kuala Gula, Perak that requires special elevation for nesting and breed (hey no one bother to make cage like tower T_T). There are also report that only some female that actually produce offspring which give us information that female that lost their interest to breed, their genetic wont be pass down into her offspring. Well so did the diversity continue? Furthermore, zoo cannot maintain large population size for effective breeding and genetic flow, and what we afraid is that we actually using inappropriate method and population for
ex-situ conservation. Inappropriate population mean that we actually conserve population with less genetic diversity. Oh, before I forgot, some study also found that that rare allele might only be found in population in nature and not in captivity. What does that mean, you answer yourself LOL.
But still
in-situ are favorable because nature take care it all. But that wont make
ex-situ totally bad because some species do success in
ex-situ and survive when reintroduced back.
But there are difference between animal and plant. Because plant have special stage which one of it is seed which enable them to be maintained for such long period of time, so little problem with
ex-situ.
Ok, I think I stop by here, others just ask me or you figure by yourself through reading...
P/S: have a nice assignments time...!
