Artificial Misting System Allows Reintroduction of Extinct Toad

terrancem writes "The Kihansi Spray Toad went extinct in the wild in 2005 when its habitat in Tanzania was destroyed by a dam. However conservationists at the Bronx Zoo managed to maintain a captive population which is now large enough to allow a bold experiment to move forward: reintroducing the toad into its old habitat. To make the once tropical gorge moist again, engineers have designed an artificial misting system that should allow toads to survive in the wild. The effort marks what may be the first time conservationists have ever re-established an 'extinct' species in a human-engineered ecosystem."

Comments

Extinct?

[rotorbudd]

If there was a captive population all along how could the species be extinct?
Good job editors.

Re:Extinct?

[Rockoon]

The lesson that we can take away from this is that good editors should have been kept in zoos too.

Re:Extinct?

[immaterial]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means!

Re:Extinct?

[davmoo]

The editors are correct. It very clearly says "extinct in the wild". "In the wild" does not include "in captivity".

Re:Extinct?

[dywolf]

And the call is....no foul on the editors! The summary says right there "extinct in the wild"

Extinct in the wild is a valid classification, used when biologists are unable to confirm a types existence in...the wild..., or when they are only able to find 1 or 2 specimens, which is also sometimes called "functionally extinct". such as the last of one of the giant tortoise subspecies that died recently, that was the sole remaining member known, and male, and as such totally unable to breed and continue the (sub)species.

So you are very very -NOT- insightful.

Re:Extinct?

[arth1]

Once humans die out or someone turns off the system, then these toads are toast.

Mmm, toasted toad...

Seriously, if an artificial misting system is needed to keep them alive, the chances of their survival is none. I give it max 20 years before it gets turned off for budgetary concerns or maintenance neglect, or conflicts with local people who wants the land and its resources.

http://www.google.com/search?q=failed+conservation+efforts+in+tanzania

Any which way, they'll croak.

Re:Extinct?

[dywolf]

How is that any different from any other human managed habitat? Lakes stocked with fish from hatcheries, dams with fish ladders, wildlife preserves and parks that are artificially kept "wild" by eliminating "invasive" species from the neighborhood of houses across the street...etc, etc. All are managed habitats. This is simply less passive more active.

A very unusual toad

[serviscope_minor]

These toads are very unusual. The noise of the waterfall makes croking an impractical method of communication. They instead use hand signals to communicate.

Re:A very unusual toad

[Loosifur]

Do you have a reference for that? Because I just blew twenty minutes looking for videos of frogs signing to each other when I could have been watching porn.

Re:A very unusual toad

[Loosifur]

No, but the resulting juxtaposition just does weird things to you after awhile. You start getting some funny ideas when you see Kermit on television, that sort of thing.

Re:A very unusual toad

[craigminah]

Drivers in Washington DC can't communicate on the highways and instead use hand signals to communicate with other drivers. Kind of an interesting adaptation...

If a species has gone extinct in the wild should humans reintroduce them? I assume species go extinct because they are nonviable...who the heck are we to play God when the reintroduced species will most likely suffer and/or perish again.

Re:A very unusual toad

[riT-k0MA]

Not strictly true.
The dense vegetation makes it implausible for the frogs to communicate by hand signals alone. Rather it is thought they use a mix of body language and ultrasonic sound over a short distance in order to communicate.
The Ultrasonic part is only a guess as the middle part of the frogs ear is not air-filled, and the inner part of the ear does not seem to be connected to any outer surface of the frog. This can be tested, but the scientists can't exactly vivisect a critically-endangered animal, so they have to guess.

Re:A very unusual toad

[rainmouse]

If a species has gone extinct in the wild should humans reintroduce them? I assume species go extinct because they are nonviable...who the heck are we to play God when the reintroduced species will most likely suffer and/or perish again.

They became nonviable because we destroyed their habitat. It seems strange that you consider undoing damage we have caused as somehow playing God, but not the actual acts of habitat destruction, extinction of species and land modification. What is it about Bible thumping that goes hand in hand with corporate cash flow without moral recompense?

Re:A very unusual toad

[Rockoon]

A beaver that builds a dam has no hope of knowing the ecological impacts of his actions.

First, what makes you think that beavers dont understand the ecological impacts of their actions?
Second, what makes you think that we understand the ecological impacts of our actions?

Your argument with regards to habitat modification seems to suggest that you believe humans are equal to other animals in terms of morality as well.

I merely believe that we evolved to make decisions that benefit ourselves, our families, and our tribe (nationalism is just another name for tribalism.) That sometimes the order of importance of these things is different than given is also a matter of evolution at its core. I also observe that many people conflate conservation with preservation, to the detriment of both philosophies.

Hydroelectric, anyone?

[DNS-and-BIND]

This is what happens when dams are built. It doesn't matter if it's meant to prevent flooding or generate electricity. Either way, animals are genocided and humans benefit. Maybe we could use less electricity so we don't need so many damn dams.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You go ahead and use less electricity. I suggest starting with turning off your computer. You're not using it for anything worthwhile anyway.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Nyder]

This is what happens when dams are built. It doesn't matter if it's meant to prevent flooding or generate electricity. Either way, animals are genocided and humans benefit. Maybe we could use less electricity so we don't need so many damn dams.

Ya, someone should kill all beavers.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[Culture20]

humans benefit

You don't have to convince me twice. I'm building a dam in my backyard stream tomorrow!

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[dywolf]

Microecosystems are very fragile yes. But they are also not typically that common. that is micro-ecological systems where a species is severely restricted one waterfall, one pool (Devils Hole Pupfish), etc. Such critters are essentially relics, that got super attached to one thing, and that one thing is now cutoff. In essence, they overadapted in the wrong direction, and are thus naturally headed to extinction even if we didn't build the dam (unless the system somehow reverses itself and their small little niche grows once more).

It's like if a three legged cat in a world of dogs managed to still exist by only living on top of a high butte above the plain...and then an earthquake leveled the butte and now the cats are on the same level as the dogs, and thus now become dogchow.

Re:Hydroelectric, anyone?

[dywolf]

actually i shouldnt say they arent that common. rather they arent that commonly identified, because the "resolution" so to speak required to identify them is typically so small. the bigger a critters range, the easier it is to identify its presence. though on the other hand, frequently these critters also arent distinct species but subspecies. in this case, it was a distinct species, and they wre numerous (TFA says ~17k individuals in a tiny area) prior to the dam. The artical also mentions disease as a factor, and that is als important to note. such microhabitat critters being so specialized to their small locations are extremely vulnerable to -any- outside influence or change such as disease. it would be unusual to see a critter like that reverse course and adapt back out of its specialized niche and not go extinct.

Genebank

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Nature has already made extinct about a million times more species than mankind ever has, or ever will, long before we made an appearance. In fact nature made a damn good effort at finishing us off a couple of times. The difference is we can think about the consequences.

What we need is a major international effort to preserve the genetic material of as many endangered species as possible, of all sorts, in a genetic bank. When technology advances far enough both in genetics and energy production we can then recreate these species if possible. It wouldn't be a reason to act irresponsibly but maybe its the best that can be done at the moment.

Extinct again

[ByteSlicer]

I hope they keep a few captive, because otherwise they will go extinct again the first time that artificial mist breaks down (things tend to break in time, especially in the tropics).

Actually, a bit of googling told me this happened before in 2003.

Re:Is the environment really wild....

[tompaulco]

If they have to create an "artificial" misting system?
When humans go away, the toads will die, so I would say that still counts as "in captivity". If they want them to survive in the wild, they should find another similar environment and release them there. Of course, transporting species has historically led to bad consequences, so maybe it is best that we let nature take its course and let the species die out or adapt to its new dry surroundings (or move upstream).