Slashdot Mirror


Killing Rats Could Save Coral Reefs (bbc.co.uk)

The much maligned rat is not a creature many would associate with coral reefs. But scientists studying reefs on tropical islands say the animals directly threaten the survival of these ecosystems. From a report: A team working on the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean found that invasive rats on the islands are a "big problem" for coral reefs. Rats decimate seabird populations, in turn decimating the volume of bird droppings -- a natural coral fertiliser. The findings are published in Nature. Scientists now advocate eradicating rats from all of the islands to protect these delicate marine habitats.

16 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Is "fertilizer" the problem by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If "fertilizer" is the problem for coral reefs then why can't we fertilize them ourselves?

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Is "fertilizer" the problem by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Corals are in fact animals. But they keep dinoflagellate symbionts that are plants. The exact relationship between the coral animals and the zooantha is a bit unclear, but the relationship is apparently beneficial to both.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Is "fertilizer" the problem by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The rats are an invasive species, and this is just one of many problems they cause. There are plenty of reasons to eradicate them.

      We can wipe them out with a gene drive.

  2. good news for us by Greytak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm relieved, I thought humans were responsible for the damage done to the coral reef.

    1. Re:good news for us by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It might actually be easier to do something about global warming that to exterminate the rats.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:good news for us by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Did we invite the buck-toothed scum? Did the naked-tailed bastards even pay their fare? I think not!

      Kill them! Kill them with death!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. If killing a rat could save some reefs... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just think what killing POTUS could do. ** ducks**

    1. Re: If killing a rat could save some reefs... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying it would save some of those stupid reefs. Good riddance if you ask me.

  4. Is it not the really big rats? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

    Rats are rapacious omnivores, much like the humans who bring them across oceans in their cargo ships and the humans who concentrate food and waste that the rats can grow their population with. So I'm afraid the rats are a logical result of the much higher human population density near reefs: the local ecology near the reefs fed a much smaller human population without modern agriculture and food imports And I'm afraid that humans do not tolerate the carnivores of rats: they tend to be big enough to threaten our young and our livestock, and many make attractive trophies.

    Rats have been co-evolving with humans very successfully. They're going to be very difficult to alter our ecological balance with.

    1. Re:Is it not the really big rats? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not all of the islands threatened by rats are populated, or at least populated heavy enough/industrialized enough for people to be a problem for the reefs. But all it takes to infest an island with rats is a nearby shipwreck 200-300 years ago where some rats survived and washed ashore. The rats would have no or few natural predators (as neither did the birds who lived there until the rats showed up) allowing them to thrive and threaten native species.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Is it not the really big rats? by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nothing a few kittehs can't fix.

      Except the cats would kill the birds too. So you would have to introduce dogs to keep the cats under control as well. Which means adding cars to keep the dog population from getting out of hand. Then the car population gets too big so you have to introduce hipsters to reduce the number of cars. And the last thing anyone wants are islands overrun with hipsters.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Is it not the really big rats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Have you ever met a cat? I mean, I'm pretty much agnostic and don't ascribe much to god or the devil, but if I were religious in any way, shape or form, I would absolutely believe cats are the spawn of the devil. They're evil little shits even when they're being all sweet and cuddly because you know it's a 50/50 chance the cuddle will turn into a grab and bite at any given moment.

      And then the weaving through your feet when you're trying to walk, or lunging at you as you're carrying something big and heavy, or the jumping at your head off the dresser just to fuck with you when you're half awake. Little fuckers are entertaining, but DEFINITELY evil.

  5. *plink* eeeeeek! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    And of course, it's good clean fun for all the family!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Re:"Decimate"... I don't think that means what you by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    If you're into homeopathy you do it several times.

    And at the end, there are more left than there were at the start.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Re:"Decimate"... I don't think that means what you by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...think it means...

    But then, you American, aren't you...

    To 'decimate' means to kill ONE TENTH of a group, hence the "dec" part of the word...

    You're right in that the word originally meant kill one tenth. But it's also worth pointing out that "Awesome" was originally a synonym for "Awful". Somehow the meaning of awesome has completely swapped over time. In the 1800's if you said two people had intercourse, people would assume that they had had a conversation. In the 1800's if you said two people conversed, people would think that they had just had sex.

    Words change meaning over time, and yes, it frequently is because people don't understand the real meaning and use them incorrectly. "Decimate" has been used so long (incorrectly) to mean to destroy a large percent that that is now the most commonly understood meaning of the word.

    Personally, that grates with me a little too- but I try not to get too hung up on the fact that the modern meaning isn't what I originally learnt. The meaning of words change over time, they always have... All you can do is try and keep up and pick out meaning from context.

    Some people think that's awesome, others don't.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  8. Re:But. by BranMan · · Score: 2

    Not to worry! When winter comes all the Gorillas will freeze to death.