Picky Eaters Lead to Evolutionary Changes | The Snail Kite and the Monarch

Can you imagine someone giving you the choice to choose one food item to eat for every meal for the rest of your life?

If you're this guy, you pick potatoes. If you're me, you pick donuts. Either way, you're looking at a very limited diet for the rest of your life, with little to no nutrition. You would also become very dependent on the supply of that particular food. If donut shops ceased to exist, I would die a very slow, painful death and my species would slowly disappear. This is essentially what's happening to a couple endangered species like the North American snail kite and the monarch butterfly: they're picky eaters and it's killing them.

Selective Palate and Critical Numbers

Snail kites have special curved beaks and long claws that allow them to eat apple snails straight from their shells. They find most of these snails in the Florida Everglades, a place that offers an intricately linked ecosystem unlike anywhere else in the world.

Unfortunately, their claim to fame is also their downfall. These picky eaters restrict their diet to the apple snail and the apple snail only. Their selective eating habits, coupled with natural disaster damage to their homes, have led scientists to witness the swift decrease in their numbers, making them a critically endangered species. The decline has been so significant, that the population went from 3,500 in 2000 to only 700 in 2007 and has since faced extinction.

The atypical longevity of these birds have attributed to difficulties in studying their evolutionary patterns. According to a study done on the snail kite's specific diet, most research is done on plants and invertebrates with shorter generation times (less than a year). The snail kite typically lives to about 8 years old, making it challenging to study their long term effects, thus postponing the question of whether the changes that occur happen due to evolution or phenotype plasticity.

Similar to it's airborne brethren, the monarch butterfly is yet another species facing critical shifts in the evolutionary process due to diet. Most people have no problem associating the monarch with Milkweed, the herbaceous perennials with over 140 different species. The butterfly will deposit its eggs on the bottom of the leaves, which will later become the food source for the young caterpillars. But what most people don't realize, is that the very plant that gives these beautiful insects life, can also be a source of fatal parasitic action.

Tropical milkweed, one of the various species of the plant, doesn't die back and slough off old vegetation in the winter the way other milkweed does. Because of this, it is especially susceptible to the parasite Ophryocystis elektroscirrha (OE). The parasite gets ingested by monarchs as caterpillars when they hatch from their chrysalises, marking them with spores that leave them significantly weaker than non-infected butterflies.

According to Science magazine, the same milkweed that poisons the monarchs also offers a very cozy home for the butterflies, making them either late or no-shows for their annual migration pattern. Most monarchs that are infected with OE will not make it to their destination in central Mexico. It becomes a vicious cycle: the monarchs fail to leave for migration, hence failing to return to look for new milkweed, and instead continue to live in the old infected milkweed that never dies, all while OE continues to thrive.

Because they eat nothing else, monarch numbers have been on the steady decline. This year alone, there was a 27% decrease in monarch numbers compared to the year before. In addition to loss of habitat, the milkweed issue has largely contributed to the species 90% population reduction in the last two decades.

Dwindling numbers in the Monarch population have led researchers to study them closer than ever before. (Monarchwatch.org)

An Uninvited Player for the Kite

In an article from the New York Times, the snail kite finds a new, accidental advantage. A study posted by The Ecological Society of America published last year discusses how a new invasive species of snails is actually helping to aid the resurgence of snail kite populations.

The native apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) that the snail kite dines on, is typically found in the wetland areas like the Florida everglades. However, a larger, non-native version of the snail (Pomacea maculata) became established in South Florida by the end of the breeding season in 2005, and has since spread, becoming a serious invasive species.

a, Snail kites are dietary specialists that have morphological traits, particularly bill size and shape, that have adapted to extracting apple snails from their shells. b, The exotic apple snail (P. maculata; right) is a novel prey21 for snail kites, because it is much larger than the native congener (P. paludosa; left), leading to implications for foraging and demography17,19. c, The invasion first occurred in Lake Tohopekaliga, where P. maculata had become established by the 2005 breeding season (orange). By 2009, P. maculata had established in several wetlands (red). Snail kite breeding closely tracked the invasion sequence, where bars show changes in the proportion of nests over time with the invasion (pre-invasion 2003, 2003–2004; initial invasion 2005, 2005–2008; post-invasion 2009, 2009–2012). Annual averages are shown, n = 1,778 nests. Test for change in the proportions of nests across regions over time: F 4,45 = 13.1, P < 0.0001. d, Snail kites do feed on the much larger exotic snails. The relative frequencies of snail sizes consumed by snail kites in 2013–2014 (n = 903) are shown, taken from snail shells collected at foraging perches throughout the range.

The presence of these non-native snails has had a drastic influence on the kite. First, the larger size of P. maculata made it easier for fledglings to get to the snail meat, causing an increase in young bird survival. Second, biologists also found that the invasive species presence was directly correlated to new generations with longer bills and larger body sizes.

"The potential for an invasive prey to elicit such a rapid response from a long-lived native predator is remarkable...These results illustrate that long-lived, top predators can rapidly respond to invasive species through phenotypic plasticity. Phenotypic plasticity may prove to be crucial to imperiled species, allowing them to rapidly respond as their environment changes," C. Cattau, et al (2016).

Since the invasive snails take-over, the population of the snail kite has nearly tripled, to over 2,000 in 2017. This dramatic population increase is a welcome change for the endangered bird. However, will it be enough to kick start the species back into strong numbers? Time will tell. There are many difficulties with an endangered species being dependent on an invasive species.

One specific challenges lies in the obvious: an invasive species affects more than just one group. The Everglades are an intricately, complicated network of interdependent species. Introducing even just one single new component can irrevocably damage some of those networks. So we are left with a dilemma: is a potentially threatening species worth salvaging a nearly-extinct one?

Hope for the Monarchs

In a 2015 study published by Royal Society Publishing, it was found that monarchs in the southern U.S., neglecting their typical migration patterns, were five to nine times more likely to be infected it OE. The parasite is striking the butterflies at a particularly susceptible time, with their population being closely evaluated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife as falling under the Endangered Species Act.

Fortunately, aid for the monarchs can be fulfilled by scientists and citizens alike. In the previously mentioned Science magazine article, Karen Oberhauser, a conservation biologist at the University of Minnesota, stated part of the fix is quite simple.

"Nearly all tropical milkweed in the southern United States is in gardens, Oberhauser says. So if everyone who planted it to help the butterflies can be convinced to replace it with a native milkweed specie - or at least cut the plant back every few weeks during the winter - they could quickly put a stop to the destructive winter-breeding trend."

The Monarch Joint Venture has an updated yearly plan in place that it claims anyone can be a part of. It's primary focus is to promote planting native milkweed and research efforts as well as educating more public agencies on conservation efforts.

The fate of these magnificent insects is in the hands of the people. With easier than ever and convenient options to switch from harmful milkweed plants to acceptable milkweed, we can assist in the rehabilitation of monarch population numbers.

Why we Should Care

It's no secret that animals and insects alike are up against the odds with global climate change, natural disasters, habitat loss, and other factors. It's becoming increasingly important to study and understand the changes these species are going through. Without understanding them, we pose to lose them.

That may not seem like a big deal right now; you've probably never even seen a snail kite. However, keep in mind that intricate nature of the ecosystem we talked about earlier. The loss of just one species could completely change the survival of hundreds of others. You may be indifferent to never seeing a snail kite or a monarch butterfly again, but you may find indifference difficult when it affects the vegetables on your table, or the lack of wildlife you see on your next hike.

These ecosystems are fragile, and they are facing more challenges than ever before. If we can't understand how they work, we will lose them.

A Chance for Diplomacy | Bears Ears National Monument, Utah

"A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip." - Caskie Stinnett, American writer, 1960

Rarely is there a time when I break a streak of political silence to write about an issue. I don't believe in being silent, and I don't believe in being apathetic to global topics. I do firmly believe in choosing diplomacy above all else. This approach camouflages itself as silence, but it is louder than any stroke of violence, profanity, or caps lock.

Unfortunately, there is a serious deficit in diplomacy today. We are enamored with our personal opinion, zealous of it's appeal till death do us part. The Voltairean principle of defending to the death one's right to free speech despite disagreeing with it, falls upon deaf ears. The "American pastime" of being offended keeps us at bay from each other.

There is a current event underway that brings me, begrudgingly, to fracture this streak of silence. It is one that I had to do the research for myself on, because I trust no one to make my mind up for me. Like any person, I'm also admittedly influential to the back and forth of argument, sometimes feeling biased toward the side that was louder. As with any of my writing and research, I plead whatever amendment journalism uses to admit that the closest I can come to covering every single corner of an issue is a "reasonable degree of scientific certainty." In other words, I know I've missed stuff. That's the point of this: to find out what I don't know. 

This Monday, President Trump will be in Utah, making his announcement to drastically reduce the size of two national monuments public under the recommendation of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. Bears Ears National Monument will be reduced from 1.35 million acres to 201,397 acres and Grand Staircase-Escalante, currently at 1.9 million acres to 997,490. These land parcels were designated as national monuments at the end of former President Obama's term. 

Five Native American tribes have united to form opposition for the reduction, stating that they will sue Trump immediately after the announcement. Here are the geographical plans for taking apart the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments. 

Of course, there are valid arguments to be made from both sides of the political spectrum. While I no longer find myself consistent with the platforms of either party, I will do my best to present them accordingly. 

Criticism From a Conservationist POV

Conservationists have been fighting this change since Trump first assigned Zinke to investigate the legitimacy of any national monument larger than 100,000 acres. It seems they disagree with the decision primarily because they believe reducing the size of federally protected land will allow the state government to auction off sections of that land to the highest bidder. The concern is that those high bidders will represent oil drilling, gas, and development companies that will effectively destroy that land, irreparably. 

Oil and gas companies aren't hated because of the money they make, they're hated because of the environmental impact their sites have on the land and air. The physical impact of creating drilling sites is obvious to the eye, however, the impact of shooting fossil fuel emissions into the air is a hazard more often seen by future generations, when they can barely breathe due to smog and pollutants.

The kind of damage done to the land will literally be irreversible. It's palaeontological potential holds one of the most well preserved Triassic and Jurassic artifacts in the country. If those areas are decimated, that kind of scientific loss will be felt for forever. Here is a good article explaining the potentially detrimental effects in this area if reduction is seen through. 

A more modern concern involves the obvious impact on local fish and wildlife. Both parks are natural habitats for countless species, such as mountain lion, bighorn sheep, peregrine falcons, and black bears. Without protected land, many if not all of these species will be pushed out of their natural homes, which could alter their evolution, migration patterns, even population.

Bears Ears monument holds an abundance of Native American archaeological and ancestral sites. The Wilderness Society states that "nowhere in the world are so many well-preserved cultural resources—from ancient ruins to intricate 1,500-year-old petroglyphs—found within such a striking and relatively undeveloped natural landscape."

As a native Coloradan, I've seen firsthand many of the inter-tribal racism that takes place among modern day Native Americans. It's rare to see not just two tribes but several tribes come together in agreement over a cause. In a report published by the Bears Ears Tribal Coalition, Zuni Elder Octavius Seowtewa said, "This is why tribes have set aside any differences and come together: if this information is lost, it's lost forever."

It's clear to a conservationist that there are too many risks in play to support reducing the land already protected by the federal government. They fear that without that protection, the land will be pillaged by huge oil and development companies, with little regard to the archaeological, historical, or natural aspects of the land. If the size stays as it is now, those companies won't be able to legally infiltrate it. 

Criticism on Reduction from the Left

Most liberals seem to agree that the protection of the Utah land is best kept in the hands of the federal government. They believe that if left up to the State, that land that was chopped out would be up for sale to huge, destructive companies. 

In fact, there is a twice-yearly auction of available Utah land and some of the bidders are less than transparent. For example, last year a company that calls itself a "family farm" bought 391 acres on Comb Ridge, as well as several other land parcels for their company, Air Medical Resource Group. There are legitimate concerns from liberal conservationists vocalizing the obvious suspicious nature of large companies posing as well-meaning agriculturally based buyers.

"These guys are clearly speculating and doing it under the guise of agriculture. If you look at the parcels sold, they aren't particularly high-quality ag lands, none comes with water and they won't be good for grazing," said Greg Zimmerman, policy director for the Center for Western Priorities. "It raises important questions about the way these lands are managed and how they should be managed. There is no option for the public to have a say. ... These are lands that should be protected and accessible for all Americans." [The Salt Lake Tribune]

From this perspective, the State government seems to be an irresponsible manager of the natural Utah lands. There is financial and business gain to be made from selling these portions of land, but at a severe environmental and historical cost. 

Another criticism geared toward the conservative local government is the $14 million dollars that was allegedly going to be spent by the Utah Attorney General, Sean Reyes, in suing the federal government over designating the areas as national monuments. This is seen as a complete waste of money over an issue the left views as non-negotiable. 

So when you get to the bottom of it, most liberals believe that the federal government is a better guardian of the natural environment, and that national monument designation is a healthy form of protection that lends a hand to the local Native American tribes in maintaining the land.

Criticism on Keeping Monument Designation from the Right

Conservatives in Utah have been advocating that the designation as a national monument has actually hurt the land and Natives, as opposed to reducing the land, which would make it more manageable and less desirable for tourists to visit. 

They believe that by restoring the power of the land to the State government, it will be more properly taken care of. Many locals state that the rise of graffiti and vandalism is attributed to the increase in national tourists, since designating something as a national monument brings more people in. In fact, Bears Ears has been discussed as one of the most vulnerable sites for grave-robbing, looting, and vandalism in the country. 

"The majority of people in San Juan County do not support the protection of Bears Ears Monument using the Antiquities Act by President Obama," said San Juan County Commissioner Bruce Adams. "Cattle ranchers have no incentive to abuse the land. That's how we make our living. If we abuse the land and over-graze, we'll have nothing there next year to make our living. We are committed to keeping the resources intact in San Juan county."

There are several organizations that offer critical analysis of Obama's "midnight monument" designation. They claim that he was influenced by outside sources, and that the appointing of the monument actually hurts the Native American tribes rather than helps them. 

"Last year, President Barack Obama gave in to pressure from corporate interests, extreme environmental groups and out-of-state tribal leaders by designating the 1.35-million-acre Bears Ears National Monument. This decision was not about sensible land management policy or the well-being of locals whose culture and livelihood depend on public lands. Instead, it was a narrow-minded and unilateral decision that ignored grassroots Native American groups, local and state elected representatives, and the people of San Juan County. They deserve better." [Sutherland Institute]

Many Utahans feel the designation of the monument is unfair to the people who actually live there. In a great (and difficult to find) article from Snewsnet.com, the local perspective is addressed and explained.

"We only have 33 percent of our land to fund everything from roads to schools," said Tom Adams, director of Utah’s Office of Outdoor Recreation. "Taking another 1.35 million acres out of that — that’s a big chunk of land the community didn’t have a say in."(Snewsnet.com)

"Top-down monument designations severely harm local communities that rely on land access for economic and cultural value,” said Curtis Wells, commissioner of Grand County. “There is a very real debate over what ‘protection’ through monument designations really accomplishes. Dragging a carrot for millions of tourists to trample through and severely impact treasured landscapes to the detriment of the local population has proven to be a mistake." (Snewsnet.com)

In terms of auctioning off land, many conservatives see no issue in selling that land to companies. They trust those companies to be responsible in their construction, and they would rather see the economy of their state be boosted instead of worrying about vast amounts of land in the southeast quadrant. There has also been legitimate concern that the federal government is no more responsible in not auctioning off land than the State would be. 

A primary issue among those on the right, is that the federal government cannot properly manage or make decisions for a patch of land so far out of their eyesight. Utahans believe that it takes a local perspective to properly understand and alleviate the issues. Watch this video produced by Brigham Young University on how one group of locals feel about the designation. 

There's not a lot of mainstream information that can be found on why native Utahans feel the way they do. This is primarily because national media has decided to focus on the minimization of the land from an environmental perspective, and in many ways obviously take a side. It was incredibly difficult to find information from the anti-monument movement. I had to venture into the world unknown, also known as the tenth page of Google search, which I'm pretty sure no one knew existed. Most "local" opinions can be found in the comment section of a video or article, and even then, there's no way to accurately prove that the commenter is indeed truly a Utah local. This stimulates frustration on the right's side because they do not feel they have the media megaphone that the left does. 

A Place for Diplomacy

As with most political issues, most people that are in their right mind actually want the same thing. They simply have very very different ways of going about it. You're not going to find many local conservative Utah residents who actively want to destroy the environment. You're going to have just as hard of a time finding a liberal outsider who doesn't agree that those who live on the land probably know it better than those who don't. This is called common ground, and it's harder to acknowledge than a toothache you don't really want to know is a cavity. 

Unfortunately with this type of mentality, the actual issue gets lost and time and resources are spent on proving who's right instead of what's right. People and politicians turn blue in the face angrily shouting their perspective without even acknowledging what the other person is saying. 

No one is saying it's easy. Take it from a bartender, listening is without a doubt, the most difficult skill to master in conversation. But that's what's so vital to these issues: conversation, not proclamation. 

Don't get me wrong, going over the complexities of an issue is completely healthy and necessary. Agreement is not the immediate goal. I learned a while back that there is a time for both dialogue and debate, and if you can designate time for both, you can achieve the actual goal of diplomacy: understanding. 

I'll admit, my immediate response when I first heard of this story was to side with any conservationist. There is very little in this world I love more than natural land, uninhibited by destruction of man, but appropriately moderated to allow us destructive humans to enjoy it without defiling it. I believe we have a responsibility to protect God's creation, and that that responsibility extends to every person regardless of what state they're from. 

However, I struggled the more I looked into it because I come from a small-business family that, while I like to think is pretty central minded, probably tilts just a little more with more standards on the right than the left. I was raised to appreciate a local perspective, to trust a state government more than a federal one, and to be skeptical of presidential escapades disguised as good-works.

My frustration with both sides is that they both seem to thrive on diluting the truth as much as possible. Liberals are by far more extensive in their research and studies, but I've learned from being in the realm of journalism that sometimes they're just the ones with the louder voice. That being said, I'm annoyed with the right because they have some really up-to-date resources, like the Sutherland Institute, but they almost never show the actual research to back up their claims. 

Today as an adult, I maintain that there is good on both sides. I believe that I want good to come, more than I want to be right. I think I know what's right and what's wrong, and whoever manages to maintain that is welcomed. There are good ideas from all over the spectrum, but people are too angry to hear them. They're too entrenched in their own viewpoint to even consider a good idea on the other side. This frustrates me. This frustrates me because I am heartbroken at the idea a huge chunk of land not far from my hometown could turn into a wasteland at the hands of sneaky companies trying to make a buck. I don't want there to be economic downfall, but I don't want business prosperity if it comes at this price. 

All I can do for now is explore both sides and attempt to advocate for dialogue. There has to be a better solution, and in a time when there has never been such political divide, diplomacy must be at the forefront of people's minds. If you're searching for answers to this, like you should be, please comment and let me know what I'm missing. 

Dialogue starts here.

"I am for truth, no matter who tells it." - Malcolm X