


Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The influences of de-extinction (resurrection biology) on the ecosystem
Typology: Essays (university)
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Class: CLC Student’s name: Nguyễn Diệu Anh Student’s ID: 23187002 Vietnam National University, Hồ Chí Minh City University of Science Faculty of Biology – Biotechnology
Topic 2: What are the influences of de-extinction (resurrection biology) on the ecosystem? Humans have intentionally and accidentally changed other life-forms for at least the last forty thousand years (Greely, 2017). Hunting, over-exploiting, and habitat destruction all led to many species' extinction, causing drastic ecological consequences (Babcock, 2019). It is human's duty to prevent extinctions from happening. De-extinction, however, takes this idea a step further (Stubbe, 2021). The goal of de-extinction is to restore vital ecological functions, which sustain dynamic processes, produce resilient ecosystems and increase biodiversity and bioabundance (Novak, 2018). Nevertheless, this process has many negative and positive influences on the ecosystem that must be considered to ensure its goal. De-extinction, or resurrection biology, is "the process of resurrecting species that have died out, or gone extinct" (Rogers, 2024). This can be done by back breeding, cloning, or genetically engineering new species (Sherkow, 2013). In laboratories, a sufficiently large quantity of individuals must be created to enable their offspring to be introduced into the wild (Babcock, 2019). Then, they must be released into the environment. This release generates benefits and risks to the ecosystem. The ideal positive influence of resurrection biology is its potential contribution to biodiversity conservation. Introducing resurrected species, especially ones that can function as keystone species, might help the ecosystems that have lost constituent species
recover their integrity and functionality (Babcock, 2019). Thus, releasing de-extinct species into their former habitats can be considered a form of restoration ecology (Babcock, 2019). For instance, Zimov (2005) believed that the revival of the wooly mammoth, a major grazing animal in the Arctic, might help restore a more ecologically rich Arctic steppe, replacing the less diverse tundra. His paper also showed that reintroducing musk oxen, hares, and marmots into Pleistocene Park in Siberia could change plant distribution and facilitate grassland recovery. Moreover, de-extinction can offer scientists an unprecedented opportunity to study resurrected species as living species (Babcock, 2019), providing insights into their behaviors, interactions, and especially their ecological roles. However, de-extinction also presents influences that make this process face notable objections. One of the most significant criticisms is that this process will reduce the fear of extinction (Valdez et al., 2019), lowering the funding for other conservation efforts (Bennett et al., 2017) and leading to the neglect of conservation and restoration of threatened ecosystems. Conservation biologists in the International Union for Conservation of Nature are worried that de-extinction will eat into the depleted resources they need to prevent further extinctions (Greely, 2017). Despite the potential benefits, the resurrected species might become exotic and invasive in the environment in which they are released (Greely, 2017). Predatory species brought back from extinction can prey on current species that have no evolved defenses against them, consequently generating unexpected impacts on the existing predators and upsetting the food chain (Babcock, 2019). Furthermore, there is a concern that de- extinction programs might have focused on "charismatic" species like mammoths rather than ecologically significant ones (Novak, 2018). Turner (2017) pointed out that a list of 20 de-extinction candidate species published in 2014 had no plants, and most of the animals were terrestrial. If these species had been resurrected and released into the environment, the selection bias would have created the risk of disrupting the existing food webs.
Valdez, R. X., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C. L., & Nils Peterson, M. (2019). Anticipating risks, governance needs, and public perceptions of de-extinction. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6 (2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019. Zimov, S. A. ( 2005 ) Pleistocene Park: Return of the Mammoth’s Ecosystem. Science 308 (5723), 796 – 798. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.