I am sure that most of us are somewhat familiar with some form of conservation; water conservation, energy conservation, and the like. The definition is the same across the board no matter what type of conservation you are discussing. The description that I came across defines conservation as “the act of preventing injury, decay, waste or loss and the careful utilization of a natural resource in order to prevent depletion”. When speaking of wildlife conservation, it is not just about saving the species but it is much more in depth than the simple concept of going out and doing something. There is leg work, research and collaboration involved.
So why should we conserve? Why not let nature take its course?
I guess we could argue that most species in need of a conservation effort are in need due to human involvement so in most cases we are responsible. It is no longer a “natural” event when we play the role of invader by taking away habitats through logging, agriculture, etc or by depleting food sources. Our role as the invader and reason for most extinctions or endangered species goes on but I want to focus on why we should conserve aside from it being our human responsibility.
I strongly believe that genetic diversity plays a major role in the conservation of global diversity. From my genetics class I remembered that the Hardy-Weinberg Law states the principle of population genetics, gene frequencies, and evolution. Basically, a low number of individuals in a population, the lower the genetic frequency and the lesser chance for successful evolution. (Through my class readings I have come across many articles that support my ideas. I have sited these below but have yet to figure out how to attach them as PDFs.) In “The role of genetic variation in adaptation and population persistence in a changing environment”, Lande touched upon genetic variation and how an unpredictable genetic variation can decrease the population fitness and therefore increase the chances of extinction (1996). For example, if members of the same species who are related continuously produced offspring, those offspring would be inbreed and more likely to either carry or express a recessive genetic trait (Keller, 2002). Recessive (homozygous) genetic traits tend to be those less desired and most detrimental to species survival. Therefore, heterozygous traits are more desired and allow for the more beneficial traits to be expressed even if the offspring is a recessive carrier. A good example of this would be rats and fur color. The white fur color is a recessive trait and is only expressed when the individual has two recessive genes (one from mom and one from dad). This white fur recessive trait makes it harder for the rats to hide from predators and more likely to not survive.
David Reed further discussed the need for both genetic diversity and heterozygosity within a species population. Both are needed to allow for species evolution. Coming from a conservation stand point, evolution would play a major role (or piece of the puzzle). When conserving an area specific for a species in need of conservation, one must take into consideration (over a long period of time) how a species would evolve naturally versus how the species could evolve due to the conservation efforts (Reed, 2003).
In addition to genetics and biodiversity, conservation plays a key role in providing education. Just a few years ago it was mentioned that the polar bear could possibly be extinct by the time our children were adults. Imagine your grandchildren not being able to see such beautiful animals in the wild or even in zoos!
References:
Keller, I.F., and D.M. Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. TREE 17:230-241.
Lande, R., and S. Shannon. 1996. The role of genetic variation in adaptation and population persistence in a changing environment. Evolution 50:434-437.
Reed, D.H., and R. Frankham. 2003. Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv. Biol. 17:230-237.