Science Koalas 'Functionally Extinct' in Australia with just 80,000 Estimated to Remain

  • Iniciador del tema Iniciador del tema AA 102
  • Fecha de inicio Fecha de inicio

The Australian Koala Foundation said it believes “there are no more than 80,000 koalas in Australia,” making the species "functionally extinct."
While this number is dramatically lower than the most recent academic estimates, there's no doubt koala numbers in many places are in steep decline.
It's hard to say exactly how many koalas are still remaining in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, but they are highly vulnerable to such threats as deforestation, disease and the effects of climate change.
Once a koala population falls below a critical point, it can no longer produce the next generation, leading to extinction.
What Does ‘Functionally Extinct' Mean?
The term “functionally extinct” can describe a few perilous situations. In one case, it can refer to a species whose population has declined to the point where it can no longer play a significant role in the ecosystem. For example, it has been used to describe dingoes in places where they have become so reduced they have a negligible influence on the species they prey on.
Dingoes are top predators and therefore can play a significant role in some ecosystems. Our innocuous, leaf-eating koala cannot be considered a top predator.
For millions of years, koalas have been a key part of the health of our eucalyptus forests by eating upper leaves, and on the forest floor, their droppings contribute to important nutrient recycling. Their known fossil records date back approximately 30 million years, so they may have once been a food source for megafauna carnivores.
"Functionally extinct" can also describe a population that is no longer viable. For example, in Southport, Queensland, native oyster reef beds are functionally extinct because more than 99 percent of the habitat has been lost and there are no individuals left to reproduce.
Finally, "functionally extinct" can refer to a small population that, although still breeding, is suffering from inbreeding that can threaten its future viability. We know that at least some koala populations in urban areas are suffering in this way, and genetic studies on the Koala Coast, located 20 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of Brisbane, show that the population is suffering from reduced genetic variation. In South East Queensland, koalas in some areas have experienced catastrophic declines
We also know that koala populations in some inland regions of Queensland and New South Wales are affected by climate extremes, such as severe droughts and heat waves, and have declined by as much as 80 percent.
Exhaustive multidisciplinary koala research continues apace in an effort to find ways of protecting wild koala populations and ensuring that they remain viable now and in the future. Habitat loss, population dynamics, genetics, disease, diet and climate change are some key areas being studied.
How Many Koalas Are There?
Koala researchers are often asked, “How many koalas are in the wild?” It's a hard question to answer. Koalas are not stationary, are patchily distributed throughout an extremely wide range encompassing urban and rural areas in four states and one territory, and are usually difficult to see.
koala
File photo. Koala charity claims species is "functionally extinct."ISTOCK
To determine whether each population of koalas scattered across eastern Australia is functionally extinct would require a gargantuan effort.
In 2016, in an attempt to determine population trends for the koala within the four states, a panel of 15 koala experts used a structured, four-step question format to estimate bioregional population sizes of koalas, and changes in those sizes.
The estimated percentage of koala population loss in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia was 53 percent, 26 percent, 14 percent and 3 percent, respectively. The estimated total number of koalas for Australia was 329,000 (within a range of 144,000 to 605,000), with an estimated average decline of 24 percent over the past three generations and the next three generations.
Since May 2012, koalas have been listed as vulnerable in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory because populations in these regions have declined significantly or are at risk of doing so.
In the southern states of Victoria and South Australia, koala populations vary widely from abundant to low or locally extinct. Although not currently listed as vulnerable, these koalas are also experiencing a range of serious threats, including low genetic diversity.
To date, the present “vulnerable” listing has not achieved any known positive results for koala populations in Queensland and New South Wales. In fact, recent research invariably shows the opposite.
This is because the key threats to koalas remain and are mostly increasing. The primary threat is habitat loss. Koala habitat (primarily eucalyptus woodlands and forests) continues to rapidly diminish, and unless it is protected, restore, and expanded, we will indeed see wild koala populations become “functionally extinct." We know what comes after that.

Christine Adams-Hosking is an honorary research fellow at The University of Queensland, Australia.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 
they sit in the trees and bark every morning from 4 til 6
They can bark?!?!

I went looking for video of this and came across something even more adorable:

I had no idea these little critters were so noisy. I imagine this kind of sound at 4am would make anyone murderous though. My condolences for your lost sleep.

ETA: This is what I get for not reading the whole thread before posting. God dammit.
 
Última edición:
Screen Shot 2019-06-10 at 11.06.24 AM.png

hm I wonder why Give Me Money To Save Koalas.com has a different prediction than the IUCN red list.

This is something that's always deeply confused me about the endangered species lists:

How exactly is it determined? Say for instance that there were never more than 120,000 koalas to begin with; at which point do they become critically endangered? I'm sure there are multiple species on the list that are listed as critically endangered that just never had large numbers to begin with. It just seems like they assume that all species had or have one million members (or something) at some point and start reasoning from there. It's certainly not the case that we've counted all of the animals, we haven't even counted all of the species.

Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
"we haven't counted all the species" yeah right I wish I lived in 1700's and the world was such an unknown frontier. you know what's uncounted? a bunch of tiny bugs that all look the same in the depths of a tropical forest where you get dysentery and dengue fever. it would be cool if our pokedex was 100% but not an obstacle to pursuit of knowledge.

conservation status is an attempt to plot species decline against projected human development (ie birds need wetlands, wetlands are being paved over, there are less birds than 20 years ago, ergo-). be skeptical of political actors all you want but modern ecology is extremely sophisticated. questions you have towards it can likely be given a concrete response, like how wild populations are measured.
 
conservation status is an attempt to plot species decline against projected human development (ie birds need wetlands, wetlands are being paved over, there are less birds than 20 years ago, ergo-). be skeptical of political actors all you want but modern ecology is extremely sophisticated. questions you have towards it can likely be given a concrete response, like how wild populations are measured.
Yeah, okay, you've given me some information on how it might be done but where's the proof that it has been done for all extant species, especially the ones on the conservation lists?

Skepticism is hard. (:_(
 
They just need to get a job and learn to support themselves, the nasty freeloaders. Too many young koalas these days just sit around drunkenly pissing all over the place, spreading STDs, and refuse to better themselves. The ones who do have jobs just pose for cute tourist photos - no work ethic whatsoever!!!
 
Yeah, okay, you've given me some information on how it might be done but where's the proof that it has been done for all extant species, especially the ones on the conservation lists?

Skepticism is hard. (:_(
counting all of every species alive is an impossible standard for ecology. conservation studies aren't sparked by a census or something, it's more about observed changes in population trends. if a century of Audubon society birdwatchers indicates a certain bird is far more scarce, if fisherman have to travel twice as far as their fathers did for half the catch, if a pest insect is multiplying because it lost a natural predator- there are many reverberating clues that may spark a more academically rigorous investigation. it could also be prompted by understanding of the importance of a niche habitat. if a rainforest is being cleared, someone may start studying a type of frog dependent on that forest to quantify the resulting loss. for specific proof of conservation list, you can probably look what research the IUNC cites for each animal.

I get conservation's politically charged implication inspires skepticism but biology itself isn't a soft science.
 
Both pandas and koalas are heading for extinction because they are poorly equipped to stay alive and seem hell bent on letting themselves die. Just let them die. It's okay, natural extinctions happen. Not every living thing is equipped enough to survive. New species arise and push out the old ones. It's nature. Money could be going to actually saving shit that actually has a chance instead of on the dumbest vertebrate on the planet.

I'm one of those people that get salty about people wanking off about dolphins and koalas and pandas like they are some mystical magical creature but they are just animals. Horrible ones at that.
 
Both pandas and koalas are heading for extinction because they are poorly equipped to stay alive and seem hell bent on letting themselves die. Just let them die. It's okay, natural extinctions happen. Not every living thing is equipped enough to survive. New species arise and push out the old ones. It's nature. Money could be going to actually saving shit that actually has a chance instead of on the dumbest vertebrate on the planet.

I'm one of those people that get salty about people wanking off about dolphins and koalas and pandas like they are some mystical magical creature but they are just animals. Horrible ones at that.
this.

I am surprised Koalas haven't gone extinct yet. They are probably the dumbest and laziest animal to live on this earth. Only through intervention of humanity can they truly "survive."
 
Both pandas and koalas are heading for extinction because they are poorly equipped to stay alive and seem hell bent on letting themselves die. Just let them die. It's okay, natural extinctions happen. Not every living thing is equipped enough to survive. New species arise and push out the old ones. It's nature. Money could be going to actually saving shit that actually has a chance instead of on the dumbest vertebrate on the planet.

I'm one of those people that get salty about people wanking off about dolphins and koalas and pandas like they are some mystical magical creature but they are just animals. Horrible ones at that.
This topic is discussed a lot in zoology. Many researchers are frustrated that money gets thrown at saving a few individuals of a doomed species (pandas, cheetahs, certain butterflies) just because people think they’re neat, but other species that are playing a key role in the environment and have a chance at bouncing back are given little attention by the public/funding agencies. Cheetahs and pandas are the poster children for the imbalance of conservation efforts.
 
The pure dingo is a Chinese immigrant


Your remark piqued my curiosity. I'd simply been told and accepted that the dingo was the dog of the aborigine. However, according to Wikipedia, the oldest known Dingo fossil is only 3,450 years old, which makes if contemporaneous with the Battle of Megiddo and only slightly older than the oldest preserved peace treaty.

That means that while the New Kingdom in Egypt was shining and the Chinese were codifying their writing system, the abbos were so cave-fuck primitive they'd never even heard of dogs.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo