African megafauna in North America

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

If some scientists get their way.

Big game 'could roam US plains'
Wild animals on a North American plain, Nature/Cornell
The animals would fill a void in the ecosystem
If a group of US researchers have their way, lions, cheetahs, elephants and camels could soon roam parts of North America, Nature magazine reports.

The plan, which is called Pleistocene re-wilding, is intended to be a proactive approach to conservation.

The initiative would help endangered African animals while creating jobs, the Cornell University scientists say.

Evidence also suggests, they claim, that "megafauna" can help maintain ecosystems and boost biodiversity.

"If we only have 10 minutes to present this idea, people think we're nuts," said Harry Greene, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University, US.

"But if people hear the one-hour version, they realise they haven't thought about this as much as we have. Right now we are investing all our megafauna hopes on one continent - Africa."

Wild America

During the Pleistocene era - between 1.8 million to about 10,000 years ago - North America was home to a myriad of mega fauna.


Gaining public acceptance is going to be a huge issue, especially when you talk about reintroducing predators
Josh Donlan, Cornell University
Once, American cheetah (Acinonyx trumani) prowled the plains hunting pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) - an antelope-like animal found throughout the deserts of the American Southwest - and Camelops, an extinct camelid, browsed on arid land.

But man's arrival on the continent - about 13,000 ago, according to one prevalent theory - pushed many of these impressive creatures to extinction.

Their disappearance left glaring gaps in the complex web of interactions, upon which a healthy ecosystem depends. The pronghorn, for example, has lost its natural predator and only its startling speed - of up to about 60mph - hints at its now forgotten foe.

By introducing living counterparts to the extinct animals, the researchers say, these voids could be filled. So, by introducing free-ranging African cheetahs to the Southwest, strong interactions with pronghorns could be restored, while providing cheetahs with a new habitat.

Public acceptance

Other living species that could "stand in" for Pleistocene-era animals in North America include feral horses (Equus caballus), wild asses (E. asinus), Bactrian camels (Camelus bactrianus), Asian (Elephas maximus) and African (Loxodonta africana) elephants and lions (Panthera leo).

"Obviously, gaining public acceptance is going to be a huge issue, especially when you talk about reintroducing predators," said lead author Josh Donlan, of Cornell University. "There are going to have to be some major attitude shifts. That includes realising predation is a natural role, and that people are going to have to take precautions."

However Americans might do more than put up with their new compatriots - they might actually welcome them.

According to Dr Donlan and his colleagues, the re-wilding plan would offer ecotourism and land-management jobs to help the struggling economies of the Great Plains and Southwest.

Dr Donlan said that large tracts of private land are probably the most promising place to start, with each step carefully guided by the fossil record and the involvement of experts and research.

"We are not advocating backing up a van and letting elephants and cheetah out into the landscape," he said. "All of this would be science driven."

[Civil War Man]

Interesting fact: There are already the occasional camel seen in the Mojave desert. Way back when, someone in the U.S. Army got the bright idea of using camels instead of horses for cavalry stationed in dry areas, since the camels would require less water. It turned out to be an utter failure, so they released the camels into the wild.

Another interesting fact: Someone got the bright idea of breeding the American honeybee with the African killer bee. IIRC, it was their hope that the result would be a bee that produced the sweeter honey of the killer bee, but with less aggression like the honeybee. The result was the opposite, then a group of these bees escaped and started working their way north.

IMHO, American biodiversity is doing okay without going to the somewhat extreme measure of introducing African species. And I probably don't need to mention what happened when sheep and dogs were introduced to Australia (granted, marsupials are less competative than other mammals, but similar things have happened with certain types of fish and plants in North America already).

[Quadlok]

Don't they already have a problem with large predatory cats and Ostriches running wild in Texas?

This actually sounds like a decent idea, assuming we could figure out a way to keep such animals away from human areas. I would still rather see cloned mammoths and saber toothed cats, though.

[Civil War Man]

This actually sounds like a decent idea, assuming we could figure out a way to keep such animals away from human areas.

That's the big problem. A lot of species introductions are done under the presumption that will act in a certain way, and the infamous cases are when these presumptions turn out to be totally false.

For example, suppose they introduce the cheetah in order to reintroduce the natural predator of the pronghorn, but then the cheetahs realize that if they hop over this little barrier here, there're plenty of these big fat spotted animals that are a lot easier to catch.

[LadyTevar]

Nice idea, but they're freakin' nuts if they try it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Lions and Elephants? No fucking way that will ever happen outside of fenced areas, and given the cost of setting up fences, which can stop both animals with reliability, that's not going to be a very big area. There are already problems with the wolves in Yellowstone, imagine a couple Lion prides running around, and trucks hitting elephants on the freeway late at night.

Its a stupid idea at every level anyway, the point of conservation is to protect the animal in its native environment. Letting them loose to cause havoc on the Great Plains doesn't accomplish that, and keeping them in caged areas is why we have zoos.

[Surlethe]

If the animals are endangered, why not just let them go extinct?

Also, if I read correctly, the article says:

But man's arrival on the continent - about 13,000 ago, according to one prevalent theory - pushed many of these impressive creatures to extinction.

Their disappearance left glaring gaps in the complex web of interactions, upon which a healthy ecosystem depends.

But if an animal goes extinct, doesn't that mean something else is filling that niche now?

[Solauren]

Okay, you want to take some of the most dangerous land predators on the planet, and let them lose in a area full of his stresses on animals (civilization) and in terrain they are not famialir with, with 50 million little kids running around?

Yeah, RIGHT.

You'll have Cheetah's rumaging through trash dumbs and Lions picking off school hikers within 5 years.

And if you thought Dear Crossing's were a pain, imagine an Elephant crossing or a Rhino crossing. You thought the deer hurt your car, imagine what you would happen when you hit the Rhino and just piss it off....

[CaptainChewbacca]

If the animals are endangered, why not just let them go extinct?

Also, if I read correctly, the article says:

But man's arrival on the continent - about 13,000 ago, according to one prevalent theory - pushed many of these impressive creatures to extinction.

Their disappearance left glaring gaps in the complex web of interactions, upon which a healthy ecosystem depends.

But if an animal goes extinct, doesn't that mean something else is filling that niche now?

No, most of the Megafauna went extinct due to overhunting. There's nothing filling the "treegrazer" niche in North America anymore.

P.S. If I ran into an elephant in the wilds of California I'd shit my pants and die. Can elephants even survive the snow?

[Elheru Aran]

Actually, after the prehistoric North American settlers wiped out the tree-grazers, the prairies seem to have done adequately enough. I don't think there's really any need for a "treegrazer" niche as it is in most of the Western states, where trees are scarce enough as it is. Giraffes would be way too delicate, though elephants could probably migrate southwards; perhaps an artifically induced migration through herding methods for the first few years till they get into the habit of it? But nevertheless, this is a *bad* idea. African predators are scary enough; the rhinos and elephants are BAD shit.

Plus, we would have issues with backcountry rednecks getting drunk, pulling out Daddy's M-16 from 'Nam and getting Junyer's (completely and totally... semi-legal) MG-42 out of the attic, and going after elephants with high-powered spotlights... I exaggerate slightly, but it'd probably happen.

[Vendetta]

If the animals are endangered, why not just let them go extinct?

Because it suits our aesthetic sensibilities to preserve them.

I for one would consider the world poorer if it did not have, for example, any Tigers in it.

[Elfdart]

This is eight kinds of stupid. Wild horses and asses seem to do OK in the West, replacing their Pleistocene counterparts. Ranchers have had pretty good luck with Zebras in Texas and Missouri -again replacing the Ice Age versions in North American. But there's no way of knowing how other herbivores would perform. Some animals can't digest certain plants. So they could just end up placing a bunch of animals in a foreign habitat where the local plants will poison them or are so inedible that the animals starve. Nice.

Predators are a different matter. There is not a single known case of wolves killing human beings. Yet the mere thought of returning them to Wyoming, New Mexico and North Carolina made people go 100% APESHIT. So that's a good guage for how cheetahs will be received, since cheetahs don't attack humans either. There's a park in Glen Rose Texas with a family of cheetahs and they seem to do OK there. What would happen if someone tried to introduce lions? I think we know the answer. Some yo-yo suggested that the endangered Siberian Tiger be introduced to the Pacific Northwest and Rockies (like Yellowstone). No fucking way was the answer.

The whole idea is fatuous. While some Pleistocene animals were the same species as their modern counterparts that survive in other parts of the world (the wolf -Canis lupus is the same species in Eurasia and N. America), I'll wager that most of these "substitutes" are only similar to what they are meant to replace.

By the way, elephants can most likely handle the cold of the southwestern US reasonably well. Winters in most of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California are brief to nonexistent.

[LadyTevar]

Elephants *did* make it across the Alps to attack Rome.... but we don't know how Hannibal managed that trick.

Seriously, this has BAD IDEA written all across it. Aren't some paleo's thinking that some American Species died out from climate changes as well as the sudden appearance of man?

[Surlethe]

No, most of the Megafauna went extinct due to overhunting. There's nothing filling the "treegrazer" niche in North America anymore.

Aren't humans, by logging for wood and clearing for agricultural purposes, decreasing that particular niche size, though?

[ArmorPierce]

I think that it was a comibnation. Climate changes weakened them, man pushed them over the edge and now preventing species to evolve to fill in the niches left empty.

[Civil War Man]

No, most of the Megafauna went extinct due to overhunting. There's nothing filling the "treegrazer" niche in North America anymore.

Aren't humans, by logging for wood and clearing for agricultural purposes, decreasing that particular niche size, though?

Nope. North America still has as much forest today as it did about 100 years ago. A lot of the credit goes to the conservationists of that time, but some also goes to the industry itself. The lumber industry survives on their ability to produce lumber, so it is in their best interest to make sure their supply does not disappear. How do they do this? By planting more trees. Wood is a renewable resource, after all. Most wood we buy at the lumber yard are taken from trees grown in tree farms specifically for that purpose.

[Quadlok]

Nope. North America still has as much forest today as it did about 100 years ago. A lot of the credit goes to the conservationists of that time, but some also goes to the industry itself. The lumber industry survives on their ability to produce lumber, so it is in their best interest to make sure their supply does not disappear. How do they do this? By planting more trees. Wood is a renewable resource, after all. Most wood we buy at the lumber yard are taken from trees grown in tree farms specifically for that purpose.

100 years ago we were trying to cut down every damn tree in creation. If you compared today's forest to that of 400 years ago, it would be no where near equal.

[Elfdart]

Elephants *did* make it across the Alps to attack Rome.... but we don't know how Hannibal managed that trick.

Seriously, this has BAD IDEA written all across it. Aren't some paleo's thinking that some American Species died out from climate changes as well as the sudden appearance of man?

The whole idea that the small numbers of people who came to North America >10,000 years ago killed off the megafauna has always seemed fishy to me.

Humans have lived much longer (and in much greater numbers) among similar megafauna in Africa and only in the last 200 years or so have they had much effect. Besides, they mostly hunted small-to-medium animals. In fact, most of the pressure on large wild animals has come from large-scale agriculture, which the earliest Americans didn't practice. Rinderpest from imported Asian cattle wiped out more species (and greatly reduced others) than overhunting. This is one of the factors that I think did kill off the Pleistocene megafauna. When isolated ecosystems are brought together, disease usually runs rampant as the new hosts have no immunity.

Climate change is the biggest factor. The area from southern California to the Mississippi was cooler and greener than it is today, though without harsh winters. Much of it was parkland (a combination of fields and forests) -the ideal for supporting many varieties of animals. The temperature became hotter and dryer, then another blast of ice age, followed by modern climate: all in a very short time.

Without the large amounts of parkland, no elephants. No elephants means no sabretooths. As tree cover decreased, more and more land became open plains. To survive on the plains, herbivores have better luck with larger numbers of small animals, rather than a few huge ones. So the longhorn and giant bisons were supplanted by the smaller modern version. With more herbivores like bison, elk and deer, there was less margin for less efficient digesters of plant matter like horses, camels, and pronghorns with the latter becoming greatly reduced and the former two going extinct.

Predators only exist when there's a place for them. In other words, one predator has to be able to do something another can't. Sabretooths, dire wolves, American lions, American tigers and the short-faced bear were all evolved to kill and eat the largest herbivores. When those were gone, they had to compete with wolves, bears, cougars, jaguars, coyotes and lynxes for the medium-to-small prey. Well the smaller predators are better at killing the smaller prey and require fewer calories. What's more, if a cougar for example, runs out of deer, he can get by on hares, rabbits and birds. Smilodon would starve -and did.

The idea that people accomplished something 10-12,000 years ago that modern people couldn't do with more modern weapons elsewhere until much later is flawed.

[Elfdart]

Nope. North America still has as much forest today as it did about 100 years ago. A lot of the credit goes to the conservationists of that time, but some also goes to the industry itself. The lumber industry survives on their ability to produce lumber, so it is in their best interest to make sure their supply does not disappear. How do they do this? By planting more trees. Wood is a renewable resource, after all. Most wood we buy at the lumber yard are taken from trees grown in tree farms specifically for that purpose.

100 years ago we were trying to cut down every damn tree in creation. If you compared today's forest to that of 400 years ago, it would be no where near equal.

Actually, you're both off. For at least a thousand years, the Indians used to deliberately set fires to remove brush, leaves, dead grass and debris. They did this to encourage new plant growth with the following rains. The reason being that none of the large herbivores in North America could be domesticated. So they did the next best thing. They farmed grass and parkland to attract wild herbivores. This system was thrown out of whack around 1500 when European invaders and their diseases wiped out over 90% of the Indians. The astronomical numbers of animals reported by European explorers were a result of forced migrations of restless animals who were expecting green fields and like lemmings who have stripped an area bare, herd or flock in every direction looking for food -followed by a huge population crash.

So the fields and parks had 100-200 years to return to being forest and scrub, which is why by the early 1700s so much of the East looked like the deepest parts of the Black Forest.

[Sea Skimmer]

Nope. North America still has as much forest today as it did about 100 years ago.

Yeah, but compare today's forests with those of 250 years ago, and you'll find an immense differance. Almost the entire United States east of the Mississippi River was clear cut for lumber at some point. Most of the forests which now exist in that area of the United States are second growth, with different and much smaller trees compared to what once existed.

[Civil War Man]

Look, at no point did I mention forests in North America prior to 100 years ago. I said "North America has as much forest today as it did about 100 years ago", and it is a complete red herring to respond with "yeah, but we had more forests than that 250 years ago." My statement had absolutely nothing to do with 250 years ago.

I was saying that, despite claims to the contrary, the forest size in North America has largely been holding steady for the past century. And I gave two reasons that contributed to that. The first was that 100 years ago more people started caring about preserving the environment. The second was that the logging industry started taking steps to make sure that there would always be more trees, because as soon as all the trees get chopped down the lumber industry ends.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Look, at no point did I mention forests in North America prior to 100 years ago. I said "North America has as much forest today as it did about 100 years ago", and it is a complete red herring to respond with "yeah, but we had more forests than that 250 years ago." My statement had absolutely nothing to do with 250 years ago.

I was saying that, despite claims to the contrary, the forest size in North America has largely been holding steady for the past century. And I gave two reasons that contributed to that. The first was that 100 years ago more people started caring about preserving the environment. The second was that the logging industry started taking steps to make sure that there would always be more trees, because as soon as all the trees get chopped down the lumber industry ends.

To add upon that we're regrowing trees 40-50+% faster than we can use them.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Can we get back to the subject of me shitting my pa-... I mean 'Can elephants survive snow?'

[Broomstick]

There is already an elephant santuary in Tennessee - you might find your answers to "how well would elephants survive in the North American environment" there.

I would expect elephants can survive occassional encounters with cold temperatures - parts of Africa can get quite chilly, after all. Certainly, I'd expect they could survive in the southern part of the continenal US

[Lusankya]

The whole idea that the small numbers of people who came to North America >10,000 years ago killed off the megafauna has always seemed fishy to me.

Humans have lived much longer (and in much greater numbers) among similar megafauna in Africa and only in the last 200 years or so have they had much effect.

Remember that humans are indigenous to Africa, but not to America. Some theories about the superfauna extinctions in North America attribute it to humans being carriers of diseases that the American superfauna had no resistance to

And the death of the megafauna in Australia has been attributed to the arrival of humans on the continent there as well, with most of the megafauna becoming extinct within 10,000 years of their arrival. At that time, the arrival of humans in a new environment was no different from the introduction of any other feral species, and we know how destructive that can be.