Holy Cow! What the.....???????? is going on with this thread? Talk about a wild ride.
Let me start with the latest:
The Yahoo story on viruses on bats isn't really any surprise to folks who study bats. They are covered with viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi. In fact, the NSS' WNS Rapid Response Fund sponsored a study by Kaitlyn Hughes and Diana Northup looking at a baseline population of fungi on New Mexico's bats. The study isn't published yet, but Kait did present at last summer's NSS Convention (receiving an NSS award) and I've just read their final report. Those bats have hundreds of species of fungi on them, too.
The main point of this study was to see what the fungi population looked like prior to any arrival of WNS. The
Geomyces destructans fungus crowds out the other fungi once it gets on the bats. Hughes and Northup did not expect to see any G.d. at this point, and they didn't.
Dr. Hazel Barton did some work in Mammoth Cave, studying the tourists walking through and seeing if they picked up spores. They did - lots of them. Point is, we, as humans do that all the time. We pick up this and that, and drop off that and this all the time and all over the place. We're also covered with bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses, just like other animals. Where we go determines the mix of stuff we interact with.
Note that the Yahoo story's researcher basically says there is nothing we can do about it. Ultimately, we may find the same about WNS. However, some of the viruses have been deadly for humans, and traced back to bats. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are currently studying bats in a mine in Africa, where local men go in and out regularly for the ore, and are exposed to the bats which are carrying the deadly Marburg Virus. I saw a presentation on this in October at the North American Society for Bat Research's annual Symposium. You can find the abstract for that talk here:
https://custom.cvent.com/6617CEC09A47484FA6AE8D57DF33CE01/files/b536c02afca64c578757dd76a34c7c3e.pdf It's on Page 3. By the way, all the abstracts for all the talks and posters are in this document, including many that are WNS-related. I heartily encourage all to read them.
I'm looking forward to Crockett's Sci Fi book.
Seriously, on the very first questions raised by eyecave, let me address your statements piece by piece with the science as I know it.
wns originated from somewhere other than north or south america...
.
We don't yet know that for a fact. There are two published studies whose conclusions support the hypothesis that this is a novel fungus to North America. From where, we don't yet know, although Europe is the leading hypothesis. However, it's still possible the fungus mutated here. Nothing is proven....yet.
and that bats where it came from have some immunity to wns.
We don't yet know if any bats have "immunity." Some bats don't get the disease, but why is unclear. Basic science lesson: diseases require three things: a susceptible host, a pathogen, and a supportive environment. If any of the legs of this triangle are missing, the disease doesn't occur. So, as WNS is described as a disease of hibernating bats, we generally say that the migrating species don't get it. But why? Is it because the fungus isn't present? Or is it because they aren't roosting in caves and mines where the environmental conditions are conducive? Or is it something genetic - that they have some immunity? We don't know.
Similarly, why do some bats in the same cave get it and some not? Is that immunity? Maybe. The Virginia Big-ears don't get it, where their cave roosting comrades do (Little Browns, Indianas). So, the fungus is present, the microclimate seems conducive (although they roost in very different areas with different temperatures and humidity levels, so perhaps that's a factor - and there is evidence to support that (i.e. NY bats in two mines less than a mile apart - same species, yet very different manifestation of WNS. They only difference was humidity). But mostly, it's a different species - a different host, that may not be susceptible. Some biologists familiar with the species suspect something in the fur - a musky scent - that may keep the fungus from getting a toe-hold. Others think it may be that the VBE's immune system isn't suppressed during hibernation, as with the affected species. Thus, again, the fungus can't get started.
What about the European bats? In the northern half of Europe, they all seem to get the fungus - get covered with it by the end of hibernation - but don't die (Note: a few bats have died in Europe, but certainly no mass mortalities). Southern Europe hasn't seen any bats with the fungus. Is that temperature and humidity? Possibly, but not proven, although some think so. Interestingly, the British Isles have no evidence of G.d. Does it being an island offer some refuge? Possibly. There is work looking at this in the Canadian Maritimes where islands aren't yet affected either.
Europe has no bat species in common with North America, so there is no way to isolate that aspect in comparison to North American bats, assuming the pathogen and environmental factors were identical. However, one published study did innoculate North American bats, some with the North American strain of the fungus, some with the European strain, and all got WNS. So, the fungus appears to be consistent, although another study has shown a much large amount of genetic diversity in the European strains versus almost none in the North American strain. That supports the hypothesis that the fungus is newly introduced to North America. I am not aware of any information on South America regarding WNS.
eyecave may also be using "immunity" more generally, to refer not only to immunity per se, but also to resistance and/or resiliance. Resistance being factors that help keep the disease at bay. Maybe bat size helps resist the disease, which may be the case with the Big Brown, which has gotten WNS and died from it, but not in the numbers of other bats, and the fact that it's growing and taking over winter and summer roost and foraging habitat from the holes in the ecosystem left by the Little Browns is interesting and evidence of resistance. Resiliance refers to bats that have gotten the disease, but survived. The studies being done at Fort Drum, NY are cases in point.
if those two facts are true..then a potential solution is very strongly implied....
..
As you can see from what I've written above, those are not only two big "ifs," but within each "fact" lies many layers of complexity.
if we import non-native bats into the caves where wns has already destroyed bat population we would begin the reversal of the eventual very very near extermination of north and south american's bats..
Where to begin? First, there is no evidence of any effect on South American bats to date, and most people believe it would not survive in the tropics, so a bat to bat spread from NA to SA through CA is not envisioned. Second, there is one experiment, done in Vermont, where healthy Wisconsin bats were put in two mines where WNS had killed the prior residents. The Wisconsin bats, while of the same species, were likely fairly genetically diverse from their New England cousins (long genetic lecture omitted). They all got WNS and died. While there are other issues with that study, it doesn't bode well for injecting non-native bats and hoping for a different outcome.
But yes, those were of the same species. What if you used different species. Others have pointed out the many issues with injecting non-native species, including eyecave: bringing in other unwanted things, having them not adaptive to the local environment and food niches, etc. etc. However, we can look at the caves here in North America where multiple species live. The Virginia Big-ear example again is informative. It's not replacing the other bats that have died in those caves. Let's assume we didn't have those in NA, but thought they might be a good candidate for what eyecare proposes. So, we bring them here and then what? Nothing happens. Where is there any evidence that doing this would be work? The evidence is to the contrary, and the other environmental risks are great.
.BY NEXT SPRING.
Uh, no. Seriously, while all due deliberate speed is appropriate, haste still makes waste. We have only to look at the failure of the USFWS Virginia Big-eared captive breeding colony experiment a couple years ago. They were so terrified that the VBEs would be made extinct by WNS they took some 58 of these bats, against the professional experience and advice of bat habilitators and leading bat researches, such as Tom Kunz and Merlin Tuttle, and lost them all. To date those 58 bats are the only VBE victims of WNS - at the hands of humans. This was an experiment done in haste. To be fair, there are only about 15,000 - 20,000 of these bats known to exist, and mostly in two major hibernacula, so the pressure and threat was real. However, they did not even know if the species could be affected by WNS. Knowing that first would have saved these bats and some $300,000 of taxpayer dollars. In contrast, The Nature Conservancy's artificial hibernaculum experiment in Tennessee is more thoughtful, yet still aggressive in its timeline thinking.
the ONLY logical argument against this is that, along with the bats, is the potential introduction of someotherthing that decimates the population of some other north american creature...
Well, that's one argument against it.
the most ridiculous argument against this would be that of maintaining the genetic purity of native bats...
.
..
I don't even know what this means. As I wrote above regarding Little Browns, there is great genetic diversity among the same species. Indeed, conservation methods and even public policy acknowledge the strength of biological diversity.
by introducing the genetic immunity characteristic found in some bats to wns..
What "genetic immunity characteristic?" I'm not aware that any research has found such a thing, so what exactly are we going to do NEXT SPRING? As I've written above, there may be any number of factors, including genetics, that make bats, immune, resistant, or resiliant. I am aware of one major research project going on looking at biological controls, which may include those things naturally occurring on or in some bats, but we're years away from those results.
.
.we are accelerating what will take some hundreds of years to naturally occur, if not longer
.
If we would do this, we might be accelerating things, sure, but surprisingly, those changes may naturally occur far faster than one imagines. One may assume that both the host and the pathogen may evolve; the host evolves to resist the pathogen and ensure its own survival; the pathogen may evolve because it's own demise would come if it wipes out it's host. That's one of the reasons why some of the WNS researchers are focusing on the fungus itself - it's attributes, it's life-cycle. A threshhold question for
Geomyces destructans would be if it can survive in the environment absent its host. Some fungi can; others can't. Unfortunately, the recently published USGS study shows that this fungus can. That's not good news at all.
.i acknowledge that essentially genetic adaptation of the native bats would begin with the first sucessful hibernation of a native bat with wns....as such it would begin within the first 20 years of this mass extinction we are witnessing..probably much sooner....
We've actually seen several years now where bats have survived WNS - given birth, nursed their young, mated again, hibernated, got WNS, survived, and reproduced again (See the Fort Drum NY studies). We have banded Little Browns in Vermont that were banded well prior to WNS and are still around. We have sites in NY where the bat populations are growing - albeit slowly. Kate Langwig published a study, funded by the NSF, that showed behavioral changes in Little Brown colonies where they are not hibernating in tightly roosted clusters and surviving, thus perhaps avoiding the bat to bat transfer (or as much of it) so deadly for WNS. Thus, the prediction of regional extinction in 20 years may be premature. Biologists are certainly not ready to state that the population numbers are sufficient for long-term survival, but there are these signs of hope.
Now - please remember we're talking about New England and NY at this point. Other places are still in the throes of the mass mortalities; others still on the leading edge as early reports from this winter are coming in from Missouri, North Carolina, Kentucky,and Tennessee.
first you gotta accept that our native species will become very nearly extinct.
..
Not there yet. I think it's still possible regionally for some, but certainly not all.
i am certain that the surviving native bats would interbreed readily
What?
or not and instead collect with other native bats and slowly rebuild the exterminated native bat colonies
OK, this appears to be happening at a slow pace.
and fit in with the imported bats enough so that both types survive...
..
Based on what evidence? What will the imported bats eat? Maybe they're allergic to our mosquitoes
Maybe they won't get along and we'll have a big bat fight
By the way, one major flaw with this concept - even if one accepts all the assumptions - is that Europe has incredibly tight restrictions on studying bats. Collecting bats in Europe and bringing them here would be illegal.
...import, not extinction....
..
It won't happen.
..desperate times can demand actions not necessarily perfect in the ideal world..
Well, sure. But that doesn't mean we should take every one.
Sounds like a good experiment for Plum Island, though.
.
....
..
...
Cavechat RSS Feed