Content uploaded by Robert Puschendorf
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Puschendorf on Oct 01, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Robert Puschendorf
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Puschendorf on May 28, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1250953
, 260 (2014);344 Science
et al.Ben A. Minteer
Avoiding (Re)extinction
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
clicking here.colleagues, clients, or customers by
, you can order high-quality copies for yourIf you wish to distribute this article to others
here.following the guidelines
can be obtained byPermission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles
): April 23, 2014 www.sciencemag.org (this information is current as of
The following resources related to this article are available online at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6181/260.full.html
version of this article at:
including high-resolution figures, can be found in the onlineUpdated information and services,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6181/260.full.html#ref-list-1
, 1 of which can be accessed free:cites 12 articlesThis article
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/ecology
Ecology
subject collections:This article appears in the following
registered trademark of AAAS.
is aScience2014 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title
CopyrightAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005.
(print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by theScience
on April 23, 2014www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from on April 23, 2014www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from on April 23, 2014www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
18 APRIL 2014 VOL 344 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
260
PERSPECTIVES
F
ield biologists have traditionally col-
lected voucher specimens to con-
fi rm a species’ existence. This prac-
tice continues to this day but can magnify
the extinction risk for small and often iso-
lated populations. The availability of ade-
quate alternative methods of documenta-
tion, including high-resolution photography,
audio recording, and nonlethal sampling,
provide an opportunity to revisit and recon-
sider fi eld collection practices and policies.
Cases such as the extinction of the great
auk remind us what is at stake in taking ani-
mals from small and declining populations.
The last wild great auk (Pinguinus impen-
nis) was sighted in 1844 on Eldey Island,
Iceland. Centuries of exploitation for food
and feathers, and, to some degree, a chang-
ing climate, had stressed the species, but
overzealous museum collectors also played
a role in its extinction ( 1). As the bird’s num-
bers dwindled in the 19th century, ornitholo-
gists and curators increasingly prized great
auk skins and eggs, with museums and uni-
versities sending out collection parties to
procure specimens. On Eldey, fishermen
killed the fi nal breeding pair of the fl ightless
birds and sold them to a local chemist, who
stuffed the specimens and preserved them in
spirits. Their internal organs now reside at
the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen ( 2).
The great auk’s disappearance predates
the rise of a robust societal ethic of conser-
vation and the emergence of a scientifi c con-
cern for global biodiversity decline in the
late 20th century. Yet, there is still a strong
and widespread impulse to procure speci-
mens of rare or rediscovered species for sci-
entifi c purposes.
In their global review of species reap-
pearances, Scheffers et al. ( 3) document at
least 351 species that have been rediscovered
since 1889, mostly in the tropics. In recent
years, scientific and media attention has
been drawn to the rediscovery of amphib-
ian species thought to be extinct, including
11 species in Costa Rica alone (see the fi g-
ure). Many amphibian rediscoveries have
been documented by collecting specimens
upon fi rst encounter, a practice one of us has
carried out in the past [R.P. with Craugas-
tor ranoides, ( 4)]. Such rediscovered spe-
cies typically exist in small populations with
small range sizes and are therefore highly
vulnerable. The desire to collect voucher
specimens to verify the reappearance of spe-
cies presumed extinct can be heightened by
the recognition of the organism’s rarity, as in
the case of private individuals seeking to own
and display rare animal specimens for their
perceived scarcity and thus value. Rediscov-
eries can also be accidental, as many missing
species are hard to identify in the fi eld and
collected specimens may turn out to be from
very small populations, with the risk of col-
lection only realized well after the fact ( 5).
Many taxa are difficult to identify
from morphology alone. The collection of
voucher specimens by field biologists is
therefore increasingly augmented by other
kinds of samples. Cultural traditions within
a research community can, however, rein-
force the collection of voucher specimens
even where it is not necessary by insisting
that a preserved specimen in a natural his-
tory collection is the gold standard—or only
standard—for publishing a species descrip-
tion or documenting a species’ presence.
Collecting specimens is no longer required
to describe a species or to document its
rediscovery.
The concern about overcollection goes
well beyond the case of rediscovered spe-
Avoiding (Re)extinction
ECOLOGY
Ben A. Minteer ,
1
James P. Collins ,
1
Karen E. Love ,
1
Robert Puschendorf
2
Alternative methods of identifi cation should be
used to avoid collection of voucher specimens
of threatened or rediscovered species.
Species loss and rediscovery in Costa Rica. The fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd)
has been linked to the decline and extinction of amphibians worldwide ( 12). For example, amphibian popu-
lations in Costa Rica experienced substantial declines, with 20 of the 199 species feared extinct, after Bd
moved through the country from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s ( 13, 14). However, 11 of the 23 species
have been rediscovered ( 4). Holdridge’s toad (Incilus holdridgei) (see photo), a species endemic to a single
volcano, vanished during the declines and was declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources in 2007 but was rediscovered in 2008. Today, relict populations persist in
areas where Bd once contributed to their demise.
PHOTO CREDIT: JUAN G. ABARCA ALVARADO
1
School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ 85287, USA.
2
School of Biological Sciences, Plymouth
University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK.
E-mail: ben.minteer@asu.edu
Published by AAAS
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 344 18 APRIL 2014
261
PERSPECTIVES
G
raphene is highly conductive, fl ex-
ible, and has controllable permit-
tivity and hydrophilicity, among
its other distinctive properties ( 1, 2). These
properties could enable the development
of multifunctional biomedical devices ( 3).
A key issue for such applications is the
determination of the possible interactions
with components of the biological milieu
to reveal the opportunities offered and the
limitations posed. As with any other nano-
material, biological studies of graphene
should be performed with very specific,
well-designed, and well-characterized types
of materials with defi ned exposure. We out-
line three layers of complexity that are inter-
connected and need to be considered care-
fully in the development of graphene for use
in biomedical applications: material charac-
teristics; interactions with biological com-
ponents (tissues, cells, and proteins); and
biological activity outcomes.
Graphene has now been developed in
many different forms in terms of shapes, sizes,
chemical modifi cations, and other character-
istics that can produce dramatically different
results when studied biologically. Methods
for producing graphene include direct exfolia-
tion in organic liquids ( 4, 5), reduction of gra-
phene oxide (GO) ( 6), and epitaxial growth
by CVD (chemical vapor deposition) on cop-
per ( 7) or epitaxial growth on silicon carbide
( 8). The three aspects of this layer of structural
complexity—the thickness, the lateral extent,
and the surface functionalization of gra-
phene—are illustrated in panel A of the fi gure
and show how the materials produced by dif-
ferent methods fall in very different parts of
this parameter space. These different physical
and chemical characteristics dictate the suit-
ability of a material for specifi c biomedical
applications.
These wide discrepancies between the
available graphene types will crucially
determine the second layer of complexity,
that of interactions of graphene with living
cells and their compartments. In panel B
Exploring the Interface of
Graphene and Biology
MATERIALS SCIENCE
Kostas Kostarelos
1, 3
and Kostya S. Novoselov
2 ,3
To take advantage of the properties of
graphene in biomedical applications,
well-defi ned materials need to be matched
with intended applications.
1
Nanomedicine Laboratory, Faculty of Medical and Human
Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
2
School
of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford
Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
3
National Graphene Insti-
tute, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester
M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: kostas.kostarelos@manchester.ac.uk;
kostya@manchester.ac.uk
cies. It also applies to the more common sce-
nario of documenting newly discovered spe-
cies, which (like most rediscovered species)
often exist in small, isolated populations and
therefore suffer from the same problems if
voucher specimens are collected from the
fi eld. Field collection of individuals from
small and declining populations vulnera-
ble to extinction is also a common practice.
Collection both by professional and amateur
scientists has been linked to the decline or
loss of a range of animal species, includ-
ing Mexico’s elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi
soccorroensis) ( 6). Plants have also been
affected by scientifi c overcollection; Nor-
ton et al. ( 7) cite the case of the scientifi c
collection–driven decline and extinction of
uncommon plant taxa in New Zealand over
the past two centuries.
Perhaps the most powerful alternative
method to collection is a series of good
photographs, which can even be used to
describe a species, complemented by other
lines of evidence, such as molecular data
and a description of a species’ mating call
for birds, amphibians, or insects. Advances
in handheld technology have made it much
easier and cheaper to identify species; most
smartphones have a camera and a voice
recorder suffi cient to gather high-resolution
images as well as an organism’s call. Such
nonlethal techniques were used successfully
for the identifi cation of the bird Bugun lio-
cichla, a species that was newly discovered
in India in 2006 ( 8). The bird’s discoverer
deliberately chose not to collect a voucher
specimen for fear of imperiling the popula-
tion; instead, a combination of photos, audio
recordings, and feathers were used to distin-
guish the species.
In the case of rediscovered species, many
were already well described, and a good-
quality image should suffi ce. For rediscov-
ered, rare, and newly discovered species,
molecular techniques (such as skin swab-
bing for DNA) are an increasingly effec-
tive way to sample a specimen to confi rm
an identity with no or minimal harm to the
organism ( 9, 10). For this system to work,
the DNA of relict populations and newly dis-
covered species must be sequenced and the
data made publicly available. This would, for
example, make future population rediscov-
eries easier to document.
The multivariate description of a species
that results from combining high-resolution
photographs, sonograms (as appropriate),
molecular samples, and other characteristics
that do not require taking a specimen from
the wild can be just as accurate as the collec-
tion of a voucher specimen without increas-
ing the extinction risk. Clearly there remains
a long-running debate over the appropriate
standards for scientifi c description absent
a voucher specimen ( 11). The benefi ts and
costs of verifi cation-driven specimen col-
lection, however, should be more openly
and systematically addressed by scientifi c
societies, volunteer naturalist groups, and
museums. Sharing of specimen information,
including obligations to store genetic infor-
mation from voucher specimens in widely
accessible digital repositories, can also help
to reduce the future need to collect animals
from the wild.
References
1. S. A. Brengtson, Auk 101, 1 (1984).
2. E. Fuller, The Great Auk: The Extinction of the Original
Penguin (Bunker Hill, Piermont, New Hampshire, 2003).
3. B. R. Scheffers, D. L. Yong, J. B. Harris, X. Giam, N. S.
Sodhi, PLOS ONE 6, e22531 (2011).
4. A. García-Rodríguez, G. Chaves, C. Benavides-Varela,
R. Puschendorf, Divers. Distrib. 18, 204 (2012).
5. K. Nishida, Brenesia 66, 78 (2006).
6. R. Rodriguez-Estrella, M. C. Blázquez Moreno, Biodivers.
Conserv. 15, 1621 (2006).
7. D. A. Norton, J. M. Lord, D. R. Given, P. J. De Lange, Taxon
43, 181 (1994).
8. R. Athreya, Indian Birds 2, 82 (2006).
9. J. Prunier et al., Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12, 524 (2012).
10. A. M. Mendoza, J. C. García-Ramírez, H. Cárdenas-Henao,
Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12, 470 (2012).
11. N. J. Collar, Ibis 141, 358 (1999).
12. J. P. Collins, M. L. Crump, Extinction in Our Times: Global
Amphibian Declines (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).
13. F. Bolaños, Ambientico 107, 12 (2002).
14. B. L. Phillips, R. Puschendorf, Proc. Biol. Sci. 280,
20131290 (2013).
10.1126/science.1250953
Published by AAAS