Invisible Friends -- a Very Holobiontic Book

 

I am sure it is a very holobiontic book. I can't wait to read it!!

https://pelagicpublishing.com/products/invisible-friends-microbes-jake-robinson

Conserving old growth forests is key to stabilising the Earth’s climate

From the Blog of the Club of Rome




© Greatandaman | Dreamstime
By Ugo Bardi, member of The Club of Rome


02 May 2023 – Do forests create rain? It is a question that has been debated for a long time. We know that trees produce huge amounts of water vapor that is pumped from humidity in the ground and condensed into clouds that generate rain, but the mechanisms that govern condensation and vapor water movements are still not completely clear.

In our new paper, a group of researchers led by Anastassia Makarieva of the Theoretical Physics Division of Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI) and the Institute for Advanced Study of the Technical University of München (TUM) highlight how evapotranspiration – the evaporation of water by trees, modifies water vapor dynamics to generate high moisture content regimes that provide the rain needed by land ecosystems. The research is a significant step forward in understanding the critical need to conserve old-growth forests to stabilise the Earth’s climate and maintain the biodiversity needed for the ecosystem to survive.

The study titled “The role of ecosystem transpiration in creating alternate moisture regimes by influencing atmospheric moisture convergence” shows that two potential moisture regimes exist: one is drier, with additional moisture decreasing atmospheric moisture import, and one is wetter, with additional moisture enhancing atmospheric moisture import. In the drier regime, that may be caused by deforestation, water vapor behaves as a passive tracer following the air flow. In the wetter regime, it modifies atmospheric dynamics and amplifies the atmospheric moisture import, creating rain.

There is still much that we need to understand about these mechanisms, but we are starting to understand how forests and the atmosphere form a system of connected elements that affect each other. One thing is clear: forests are crucial to the stability of the Earth’s climate.

Not only do trees store carbon in a form that does not cause greenhouse warming, but they actively cool the planet, due to how moisture condensation is managed. Forests also control the water cycle on land, pumping water vapor from the oceans inland by a mechanism called the biotic pump. Old growth forests generate giant flows of water known as “flying rivers” that fertilise entire continents. Our study shows that the non-linear precipitation dependence on atmospheric moisture content has wide-ranging implications. Atmospheric water flows do not recognize international borders, meaning deforestation disrupting evapotranspiration in one region could trigger a transition to a drier regime in another.

Our results indicate that the Earth’s natural forests, in both high and low latitudes, are our common legacy of pivotal global importance, as they support the terrestrial water cycle. Their preservation should be a recognised priority for our civilisation to solve the global water crisis. Important on-going work calls for re-appraisal of the forest’s role in the global temperature regime.

The study was performed by an international research team that included scientists from North and South America, and Eastern and Western Europe.

Is Gaia going to die of heat stroke?

 

Figure from the recent paper by Duffy et al. on "Science"

What is the maximum temperature that the Earth's Holobiont (aka "Gaia") can withstand before collapsing? Some data from a recent paper in "Science" indicate that we are not so close to the "Venus scenario" that would sterilize our planet. Nevertheless, the system is under stress

As you see in the figure at the beginning of the post, the optimal average temperature of planet Earth for the standard C3 photosynthesis (that of trees) is around 16 C, not far from the current value of around 18 C. (note that the graph takes into account not just temperature, but CO2 concentrations, supposed to be affecting temperature). Switching to the C4 mechanism (grass and others) moves the maximum to about 28 C;  10 degrees higher than it is now. 

So, we have a comfortable range in terms of plant life, and consider that the "zero" in the curve doesn't mean that all plants die; just that they are less efficient, especially in the hot equatorial zones. Note also how the "respiration" curve keeps growing as a function of temperatures; in the paper, they say that it keeps growing up to 60-70 C. 

Complicated story, but in any case, Gaia is not going to die soon. Note that during the Eocene, some 56 million years ago, the Earth's temperature was indeed some 8-10 degrees higher than it is now, and the planet was covered with lush forests. It is believed that C4 photosynthesis didn't appear on Earth before 35 million years ago. So, even an extra 10 C of warming will not destroy the biosphere: Gaia has a thick skin.

Eventually, the increasing solar irradiation will kill the Great Earth Holobiont but, hopefully, that will take a few hundred million years (at least). About humans, though.... well, it is another story. Do we still have a few decades left? Maybe. 

Is Rewilding a Good Idea? Why We Need to Rethink Our Approach to Ecosystem Regeneration

Rewilding is a popular idea nowadays. Given the poor performance of humans in managing ecosystems, the temptation to leave the wheel to Gaia is strong. But it is also true that in the long history of the Earth, Gaia has not always been firmly in control. Maybe she was drunk, maybe she was stoned, but Earth without humans has been "wild" in the sense that it went through all sorts of oscillations -- sometimes true catastrophes. Just think of the alternance of ice ages/interglacials of the past 2-3 million years. So, what do we mean with "rewilding"? Returning Eurasia to the "Mammoth Steppe" of the ice ages? Or to the lush forests of the Eocene? Or what, exactly? Here, Helga Ingeborg Vierich criticizes the concept of rewilding and proposes better ideas to manage the ecosystem. In general, the correct approach should not be "rewilding" but "regeneration"

By Helga Ingeborg Vierich -- From "The Proud Holobionts" Forum

Is the term we are looking for here really "re-wilding”? I ask this because the term “wild” implies that it is not “tame” - “wild” is usually present as the opposite of “domesticated”.

The term further prevents an understanding of reality. What is that reality? Well, let us start with this: the human species IS part of the ecosystem of this planet.

Homo sapiens and earlier ancestral forms have been keystone species for at least a million years. For 99.99% of our evolutionary history, we humans were keystone ecological engineers. Like beavers and otters and wolves and whales and elephants, we were increasing and stabilizing the diversity of life in every ecosystem we inhabited.

This positive effect on ecosystems was not, however, due to anything genetic or innate in human behaviour, it was due to learned and shared patterns: in other words, it was “cultural”.

Starting in a few places on the planet, a cultural change to more ecologically destructive economies changed all that. At first it only effected a tiny proportion of humanity and of the ecology of the planet, but then it grew and coalesced into larger and larger cultures containing higher and higher proportions of the human beings, and more and more surface areas around the globe.

Today we call it our “civilization” as if it was a positive and progressive change in our relationship with the planet and each other.

It has been nothing of the kind. Each state level society with civil - urban - population concentrations, has been requiring far too much deforestation and other resource extraction. The reality is that there is nothing positive about the progressive destruction of ecosystems in support of greater and greater urbanization and an extremely expensive (though tiny) “upper” class of humans.

This has not just disrupted the positive trophic flows that characterized the human past, after the “industrial revolution” began, it has reversed them. Now, the global industrial economy is the main driver of species extinction, environmental pollution with toxins and plastics, and climate change.

Just look at this chart below...

So our job now is NOT to “leave nature alone” but to relearn our species' responsibility within the planetary ecosystem, and RENEW that positive effect on diversity and stability.

Humans will not be able to do this if they continue to be guided by corporate and political elites whose main goal is to enrich themselves and stay “in power” over inegalitarian cultures competing for control of the planet’s diminishing resources of minerals, fossil carbon, water, and “arable soil”. I am very afraid that what this means is incomprehensible to most people in this present industrial and financially-driven culture.

1: Stop industrial agriculture. The planet cannot afford it. 

2, Restore predators and critical keystone species to every available habitat, and stop killing them for “fun” or “profit”. Beavers, wolves, lions, bison, bears, caribou, otters, and all the other component species of a diverse and healthy ecosystem will restore positive trophic flows. That includes diversity of plants, and is vital: 

3. Stop the destruction of forested ecosystems: the lumber and paper industries must be radically scaled back. Stop this silly substitution of “commercially valuable” tree plantations and restore actual forest ecosystems. Above all, immediately stop the cutting down of existing forest ecosystems. Recycle paper, plastic, all metals, and so on. 

4. All industrial scale “commercial” fishing, as well as “fish farming” must be stopped. 

5. TAX the rich and the corporations - and stop all investment of money (gambling) in any industry.

6. Begin taking the necessary steps to close down the petroleum-powered automobile industry: no more ”new models” every year. Restore and enlarge electrically powered public transit - trains and street cars and buses... encourage bicycles by increasing bike lanes in all towns and cities.

Trophic Rewilding: A Cure for a sick Planet?

 

The Mammoth Steppe was a huge area that extended over most of Northern Eurasia, including part of Alaska. It existed during the last glacial period, 126,000 YBP–11,700 YBP. Then, it was superseded by modern boreal forests during the thaw that led into the Holocene. The question of what factors led to this huge switch in the dominant biome is far from being clear. If "rewilding" some areas of the Earth is a good idea, should we strive for forests or steppes? After all, they are both "natural" environments?   

You may have already seen this paper just appeared on "Nature" with the title: "Trophic rewilding can expand natural climate solutions." The study is led by Oswald Schmitz of Yale University and is an assessment of the role of natural trophic chains on climate and of the perspectives of using "rewilding" as an important method for the mitigation of global warming. It has been described as a "landmark paper," and in several respects, it is. It is part of a general movement in favor of rewilding, and there is even a "Global Rewilding Alliance." 

The concept makes plenty of sense. It provides an alternative to the multiple bizarre ideas that have been proposed as "solutions" for the climate change problem, including cutting down the Boreal  Forests to increase Earth's albedo. On the other hand, it is still a subject in its infancy. One problem is that the authors do not mention that there is not just carbon sequestration at play in the climate game. They miss the effects of forests on the hydrological cycle (the kind of effects studied by Gorshkov, Makarieva, and others). But I think that it could be possible to merge these concepts together. In both cases, the idea is to restore the ecosystem to its maximum metabolic rate, balancing the disturbing effect of human activities. 

A deeper problem lies in understanding why exactly trophic chains have the effects claimed in the paper. The paper reports several estimates of the amount of carbon stored by various biomes, noting how it increases when a more diverse ecosystem is restored. To give an idea of the approach of the paper, the authors write that: 

The dividend of creating dynamic landscapes and seascapes is illustrated by the 1.2 million Serengeti wildebeest still found in Africa. This population annually migrates throughout the 25,000 km2 savannah– woodland landscape tracking lush vegetation created by seasonally and spatially varying rainfall. During the migration, wildebeest consume large amounts of grassland carbon and return it as dung that is incorporated by insects into soil storage. In the early twentieth century this dynamic was halted when the wildebeest population plummeted to 300,000 animals, decimated by rinderpest disease transmitted from domestic cattle. Consequently, there were too few animals to fully graze the landscape. The increased standing grass fuelled more frequent and intense wildfires that released carbon stored in the biomass across 80% of the landscape, which rendered the Serengeti a net source of atmospheric CO2 (ref. 47). Similar alterations of fire regimes followed the near-prehistoric extinctions of other large herbivores, the legacies of which persist today. Fire is an essential natural process in most of these systems, but the loss of natural grazing increases their frequency and intensity. Restoring the wildebeest population through disease management led to less frequent and intense wildfires, and gradually restored the Serengeti back to being a carbon sink. The Serengeti now stores up to 4.4 MtCO 2 more than when the wildebeest population was at its lowest. 

Which is truly fascinating. But why exactly should more diverse ecosystems store more carbon? One could say that if there were no wildebeest, then the forest would cover the Serengeti Park, and wouldn't a forest store more carbon than a savanna? Not necessarily. Large herbivores can sequester a lot of carbon in the soil, and it seems that the deep, fertile soil that Europeans found in the central area of North America was the result of the work of the huge herds of large ungulates living there. So, in terms of carbon storage, is a forest better than a savanna, or is it the reverse? 

Probably there is no clear-cut answer, and maybe there will never be one. Biomes are always dynamic; they change all the time. Although, in general, the ecosystem strives for stability, it may not be able to reach it except as an average -- it is sensible to even minor triggers such as the Milankovich oscillations that triggered the cycles of ice ages of the past two million years or so. But the Milankovich effects are just that: triggers. For the huge Earth ecosystem to move from a cold to a warm status, and the reverse, it takes enormous forces at play. In any case, the trophic chain remains the crucial factor in the ecosystem, the backbone of holobionts in their extended definition.

h/t John Day and Михаил Войтехов

The Evolutionary Game: How did Elephants survive the onslaught?

 

Another interactive lecture delivered by Meuianga (honorable) Mera Te Aì 'Enge'ite, chief scientific officer of the Reptilian Starfleet

Cadets, as you know, the evolutionary game, as you know, has many facets. So, there are many ways used by Earth’s creatures to cool down while making an effort. Let me make an example for you -- it will test your analysis skills. Let me show you this image of these two large animals on the screen.

You see two similar creatures of about the same size. As you already know from your training material about Earth, the one on the left is called “Elephant.” The ape scientists classify it as “Loxodonta Africana.” The other, on the right, is a wooly mammoth, also called mammuthus primigenius. You know that it is an extinct species today. You know that these animals existed (and the elephant still exists) together with the current dominant ape species, the naked ape called Homo Sapiens. There is clear evidence that the naked apes hunted both species using simple weapons, and it may well be that they hunted the mammoth to extinction. Instead, the Elephant survived, although nowadays he risks extinctions, too, because the apes have much better weapons. But let’s not get into that -- it is clear that the naked apes hunted mammoths with the same simple weapons they were using for hunting elephants not very long ago. The question for you, cadets, is how is it that elephants survived while the mammoths died out?

-- Ah… Meuianga. This is surely an interesting question.

-- Really. How that could be?

-- These two animals look very similar, indeed.

-- Of course, apart from one being furry, and the other not…. But it means only that one of the two lived in a colder climate, is that right?

Yes, cadets, the mammoth lived in a cold climate, in the Northern regions of the planet. That’s why it has that thick coat of fur. The Elephant, instead, lived, and still lives, in equatorial regions. It doesn’t need fur. But how would that affect their ability to escape being hunted by the Naked Apes?

-- Maybe it is what you told us before about the naked apes, Meuianga. The Elephant is naked.
-- Maybe it sweats? Just like the naked apes do?
-- That allows the elephant to cool down under effort? Is this the reason?

Not so simple, cadets. I can tell you that the elephant does not have a high density of sweat glands on its body. Nothing like the naked apes, which sweat all the time. Actually it has almost no sweat glands on most of its skin, except at the bottom of its feet. But those glands can hardly cool the body of the creature. They must be used mainly to mark the territory. As the elephant walks, it leaves a scent trail on its tracks. This is something interesting, too. Don’t you think so?

-- Indeed, Meuianga. Why should a creature leave a scent trail that’s easy for predators to follow?

-- Strange things happen on this strange planet. Naked apes and large beasts leaving a trail to make it easier for predators to hunt them.

Oh, cadets, you can’t imagine how many more strange things you still have to learn about this planet. And, yet, no matter how strange these things may be, never forget that for everything that exists in an ecosystem, on any planet of the galaxy, there has been a natural selection process that has led it to exist. And that’s true also for elephant feet leaving a trail of smell.

-- Well, Meuianga, I can imagine that it would make no difference for such a large beast to leave a trail of smell. It is so big that it couldn’t hide its trail anyway.

-- Yes, it seems reasonable. Yet, why make things easier for predators?

Cadets, think about this: what if the beast doesn’t have natural predators?

-- Oh… in that case it wouldn’t matter, of course, Meuianga.

-- You mean it is because it is so big?

-- Then, yes, we can see that most predators would have a hard time killing an elephant.

-- But didn’t you tell us that the naked apes hunt elephants? Then it has at least one predator.

Correct, cadet Lipotzoot'itan. Let me rephrase my sentence. What if the beast has just one natural predator? And you surely read in your training material that the naked apes have a very poor sense of smell….

-- Meuianga, you keep surprising us.

-- Indeed, amazing things you are telling us.

-- These elephants would not be worse off by leaving a smell trail for a predator that can’t follow it. Hence, natural selection did not select it out.

-- And so they probably use the scent to mark their territory.

Exactly, cadets. Exactly. But let’s go back to our initial question: why did Mammoths go extinct but not elephants? We don’t know if Mammoths had the same kind of sweat glands in the feet, but that couldn’t have had much to do with the fact that the naked apes exterminated them. So, there is something else to be considered here. Do you remember that I was telling you that elephants don’t have sweat glands on their bodies? If you think about that, it makes plenty of sense. With such a large body, the ratio of surface to volume is small, so sweat glands, if they had them, would only cool down the outer skin, but do very little to cool the whole beast.

-- Yes, Meuianga, we can see your point.

-- Sweating a lot would not be useful for such a large beast.

-- But then, how is that they managed to survive the hunting by the naked apes?

And you have the answer right in front of you. Look at the image. Look at it carefully. Don’t you see the difference? It is glaringly obvious.

-- Meuianga, maybe we are not good cadets

-- Maybe we are a little dumb.

-- They should kick us out of the Starfleet academy.

But, no, cadets, no! You are not dumb. You see, I have given this lecture to many classes of Starfleet cadets, and I can see how difficult it is for you to see something that it is so obvious once you notice it. You just need to learn. And for that you have to learn how to learn. It is for this reason that you are here. So, let me give you just a hint. A single word. Ears.

-- Ah….. the ears

-- Yes, the ears…. How couldn’t we notice the ears.

-- The elephant has such big ears! The mammoth has much smaller ones.

-- But what does it mean? How is it helping elephants to survive?

Excellent question, cadet Nätsyeaypxit'ite. The first step to answer a question is to frame it in the right way. How do those large ears help elephants to survive? And the answer is in a single word: vascularization.

-- Oh…. now we see it!

-- So obvious!

-- How could we have missed it!

Yes, you have it now, cadets. The large ears of the elephant are highly vascularized. A lot of blood goes through them, and so it cools down as the elephant moves. Actually, they flap their ears a lot to cool them down. Then, the blood goes into the elephant's body, and it cools it from the inside. Wonderfully efficient for a large animal! Actually, their whole skin is also vascularized, and it cools the body in the same way. If you observe their normal behavior, you see that they use their flexible nose, their trunk, to spray water over their bodies. Another way to cool down. But the large ears are the elephant’s radiators. They are their secret weapons against the naked apes and their wonderful sweating glands.

I see that you are awed, cadets, and correctly so. An ecosystem is such a complex thing that it is always amazing. Sometimes bewildering. Then, you can now notice another facet of the story. You see, the naked apes called “humans” evolved in a hot climate in the continent called Africa. The same place where elephants lived. So, naked apes and elephants co-evolved. It was one of those cases called “arms races.” The two species evolved together, both improving their metabolic efficiency. And not just that, also their social skills, but we’ll see that later. In any case, the naked apes couldn’t hunt down elephants by wearing them down, and so the elephant survived. Then, when the apes moved northward, they encountered another similar species, the mammoths. Unfortunately for the mammoths, they had never encountered those hunting apes, and they didn’t have the time to evolve an efficient cooling system. And so they were exterminated in a relatively short time, perhaps just a few tens of thousands of years. See? Everything clicks together! Evolution is a fascinating game, although also a cruel one. Those who lose the game, must die. It is the same everywhere in the universe.

-- Indeed, Meuianga

-- We are truly amazed…. Actually awed

-- Even bewildered. That may be a better way of saying it.

-- But, Meuianga, how about us, the reptilians? How do we compare with these creatures from Earth?

Oh…. that’s another facet of the story, cadet Runga'itan. We are reptilians of the kind called “saurian.” Our metabolic cooling system is all inside our body. It is where we continuously pump air, and -- yes -- we do sweat, in the sense that we evaporate water. But inside, not outside! It is much more efficient than the method that the naked apes use. But, on the whole, these creatures are resourceful and clever, and if we ever were to come to fight each other, well, it would be an interesting story.

-- Meuianga, you really think that Earth’s apes could defeat the mighty Reptilian Stellar Empire?

-- That could never be!

-- We can’t even imagine such a thing.

You never know, cadets, you never know…..

Lectures by Meuianga Mera

Why Naked Apes have Small Mouths. Explained by Meuianga Mera, Chief Scientist of the Reptilian Starfleet

The Red Mouthed Apes: A Lecture by Meuianga Mera, Chief Scientific Officer of the Reptilian Starfleet

The Naked Ape -- A Tale Told in Space

The Reptilian Mirage Suit: Learning the Purpose of Human Ears

The Evolutionary Game: How did Elephants survive the onslaught

Of Mammophants and Holobionts

A question for you, space cadets, why did Mammoths go extinct, while elephants didn't? You have to detect a subtle clue that has to do with how the naked apes hunted them. You should be able to see it in this image. (Meuianga Mera, Chief Scientific Officer of the Reptilian Starfleet)

From "The Embryo Project"

Revive & Restore’s Woolly Mammoth Revival Project

By: Risa Aria Schnebly
Published: 2021-01-19
Keywords: mammophant, de-extinction, gene modification

Gratefully reproduced on "The Proud Holobionts" under this text's Creative Commons License 

In 2015, Revive & Restore launched the Woolly Mammoth Revival Project with a goal of re-engineering a creature with genes from the woolly mammoth and introducing it back into the tundra to combat climate change. Revive & Restore is a nonprofit in California that uses genome editing technologies to enhance conservation efforts in sometimes controversial ways. In order to de-extinct the woolly mammoth, researchers theorize that they can manipulate the genome of the Asian elephant, which is the mammoth’s closest living evolutionary relative, to make it resemble the genome of the extinct woolly mammoth. While their goal is to create a new elephant-mammoth hybrid species, or a mammophant, that looks and functions like the extinct woolly mammoth, critics have suggested researchers involved in the project have misled and exaggerated the process. As of 2021, researchers have not yet succeeded in their efforts to de-extinct the woolly mammoth, but have expressed that it may become a reality within a decade.

Researchers broadly define de-extinction as a method for reintroducing extinct species. However, the methods of de-extinction that researchers participating in the Woolly Mammoth Revival Project pursue would not lead to a perfect biological replica of a mammoth. The only chance to precisely recreate an extinct animal would be through cloning, a process of creating a genetically identical organism using the DNA of a host. DNA is the genetic information found in every living organism that carries the instructions an organism needs to develop, live, and reproduce. However, researchers cannot clone mammoths because cloning requires living cells, whereas other genome editing methods do not. Since one of the last species of mammoths went extinct around 4000 years ago, scientists are unable to acquire any living cells needed to clone the animal itself.

Because cloning is not an option in the case of the woolly mammoth, Revive & Restore researchers are attempting to use genome editing and engineering to make mammoth-like species instead of perfect replications of mammoths. Genome engineering is a technique that enables researchers to make changes to an organism’s genome, which is its set of DNA. There are many technologies that equip scientists to edit an organism’s genome and change how it will develop and function. Researchers from the Woolly Mammoth Revival Project are experimenting with CRISPR-cas9, a genome editing tool derived from bacteria that involves cutting out specific sequences of DNA and replacing them with other sequences. In the case of the de-extinction of the woolly mammoth, scientists would edit the Asian elephant genome to make it more similar to the genome from the woolly mammoth.

As the woolly mammoth’s closest living relative, the Asian elephant is ninety-nine percent genetically identical to the mammoth without any genetic editing interventions. Genetic engineers can use CRISPR-cas9 to cut out and remove precise sequences of elephant DNA and replace them with the DNA sequences that make up specific genes in the woolly mammoth’s genome. The genes they add into the elephant genome code for features that can make an elephant more mammoth-like, such as promoting the development of thicker layers of fat and longer hair. Researchers will not have created a biological woolly mammoth once an organism with that genome develops. However, it would theoretically be a mammoth-like creature which some have researchers have called a mammophant. They speculate the organism will be able to survive in the Arctic, where woolly mammoths once lived to promote biodiversity in that area. Researchers at Revive & Restore expect the introduction of their hybrid species can help prevent the melting of permafrost, the thick layer of soil and bedrock that stays frozen year-round in the Arctic, thereby preventing the release of greenhouse gases.

Stewart Brand and Ryan Phelan founded Revive & Restore in 2012, launching its inception with a project designed to de-extinct the passenger pigeon, a species of bird that went extinct in the early twentieth century due to overhunting. The extinction of the passenger pigeon was one of the catalysts for the US conservation movement because it demonstrated how human action alone could entirely eradicate a species that was once extremely abundant. For Revive & Restore, the passenger pigeon was a model candidate for de-extinction not only because of its fame within the conservation movement, but also because the passenger pigeon was an important species in the forests of the eastern US. Its foraging and migration patterns helped to create areas within forests that allowed other species to populate.

Revive & Restore’s next species of focus was the woolly mammoth, which was an important species in the Arctic, where the mammoth would trample plants and trees which would enable the arctic permafrost to remain frozen by exposing it the cold air. In 2012, Brand and Phelan hosted a meeting of international scientists interested in the project to discuss the feasibility of reintroducing the woolly mammoth, or a species very similar. Two of the project’s key figures, scientists George Church and Sergey Zimov, met at that meeting and discussed its practicality. Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, had the scientific expertise needed to engineer a mammophant. Zimov, a researcher of ecology from Russia, could provide a place the mammophants could live, and suggested the potential role of the mammophant in combatting global warming.

In 1996, Zimov founded Pleistocene Park, a fifty square mile wide nature reserve in the remote Siberian Arctic where mammophants may eventually roam. Some of the goals of Pleistocene Park include restoring the area’s ecosystem, protect the permafrost, and prevent further global warming. Zimov had already reintroduced large grazing animals into the park to replace the wildlife that existed in that region in the late Pleistocene era, which was a span in Earth’s history that ended about 12,000 years ago. Zimov believes that reintroducing large species like mammophants could mitigate the effects of global warming in the Arctic by helping to prevent the thawing of arctic permafrost.

During the late Pleistocene era, mammoths and other large animals trampled and scraped snow away from the ground, exposing the permafrost to cold winter air that could penetrate the ground and keep the deep layers of the permafrost frozen. Without the activity from large animals, there is nothing to disturb the snow that covers the ground, which means the colder air cannot reach and freeze the permafrost during the winter. That means that the permafrost can melt more easily upon the arrival of seasonal warm weather, especially as global temperatures rise due to global warming. When arctic permafrost thaws, it can release greenhouse gases that have been trapped within it for centuries. Those greenhouse gases can trap heat inside the earth’s atmosphere and researchers predict its impact will be greater than any other factor contributing to global warming. However, according to Zimov, the reintroduction of large grazing animals into Pleistocene Park has already seemed to help keep deeper layers of the permafrost frozen. After Church visited Pleistocene Park himself in 2015, Church and Zimov launched the Woolly Mammoth Revival Project with Revive & Restore.

Before genetic engineers can begin to add mammoth genes into the elephant genome, they first have to identify which genes are the most critically involved in the features they hope to emulate. The mammoth genome was first sequenced in 2008 by a team of biologists at Penn State University in State College, Pennsylvania. The team used samples of mammoth hair found in two mammoth specimens buried in the Siberian permafrost, one that was 20,000 years old and another that was 60,000 years old. Though most DNA specimens that old would be too degraded for scientists to sequence, the mammoths had been frozen and preserved in the Siberian permafrost. However, the mammoth’s DNA sequence does not specifically communicate the associated genes. To determine those genes, researchers have tested and compared the sequences of the woolly mammoth to those of the Asian elephant.

Scientists can reprogram the cells they edit to become different kinds of cells in the body, such as red blood cells, hair cells, or tissue cells. By pushing the edited reprogrammed cells to develop, the team can then see what the outcome of the genome edits they make will be. For example, if the researchers splice in a gene meant to give the elephant longer, mammoth-like hair, they can then push the group of cells they edited to develop into actual hair cells through genetic engineering without ever having to create an actual organism. They can then see what the creature’s hair will actually look and feel like, how long it will grow, and how thick it will be, among many other things. Then researchers can see whether the edits they made will really make the elephant more cold-resistant or not. After testing to confirm that the gene edits have the outcome the researchers wanted, the researchers can then combine all their successful edits into one genome sequence that they will use to create an animal.

As of 2020, Church continued to lead one of the teams working to identify the important genes within the woolly mammoth genome with the use of CRISPR-cas9. One of the most recent updates from Church’s lab in 2017 announced that they had successfully located forty-five genes that code for traits to make the hybrid more resistant to cold weather. Though there are several thousand genetic differences between the genome of the mammoth and Asian elephant, Church has hypothesized in some interviews that his team may only need to splice in fifty of the mammoth genes to create a mammophant capable of surviving in the Arctic.

Out of concern for animal welfare, Church and his team have stated they plan to avoid forcing Asian elephants to act as a surrogate for the mammophant by growing the mammophant embryo in an artificial womb outside of the body instead. Additionally, the team can test the physical effects of changing and combining the genomes without having to produce an actual animal. Asian elephants are an endangered species as of 2020, so scientists have used genome editing technologies for early investigations into proving the feasibility of the concept. Additionally, critics such as Matthew Cobb, a professor of zoology at the University of Manchester in Manchester, England, doubt that scientists can achieve the capability to produce a functional artificial womb within the next decade. Cobb explained that an artificial womb would deprive a fetus from many important pre-birth interactions with its gestational carrier that help the fetus to properly develop. However, Church and his lab have conducted early experiments attempting to grow mouse embryos ex vivo, or out of a uterus, rather than in vivo, meaning in a uterus, and have suggested the technology will become possible within the next decade.

Even if the technology may soon be feasible, many critics question whether we should be trying to de-extinct the mammoth at all. For example, David Ehrenfeld, a professor of biology at Rutgers University in Camden, New Jersey, has raised concerns that the mammophants may not be able to survive in the Arctic because they are genetically different from the extinct mammoths and will not be able to learn survival skills without a herd. He suggests those factors could also lead the mammophants to behave unpredictably in their environment and possibly even cause more destruction than help. To avoid that problem, Revive & Restore has stated plans to raise eventual mammophants with captive Asian elephant families in zoos who may teach them survival and herding behaviors so the mammophants can one day form herds of their own.

Additionally, many ethicists have expressed concern over de-extinction being an immoral endeavor. De-extinction, if successful, may eventually undermine the conservation movement by making extinction seem like less of a problem. If extinction suddenly seems reversible, the public may feel less responsible for behaviors and actions that contribute global warming and biodiversity loss. For example, Ben Minteer, a professor of environmental ethics at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, has noted that the premise of de-extinction may teach people that technology alone can reinforce the idea that human will remain unaccountable for changing their behaviors to prevent such damage from occurring in the first place. Other conservationists like Stuart Pimm, a professor of conservation ecology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, worry that the time, money, and effort dedicated to de-extinction efforts like the Woolly Mammoth Revival Project could divert important funds dedicated to protecting the many endangered species and ecosystems still around today. Additionally, journalists have suggested the notion of the topic entirely became manipulated with aggrandized and sensationalist headlines without regard to the restrictions and hindrances scientists will need to overcome before making it a reality.

As of 2021, the Woolly Mammoth Revival Project was still in the process of revising the elephant genome. Whether or not the project is ultimately successful, the scientific and public discussion on de-extinction has prompted questions that consider how far humans should be allowed to interfere with nature. Although humans may be responsible for behaviors that have led to global warming, the risks and uncertainty surrounding de-extinction may outweigh the benefits of correcting such mistakes.

SourcesAndersen, Ross. “Welcome to Pleistocene Park.” The Atlantic, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/pleistocene-park/517779/ (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Bennett, Joseph, Richard Maloney, Tammy Steeves, James Brazill-Boast, Hugh Possingham, and Philip Seddon. “Spending Limited Resources on De-Extinction Could Lead to Net Biodiversity Loss.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 1 (2017): 53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314162210_Spending_limited_resources_on_de-extinction_could_lead_to_net_biodiversity_loss (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Campagna, Claudio, Daniel Guevara, and Bernard Le Boeuf. “De-Scenting Extinction: The Promise of De-Extinction May Hasten Continuing Extinctions.” Hastings Center Report 47 (2017): 48–53. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hast.752 (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Clayton, Susan. “Preserving the Things We Value.” Center for Humans & Nature, 2015. https://www.humansandnature.org/conservation-extinction-susan-clayton (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Devlin, Hannah. “Woolly Mammoth on Verge of Resurrection, Scientists Reveal.” The Guardian, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/16/woolly-mammoth-resurrection-scientists (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Ehrenfeld, David. “Resurrected Mammoths and Dodos? Don’t Count On It.” The Guardian, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/de-extinction-efforts-are-waste-of-time-money (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Hawks, John. “How Mammoth Cloning Became Fake News: George Church, Artificial Wombs, Elephant Embryos, and a Gullible, Science Media.” Medium Science, 2017. https://medium.com/@johnhawks/how-mammoth-cloning-became-fake-news-1e3a80e54d42 (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Hysolli, Eriona. “An American-Russian Collaboration to Repopulate Siberia with Woolly Mammoths… Or Something Similar.” Medium, 2018. https://medium.com/@eriona.hysolli/an-american-russian-collaboration-to-repopulate-siberia-with-woolly-mammoths-or-something-similar-9cbac4e985cb (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Minteer, Ben, The Fall of the Wild: Extinction, De-Extinction, and the Ethics of Conservation. New York, New York: Columbia University Press, 2019.
Nijhuis, Michelle. “Don’t Think of a Mammophant.” Last Word on Nothing, 2017. https://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2017/03/07/dont-think-of-a-mammophant/ (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Novak, Ben Jacob. “De-Extinction.” Genes 9 (2018): 548. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6265789/ (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Pelley, Scott. “Siberia’s Pleistocene Park: Bringing back pieces of the Ice Age to combat climate change.” CBS News, 2019. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/siberia-pleistocene-park-bringing-back-pieces-of-the-ice-age-to-combat-climate-change-60-minutes/ (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Penn State University. "Woolly-mammoth Genome Sequenced." ScienceDaily, 2008. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119140712.htm (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Pimm, Stuart. “Opinion: The Case Against Species Revival.” National Geographic News, 2013. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/3/130312--deextinction-conservation-animals-science-extinction-biodiversity-habitat-environment/ (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Pleistocene Park. “The Park.” Pleistocene Park Foundation. https://pleistocenepark.org/park/ (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Riederer, Rachel. “The Wooly Mammoth Lumbers Back Into View.” The New Yorker, 2018. https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/the-wooly-mammoth-lumbers-back-into-view (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Shapiro, Beth. How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.
“The Great Passenger Pigeon Project.” Revive & Restore. https://reviverestore.org/about-the-passenger-pigeon/ (Accessed July 26, 2020).
“What We Do.” Revive & Restore. https://reviverestore.org/what-we-do/ (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Wood, Charlie. “We Can Clone a Mammoth: But Should We?” Christian Science Monitor, 2017. https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0216/We-can-clone-a-woolly-mammoth.-But-should-we (Accessed July 26, 2020).
“Woolly Mammoth Revival.” Revive & Restore. https://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/ (Accessed July 26, 2020).
Yeoman, Barry. “Why the Passenger Pigeon went Extinct.” The Audubon Society, 2014. https://www.audubon.org/magazine/may-june-2014/why-passenger-pigeon-went-extinct (Accessed July 26, 2020).
How to citeSchnebly, Risa Aria, "Revive & Restore’s Woolly Mammoth Revival Project". Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2021-01-19). ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/13209.

Show full item record
PublisherArizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia.
Rights

Copyright Arizona Board of Regents Licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
Last modified Monday, June 28, 2021 - 04:06
TopicTheories, Technologies, Organizations, Ethics
SubjectExtinction, Biological; Extinction, Species; Genetic Engineering; Genetically Engineered Organisms; Genetically Engineered Animals; Genetically Modified Animals; Cloning, Organism; Mammoths; Woolly Mammoth; Mammuthus primigenius; Mammuthus; Conservation; Animal diversity conservation; Animal conservation; Gene Editing; Bioethics; Life sciences--Moral and ethical aspects; Conceptniversity, 1711 South Rural Road, Tempe Arizona 85287, United States