10 replies to this topic

[The_Gaming-gate]

The main argument I’ve seen of people saying you should release your ants is because of bad genetics and pathogens so…

If I were to intentionally raise the worst Solenopsis invicta queens, and then slowly build up pathogens in their environment that wild S. invicta are not adapted to deal with- and then I release their alates- is that bad? Because all I’m doing is messing up the genes of that invasive species (making them worse) and wasting a potentially good drone on a horrible queen.

And if that is wrong- then why shouldn’t I release natives? Because if the reason is that those queens can “still raise a successful colony capable of killing other ants” then my natives will also be capable of the same thing, right?

Edited by The_Gaming-gate, May 28 2024 - 5:30 AM.

[bmb1bee]

Having “bad genes” stems from their genetics from since they were born. The environment they’re raised in has no effect on that, it just so happens that queens that don’t have “the right genes” will be far less likely to survive. That being said, if they’re kept in captivity and have their next generation of alates released, they can add the “bad genes” that normally prevent survival in the wild to the wild colonies.

If you slowly build up pathogens for the queens you release, the experimented queens would either die or become immune to them, as the case with pesticides. Sure, maybe some of the wild population will waste away, but then you’d have a strain of RIFA that has adapted to the pathogen. These could then spread the aforementioned pathogen to other ants in the area, whether they’re native or not. These haven’t built up an immunity, so the effects on them could be devastating.

[ReignofRage]

It should be considered that pathogens and viruses that are carried by one species are not always isolated to a single species. For example, Kneallhazia solenopsae J.D.Knell, G.E.Allen & E.I.Hazard, 1977, known as the Solenopsis invicta Virus 1 (SINV-1), is primarily carried by S. invicta, but has been found in multiple native species, S. ritcheri, and two Solenopsis hybrids (Ascunce et. al., 2010; OI, D.H. & Valles, S.M., 2012; Valles, S.M., 2012). There is a longer known history of this ssRNA virus being known in native species for longer then the cited publications.

 

While there may not be significant damage from this one virus, there is a lack of studies to ever be able to say if it played a role in nearly extirpitating species such as S. xyloni from the South*. This could be tested by testing preserved species of Solenopsis spp. collected through time to see when the virus spread through the native species and compare to the expansion of S. invicta in the USA. To spread a pathogen the smart way, it would require rather costly studies on if the pathogen could be passed on or carried by natives species. If one or more species were found to be potential carriers, it would then need to be followed by studies on the effects of the pathogen on native species. Without such studies, you will singlehandedly be potentially threatening the well being of native species. With that said, there are biopesticides that only affect a species and closely related species. However, these biopesticides generally take decades to develop. The US actually has a devoted USDA researcher, Dr. Robert K. Vander Meer, who has spent decades in search of formulating a solution to the S. invicta issue. If there's any one to contact about the issue and management of the species, it's him.

 

*Off-topic side note about the S. xyloni from the South. It was found to be a different species to Western S. xyloni. The former Western form, S. maniosa, thus has its validity re-questioned. This means that the aforementioned virus could have played a role in extirpating "true" S. xyloni from >75% of its historic range.

Edited by ReignofRage, May 28 2024 - 12:45 PM.

[The_Gaming-gate]

That is a fair point to consider- the pathogen also attacking native species. I was too busy thinking of this scenario as occurring with some pathogen only infecting the invasives- that i forgot to check if many of those even existed.

[Ernteameise]

I did my PhD on invasive pathogens killing native birds in New Zealand.

New Zealand lost 50% of all their native animals (birds, because mammals only came with humans).

My main study disease was avian malaria, and most birds you see in NZ today are introduced from Europe.

Invasive species do not only introduce new diseases, they also have something called "enemy release" where they lose their own diseases on the way (which gives them a huge advantage, because that does not keep them in check anymore).

Hawaii is also a good example- most native birds in Hawaii are either extinct or will be extinct in the nest decades because avian malaria was introduced there together with the American house mosquito. There were no mosquitoes on Hawaii before humans came (transported via fresh water on ships). The now still surviving native birds cling to the tops of the mountains, where there are no mosquitoes, but with climate change, these refugia will disappear.

There is nothing that can be really done (as we discussed in other threads, chemical spraying does more harm than good, as it does with invasive ants).

You might also want to look into the introduced grey squirrels into the UK.

They brought with them squirrel pox, and the native red European squirrel is on the way out.

 

In short- NOT a good idea to release non-native species, and even species from a different region / sub-species.

[The_Gaming-gate]

Alright, but what if we just forget about those pathogens. We have sent out the worst invasive alates from the species. These alates are not capable of founding a colony without a large amount of human help. We send them out, and ruin the genetics of the species in that area. Isn’t that good?

[UtahAnts]

I think you may be overestimating the deviation in the genetics of alates between generations. Most if not all of the alates that fly are perfectly fit to survive and raise a mature colony. It is not their genetics, but rather bad timing, competition, and chance location that keeps the success rates of new colonies so low. By releasing any invasives (even if you somehow screened and selected the worst/least-fit alates beforehand) you pose a threat to native fauna through the direct interaction of the invasive colony and any pathogens that colony has attained/become immunized too. Why anyone would ever release invasives on purpose is beyond me, as the potential of "messing up the gene pool" is nonexistent.

 

That said, an altered genotype could potentially help. @ReignofRages's post links to an expert who is more qualified to answer this. Messing up the genetics of the species with a "non-fit" variant is an interesting idea. How to implement such a process is beyond me. 

 

What I will say is that as a hobbyist, we need to do our best to preserve the insects and world around us. Releasing invasives is not something that fulfills either of those goals. You have some interesting ideas here, and I understand this is all hypothetical, but I hope you will reconsider releasing invasive and native ants alike, as a viable option to tackle the invasives issue.

[Voidley]

I think the main issue you're overlooking here is that you are not affecting the entire gene pool. If you release a less fit variant of the species, then natural selection will happen and just weed out the weak ones you introduced. Put simply, the queens you release will just die while the established invasives will continue reproducing completely unaffected.

 

It sounds like you’re also thinking of sabotaging the gene pool with unfit reproductives during the nuptial flights. There is no way that you get the unfit drones to mate with 100% of the fit population. Some fit queens would mate with fit drones and then go on to have a normal colony. Even if, hypothetically, you did get 100% of them to mate with unfit drones, the sheer number of queens would ensure that some of them will still survive. Not to mention that the invasives from the surrounding area will just come back — if they invaded once, they can easily do it again. 

 

Just to be clear though, this is hypothetical because it will literally never happen. There is just such an absurd number of ants that humanity has no way of contaminating the gene pool. Even our best efforts would be no more than a drop in an ocean. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that even if we wanted to, we just don’t have any technology that is capable of fixing this mess that we’ve made.

[The_Gaming-gate]

If contaminating the gene pool is that hard then why is this such n issue for releasing natives?

[ANTdrew]

If contaminating the gene pool is that hard then why is this such n issue for releasing natives?

It is not an issue. Thank you for debunking this with your hypothetical thought experiment.

[ISpeakForTheTrees]

If contaminating the gene pool is that hard then why is this such n issue for releasing natives?

Yeah, to my knowledge it's not about contaminating the gene pool but introducing disease that's the issue (as has been discussed with exotic/invasive species) - simply put, if a native species has been kept in a human's house and that human has been exposed to a pathogen that could kill the ants, then releasing the ants could expose the wild colonies to that pathogen.

Obviously the odds of anyone having been exposed to a specific pathogen that would harm native ant colonies are incredibly low, and they could expose the wild colonies to it just by being in out in nature with them - but the odds of an infected individual spreading it to a wild colony when simply walking by are very low; the odds of them spreading it to a captive colony in their care are much higher.

So, in essence, not releasing native alates helps maintain the native population's biosecurity - is it overkill? Probably, but you never know when someone could beat those 1 in a million odds and introduce something that wipes out a slew of native species.

And this applies to more than just ants - for example, I know some places in/near their native range allow for people to keep Desert Tortoises as pets, but it's conditional upon strict requirements including that the pet tortoises must be contained at all times and can't be exposed to the wild population to prevent the introduction of any non-native pathogens.

Again, the risks are incredibly small, but not zero.