Elephant Odyssey » San Diego Zoo

Elephant Odyssey
12-04-2008

After hearing about San Diego Zoos plans for this exhibit I was somewhat reminded of “Pleistocene rewilding” proposed by Donlan, C. Josh; Berger, Joel; Bock, Carl E., et al. (2006).

These authors argue that Pleistocene North America was inhabited by a diverse group of large mega fauna terrestrial vertebrates that were driven to extinction by humans, and that we should consider restoring ecosystem balance by establishing extant conspecifics and related taxa in these areas. Basically this would involve establishing wild populations of the animals featured in San Diego Zoos Elephant Odyssey in the southwestern United States.

The authors further advocate for thorough scientific investigations and
evaluations, as well as cost benefit calculations for each individual species in each area to determine the conservation value of establishing these populations.

By thirteen thousand years ago North America had lost most of its large mammals which is roughly coincident with the arrival of humans in North America and may have been caused by them. C. Josh Donlan, et al believes that these extinctions caused a precipitous top down effect on ecological and evolutionary changes and still exert detrimental effects on present biodiversity.

Ecological arguments used are very similar to those encountered on these forums (that are actually used on these forums as counters to some of my arguments). They argue that large megafauna have a disproportionate influence on ecosystem function and that their extinction has led to numerous other extinctions that will further decrease biodiversity.

Maclura, a large fruited plant, was widely distributed and more diverse in Pleistocene North America. Large Proboscideans and other large herbivores extinctions may have led to the decline of Maclura as they were likely agents of dispersion.

The extraordinary speed of pronghorns of up to 60 mph is likely an adaptation to evade North American “cheetahs”. The full phenotypic expression of this feature is often suppressed in modern environments, but could be restored by introducing cheetahs into North America.

One interesting link drawn in this study is that between wolf extirpation and Lyme disease. The loss of this predator in many areas of North America has led to increases in abundance of deer and other large ungulates especially in normally avoided wooded areas. Recently there have been several outbreaks amongst humans in North America of Lyme disease in areas where wolves have been extirpated.

Large mammals are becoming extinct across the world. North American populations could act as refugia in case populations in native countries became extirpated.

Pleistocene rewilding could also have numerous economic benefits including reinvigoration of park revenue and tourism.



However, I can mount numerous objections to this approach in conservation.

To begin with a lot of the North American Pleistocene mammals are quite different from their extant exotic relatives. Asian elephants may be more closely related to North American mammoths than African elephants, but they are still two different genera that diverged millions of years ago. North American cheetahs may be convergent to African forms and have arisen from a common ancestor shared with pumas. There are even differences between North American and modern lions, thought to be the same species. The former may not have had manes and had an estimated weight more than twice that of modern lions! This is to say nothing of the different ecological roles and functions exerted by the two types of lions.

No amount of research is ever going to reveal every difference between North American Pleistocene mammals and extant exotic species so it is exceedingly difficult to predict every possible ecological ramification and disruption so risks remain high despite scientific investigations.

Furthermore, North American populations have had thousands of years to adapt to the absence of large megafauna and reintroducing them could disrupt current balances.

Contrary to the authors supposed negative ecological ramifications of North America megafauna extinctions, diversity of small animals and plants has remained relatively constant from the Pleistocene to the present day, which is even stated near the end of their paper! Where is the ecological collapse they envisioned?

Disease transmission is a huge concern even for individuals being released back into areas historically or currently inhabited by that species. Imagine the difficulties that could arise in introducing animals from different continents potentially introducing diseases that have never been in North America!

Introductions of any kind can be excessively expensive. These costs would probably be even higher if exotic species were to be introduced into North America because of their lower success rate from evolving to quite different ecological and environmental conditions. Elephants and lions would require modifications to park structures like overpasses, fencing, etc. that would incur further costs. Loss of park revenue in the United States cannot be explained solely by loss of large interesting species and probably has numerous causes that could be solved by means other than introducing exotic megafauna.

I think one of the biggest problems with Pleistocene rewilding is the messages it can send the public. Instead of seeing extinctions as a process that irrevocably damages ecosystems and removes biodiversity this conservation approach may suggest that extinctions can be reversed and that could make the public feel less pressured to act immediately on the global extinction crisis.





C. Josh Donlan, Joel Berger, Carl E. Bock, Jane H. Bock, David A. Burney, James A. Estes, Dave Foreman, Paul S. Martin, Gary W. Roemer, Felisa A. Smith, Michael E. Soule´, and Harry W. Greene. 2006. Pleistocene rewilding: An optimistic agenda for twenty-first century conservation. American Naturalist Volume 168 (5): 660-681

12-04-2008

That last post was a little off topic, hopefully I have better aim with this post...

Conservation and education messages for ‘Elephant Odyssey’ would have been much stronger if it was designed to have both modern and Pleistocene age reconstructions of California instead of Pleistocene animatronic models and living animals related to those Pleistocene mammals. Modern California has an astounding diversity that could be depicted with any combination of the following: grizzly bears, black bears, ringtails, river otters, sea otters, fishers, skunks, mountain lions, jaguars, channel island fox, wolves, sea lions, seals, pronghorn, bison, rocky mountain sheep, ground squirrels, flying squirrels, chipmunks, beavers, kangaroo rats, porcupines, jackrabbits, bats, small rodents, birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, etc. Contrasts between modern and Pleistocene Californian animals in such an exhibit would be readily apparent and illustrate how diversity in this region has changed over time as a result of extinctions, immigration, and evolution.

Seeing native Californian animals might also encourage Californians and visitors to the state to explore California’s wild places and develop an appreciation for its current wildlife. Alternatively, the San Diego Zoos ‘Elephant Odyssey’ plans might encourage people to view the current Californian landscape as desolate, boring and less valuable compared to the fauna that once inhabited the area. It could even encourage people to support Pleistocene “rewilding”.

There is no scientific consensus on the extent to which humans were responsible for the extinctions of Pleistocene North American mega fauna. Just how analogous this situation is to modern mega fauna extinctions is certainly debatable. Therefore the most effective way to get people informed and caring about modern extinction threats is to give threatened animals their proper modern context, which often means displaying them biogeographically.

If different ways of presenting Zoo animals was an important consideration than the San Diego Zoo could develop displays like “Convergent evolution in North American and Australian animals” or “Threatened animals of the world’s grasslands/savannas”. Both of these ideas are much easier to develop good education and conservation messages for than one like ‘Elephant Odyssey’ with models of ancient animals from one region displayed along with modern animals that are somewhat related from around the world.

I am worried that most visitors to San Diego Zoos Elephant Odyssey will walk away thinking that California used to be inhabited by Asian elephants, secretary birds, and capybaras. This presents a distorted view of evolution and biogeography.

Ultimately, the San Diego Zoos plans for “Elephant Odyssey” seem to be nothing more than an excuse to develop displays for lots of their charismatic megafuana in one swoop with little educational or conservational justification. I hope that no other Zoos follow suit.

13-04-2008

I have always thought with all the money that the SD Zoo has, why they can't design more naturalistic enclosures?! I agree completely bout the ugly fence between hippos and okapi, the ugly fence posts in Ituri Forest and the way too obvious electric wire bundles the zoo and the wild animal park seems so fond of using. They promoted these exhibits as major attractions, yet they do not appear natural at all. Absolutely Apes is pretty much a gimmick, but it is fun to see the siamangs playing with the orangs!

13-04-2008

It's a zoo, get over it. It is whats in the exhibit not what's enclosing it that counts.

And yes, San Diego did need a new exhibit for Asian Elephants at the zoo, so why not come up with something different. I hope visitors come away thinking that California used to be home to elephants, capybara, and secretary birds...because it was home to these animals. Maybe the zoo should display skeletal replicas of the prehistoric kind instead of full statue replicas (i dont know where you got the idea they were animatronic - this isnt disney). This is a huge educational lesson that no other zoo has taken on. (Virginia Aquarium will also open a "natural history" exhibit in the next few years).

As for modern native california species, there is already such an exhibit at the park. Im sure San Diego would rather both facilites have seperate exhibits, than have duplicate exhibits at each place. As for zoogeography, this is a zoogeographic exhibit just with a paleo- prefix. Because of immersion concepts, zoo plans now lack a diverstiy of exhibit concepts that was evident 20 years ago. Today's plans are all almost zoogeographic in design. There are very little taxonomic, habitat, behavioral, or focal exhibitions left in today's zoos. Cheers to San Diego for trying something different...

13-04-2008

I couldn't agree less okapikr. If you had said this a century ago, it would be acceptable. Zoos have come so far from the iron-barred menageries of old, with huge advancements in exhibitry techniques. Zoos today are spending more and more money to create natural looking enclosures, with the intent of putting the animals on display in the right context. Showing obvious barriers is a huge step backwards.

Take Ituri Forest for example. So much effort and money was spent on theming, yet zoo officials couldn't think of a better barrier for the forest buffalo? Even a bit of planting would have helped conceal the metal poles. Alternatively, they could have been fashioned to look like tree stumps. To me, it just seems like the designers took the easy way out as alternatives were not impossible to find.

If what's enclosing the animals doesn't count, why do zoos bother with artificial rockwork at all? Just save the money and put up concrete walls and mesh fencing. And why stop there? Take out all those artificial trees and just put in simple, economical, plastic playground equipment. Afterall, its only the animals that matter right?

Just my 2 cents...

14-04-2008

For the most part, barrier design is for the safety of the animal and the visitor. I would be just as happy with walls vs. artifical rockwork. With the San Diego Ituri exhibits for example:

The forest buffalo have a very steep cliff into the otter stream. While they could have disguised the concrete poles, it still keeps the buffalo from falling a breaking their neck. Sometimes safety needs to come before aesthetics when dealing with animal safety and budget cuts.

The wire and pole barrier between okapi and the hippos is perfectly acceptable. Okapi are very skittish animals that need visual barriers in the event they should spook (which happens often). The wire and pole do allow visitors to see beyond the okapi exhibit and still allow the okapi a visual barrier. Unless it was painted bright orange or yellow, most visitors look beyond these things and focus on the animals.

And afterall it is really the animals that matter with exhibit design. Artifical trees and plastic playground equipment are poor substitutes for actual trees, rocks, and even more economical ropes and wooden platforms.

14-04-2008

Taccachantrieri - your right that first post had nothing to do with elephant odyssey at all!

however, some months back i read about pleistocene "rewilding" and started a thread based specifically on it. feel free to kick start that thread again as its an interesting topic (i think its a good idea of a theme park but not much else)

14-04-2008

Don't get me wrong, i'm in no way implying that animal/visitor safety should be secondary to aesthetics. Take Ituri again, a lot of money obviously went into making it look realistic, so cost is definitely not an issue. Replacing the metal poles with alternative natural looking barriers is not difficult either. The only reason I can think of and accept is that the poles were an afterthought, put in when staff realised the buffaloes could fall and get injured.

The expertise, technology and money are available to San Diego, and safety aspects have been covered, so why dump loads of money to make an exhibit realistic yet leave obvious barriers exposed to mar the look? IMHO, its a waste of money. Either go all the way, or just save on the theming and spend the money elsewhere.

Sorry if this is off-topic. If need be, will continue this discussion in the San Diego thread.

15-04-2008

Perhaps I am much too picky but Pleistocene California and southern North America had mammoths, Neocherchoerus, and a hawk (Apatosagittarius terrenus) convergent on a secretary bird morphology. Mammoths are not even in the same genus as Asian elephants and Neocherchoerus are not in the same genus as capybara.

If these things really didn't matter I suppose Zoos could have African rainforests with displays of savanna inhabiting Procavia capensis (rock hyrax) because they are related to Dendrohyrax dorsalis (western tree hyrax), which inhabit rainforests, but are not in captivity. This would certainly expand the diversity of forms you could have in an exhibit.

Truthfully I love the idea of having zoological displays that incorporate displays of prehistoric life, but I feel the San Diego Zoo could accomplish this better by having Pleistocene models and contrasting that with life in modern California.

As for Holocene biogeographic zoological exhibits becoming boring I feel that Zoos still have many more combinations of animals at their disposal that are not currently being utilized. For example mountain lions (Puma concolor) have a range that stretches into Argentina and Chile, but as far as I know none are exhibited in South American themed zoological exhibits. Lions at Zoos seem to always be in savanna exhibits but could also be used in semi-deserts and forests.

San Diego Zoo has attendance figures more than twice that of SDWAP and both facilities likely attract different kinds of visitors. I don't think it matters that much if they both have somewhat similar exhibits. Furthermore, the San Diego Zoo could still have a radically different California exhibit than the SDWAP. San Diego Zoo could have brown bears, sea lions, beavers, otters etc. San Diego could exhibit these animals in wetland, forest, and shoreline habitats which would be a considerably different environment than Condor Ridge at the SDWAP.


Okapikeeper, I am a bit surprised that you would come up with that comment about people coming to Zoos just to see animals because on the thread "Elephants or 20 species of smaller animals" you said, "Plus from a visitor's standpoint, biodome offers a unique, kinda futuristic style of animal exhibition that one cant truely find in the americas. An exhibition style that can often be found in Europe. Animals aren't the only reason people want to visit zoos".

15-04-2008

Zoos really dont seem to be that picky when it comes to zoogeography and exhibit animals. There are African forest exhibits with rock hyrax and lemurs (Atlanta), Australian exhibits with Komodo Dragons (Los Angeles), and Arctic exhibits with penguins(Shedd, Seneca Park).

I'm glad you like the idea of paleo-exhibits Taccachantrieri. Your first few posts made it seem like San Diego was commiting some kind of sin for the idea.

A lot of US zoo exhibits' animal collections are now based off of reccommendations from the AZA. AZA makes these reccommendations through the various TAG (Taxon Advisory Groups) to decided what species would make the best captive representative of certain taxa. Their decisions are based on conservation status, captive population, zoos' interest in the species, public interest, and research potential. There are few modern California species represented in the new exhibit. But if you look at Elephant Odyssey's animal collection you will find a lot of SSP species...I think is how San Diego determined such a collection for this exhibit. For example the bear species...there is a huge need for more holders of Asian bear species (Sun and Sloth), but American Brown Bears are better represented in zoos (and the wild than the Asian bears) and there is no breeding program for grizzlies.

Also in past future and strategic plans, the Zoological Society of San Diego has mentioned that they would like to keep the zoo and park exhibits on a much different level. So the zoo could and should very well have very different California exhibits than the park. However, from our view, the zoo and park's future are very unknown until they announce their new masterplans to the public...we'll just have to wait for that.

15-04-2008

its true they often stuff things up a bit, often because they draw lines politically rather than geographically - just like you did!!

technically, komodo dragons are an australasian species, not an asian one. this is because the nation of indonesia sprawls quite neatly over an evolutionary divide. the eastern islands are typically inhabited by asian fauna - tigers, monkeys and ungulates. whilst the western islands are distinctly australian in origin. they are inhabited by kangaroos, possums, cockatoos, lories and a giant monitor lizard who, according to fossils, once inhabited mainland australia.

the typical asian fauna like rusa deer and long-tail macaques that now inhabit the islands from komodo to flores where actually introduced by people. deer are thus not the species natural prey.

so technically, its the asian rainforest thats the wrong place to display komodo dragons - not an australian woodland. ya know, just cos were being picky

15-04-2008

I dont believe that I commented that people only come to zoos just to see animals. I did comment that zoo design needs to be for the animals, everything else should be secondary. Too many "zoo designers" no longer design zoological exhibits, but attractions that often take away from actually seeing the animals (ie DAK's Kilamanjaro Safari and Lowry Park's new flume ride). I've seen exhibits that spend more emphasis on culture and architecture than the animals and their behaviors and adaptations.

The biodome in montreal is very different from traditional zoo design in America, which is why the design itself could attract people over the animals...its pretty cool that the laurentian forest biome changes with the season, people in the south would be attracted by that alone (in a southern zoo) because leaves dont necessarily change colors down here.

This kind of appeal is maybe why zoos and zoo designers are put less emphasis on the animals and more in the immersion when it comes to big ticket exhibits.

16-04-2008

I rather agree with you. (Well, except about the Biodome, which I don't much love)
Zoos have been hard pressed in recent years as government support has become unreliable and old-school philanthropists have died off. The generation of great zoo men, raised in the ranks as keepers who moved up to head zoos, is gone for the most part. Their experience was that society should support great zoos. They became dinosaurs themselves. Zoo Boards have replaced them with people better at marketing, fund raising, etc., but lacking that visceral connection to animals.

Zoos learned perhaps ten years ago that they had to make their own money. And then, of course, there are far more alternative entertainments for the family than there were a generation ago. That is, if you can get the family together at all. And this is where it has taken us (at least for the moment).

So zoos have become amusement parks with animals....at least the zoos that can afford to have. It is really only a very few zoo design firms who push this vision, but they are hired often. The majority still focus on the animals, but the client - the Zoo - wants "flash."

Would the public really come back again and again to see the elephants as elephants? No rides. No gimmicks. No Thai village? Just amazing animal views? The number of us who believe that they might is shrinking rapidly. I can't say that we know the answer.

16-04-2008

Well written Zooplantman. It is interesting to see how the San Diego Wild Animal Park has added a small and yet brightly coloured waterpark and hot air balloon, while this summer the Oregon Zoo has an army of robotic, flesh-like dinosaurs as an added cost for the kids. Simulator rides are also a common theme at many zoos, as anything that brings in the almighty dollar will be considered a valuable addition to a collection.

The Columbus Zoo in Ohio is opening a massive waterpark this summer, and I wonder if its attendance will surpass the zoological gardens?

16-04-2008

They did it for centuries. Until 1970s crowds stood all afternoons feeding their favorite baboon troop, and watched elephants with names who were stars of a zoo.

Then came the fear of lawsuit if visitor gets bitten. Fear that visitors might harm an animal. There came self-contradictory belief that animals in zoos should be exposed to people as little as possible and should never get humanized. Even if animals actually thrive best if, in addition to having species-suitable enclosure, they feel comfortable in presence of people.

So zoos themselves stopped contact between visitors and animals. Bronx zoo lets visitors view elephants for 30 seconds from far away. No wonder that visitors got disinterested and amusement park must move in.

Maybe there is time to remember what zoo is really about. European zoos fare better. Perhaps because European public is better behaved and zoos dare to do close contact enclosures.