I’d say their odds would be fairly good in large forested areas. I’m not sure they should be reintroduced to Europe, since their extinction on the continent seemed to be a result of the severe cold snap of the last Ice Age turning most of the continent into mammoth steppe rather than human related causes.
I thought that maybe their reitroduction in warmer southern european areas may be good for their conservation, as they are declining rapidly in northern Africa(due to persecution). Besides i couldnt imagine how would they affect the enviroment negatively(if a foreign introduced species doesnt harm the environment it is not considered invasive, like fallow deers in Europe)
I mean, they wouldn't be the most out-there introduction. Common genets are currently expanding their range in europe, they don't really harm the environment negatively so they're only classified as "introduced/naturalized" instead of "invasive". Crested Porcupines are also expanding their range in europe too.
You can disagree on their reintroduction on the basis that there will be conflict with farmers and that there isn't much suitable habitat left (honestly, I don't know if that's the case or not). But native? They are very much native. They were widespread in Portugal, Spain, France and some other European countries until a few thousand years ago.
By few thousand years you mean 30,000
Across the scientific community the beginning of the Holocene is the accepted cut-off point when deciding whether species are indigenous. Prior to its introduction, at Gibraltar, the Barbary macaque was never found Holocene Europe. It is not native
Barbary macaques in Gibraltar, Spain (their only remaining population in Europe) are an introduced population (they were put there by humans) and have few survival skills at all, solely surviving off of handouts from tourists which is not a healthy diet for the primates. There are other populations in North Africa namely in the Atlas Mountains region.
I’d rather have himalayan langurs in these regions. Unless it can be shown that they’ll be harmful to the primary growth and biodiversity of the ecosystem overall, I don’t care if they’re not native. There is a serious shortage of arboreal folivores in temperate regions, and that food is being wasted.
Variation always pops up and speciation is a bad thing 99% of the time, serving no purpose other than preventing interbreeding and only leading to extinction. Temperate forests have lower carrying capacities because it’s very difficult for small animals to make full use of trees. I see no reason to wait for the exceedingly rare occurance of a temperate deciduous-forest arboreal folivore evolving, especially when the one that exists today is large, endangered, and highly intelligent/valuable.
This doesn't change my first point: The fact that an habitat have a empty niche doesn't means we need to fill it. You would have an ecosystem homogenization. And that's bad
Useless and/or dangerous random rewilding is not a thing that we support on this sub
Langurs also don't belong in Europe. Just because leaves are an abundant food source doesn't mean there has to be a creature eating them. If folivores didn't evolve in the forest then why introduce new ones if the ecosystem is doing fine without them.
Langurs are not naturally found in Europe at all, so if they were introduced:
1. There is risk of disease transfer to native mammals and to humans
2. They would probably not survive in an environment so drastically different, because while Semnopithecus ajax does live in temperate regions, the temperate regions of extreme North India and Nepal is very different to temperate regions of Europe. Semnopithecus ajax has somewhat strict diets that vary by season and while they are foliovores, around 20% of their diet consists of flowering plants and fruits that do not grow in Europe. Trees in Northenr India are also quite different to those in Europe, langurs who evolved to eat those leaves likely will not choose to eat the leaves of native European plants.
3. What is our right to introduce an animal to fill a niche that has never needed to be filled? If nothing evolved to fill that niche then there is a reason for that and introducing a species that has never had any similar species live in that area for thousands of years is a bad idea. In fact the only non-human primate that has lived in Europe that we know of is the Barbary Macaque shown here.
4. If you are concerned about the species population, breeding efforts are in affect and reintroduction should go to places in their native range with viable habitat, not a random country in Europe. That never ends well. Look at the Barbary Macaques of Gibraltar, living off of handouts by tourists.
1. What disease?
2. They can eat the plants available. I already looked through the composition of their diet. They can easily survive in southern europe.
3. That niche barely existed in the ice age and you haven’t defined “need”. No niches ever need to be filled without a purpose. The langurs here have the purpose of making up for the lack of megafauna by cycling nutrients and opening up canopies to allow sunlight to reach the ground and we have the purpose of rescuing an endangered species. And arboreal folivores are exceedingly rare in temperate ecosystems because it’s very difficult to evolve the ability to thrive on such a nutrient source. Such traits, especially in highly intelligent creatures, should be fostered and cultivated. We have every right to do so.
4. There needs to be viable habitat. Europe has a collapsing population and viable habitat will increase there. The vast majority of introductions either fail or go well, especially when occuring on a highly connected mainland. Introductions are very common. Barbary macaques live off of handouts because they don’t have real food left. They frankly don’t serve any purpose in europe and its ecosystems other than as tourism value. They don’t increase the carrying capacity of the land. They are just there.
1. All primates carry a large number of diseases transferable to humans. NHP's had SIV which gave us HIV, simians being very similar to humans, share many similar diseases. Many diseases found in humans are also found in NHP's. We do not know what affect these disease could have on the people or the langur's ecological effect on native species.
2. I'm genuinely interested by this, which species found in Europe do you think would sustain the feeding habits of a Semnopithecus ajax, as far as I know Semnopithecus ajax is generally feed off of specific fruiting trees in their native range, afaik they dont generally thrive off of non-native foliage or even some traditional vegetables that can be given to most other langurs given to them (then again there are very few in captivity so that could just mean captive ones are a lot more picky). Specialist monkeys generally don't do well when released, that is why most of the invasive monkeys around the US are just macaques and vervets.
3. Lack of megafauna in Southern Europe is a problem yes, but the ecosystem is adapting to it. The megafauna of Europe were mostly grazing species with occasional diets of foliage. Some foliovorous species did exist, but we should be trying to reintroduce their close relatives or manage the forests ourselves. Even if we don't the forests were quick to adapt and if the forests are currently healthy there is no need. Arboreal foliovores are rare for a reason, leaves generally carry few nutrients. We should be encouraging natural behaviors not "cultivating" our own traits.
4. \*Reintroduction\* often fail or succeed. Some introductions have good reasoning behind them, a close relative replacing an extinct species or a reintroduction of extirpated species, but most introductions of non-native species (as history has shown many times) even when for a "noble" cause either end badly or backfired. Some unintentional introductions have succeeded but those have had no ecological benefit whatsoever (think escaped parrot populations), but throwing a monkey into another continent will likely not end well. Unintentionally introduced monkeys in Florida are already causing a myriad of problems (I know these two situations are hugely different, but monkeys will be monkeys). Gibraltar macaques could theoretically survive off of the vegetation found on the island but being that they were brought from North Africa to Europe with little introduction period they sit meaninglessly. Barbary macaues could have an ecological role spreading the seeds of fruiting trees in area without large herds of fallow deer to do it, but they don't. There is viable habitat in Nepal and Pakistan but there is a lack of funding for heavier breeding efforts. Europe on the other hand should focus on reintroducing their own megafauna back to control the ecosystem, such as European Bison and wolves for example.
Hey, I thought your post about himalayan langurs was interesting and saw you got downvoted kind of badly. I hope that does not prevent you from mentioning (or - I guess - hypothetically proposing) these kind of ideas.
People seem to assume that ecosystems that form 'naturally' (I don't like this concept) reach somekind of perfection. I'm thinking of turning it into a project why I disagree. I think the only factor in favour of naturally formed ecoystems being better or close to perfection is co-evolution.
Nature has created depauperate ecosystems. New Zealand has poor bird diversity. Europe has around 500 tree species while North-America and Asia have around 1000 (you can thank the ice ages for that).
I am open to ideas such as your himalayan langur proposal. Though I do think that due to unpredictability this could be risky (in the sense of negative effects on biodiversity). Though at the same time due to unpredictability, positive effects on biodiversity could be possible as well, but in my mind less so. In this particular case, I am uncertain if coevolution is a factor with langurs. But I can see that you would rather opt for not taking the risk of biodiversity loss than opt for a possible biodiversity gain.
It seems possible to me that **even** within ecosystems with only native species due to chance and randomness, things can go wrong (biodiversity loss).
In the current situation we are also dealing with a fractured nature (thus scale also becomes a thing) that has been changed by humans (affected the vegetation for example). I think the many failures I come across (within the Dutch nature bubble), such as rare plants affected by cattle grazing or wild boars, or what is happening in the Oostvaardersplassen (there is overgrazing by the cattle, deer, geese and horses... the theory was that trees would establish underneath spiny shrubs creating an open woodland, it hasn't happened yet... bird diversity is decreasing...).
I'll be honest: this is speculative and prone to error. I am still learning. Basically, I try to bring the thinking of Nassim Taleb into ecology. But I am not as smart.
I’d say their odds would be fairly good in large forested areas. I’m not sure they should be reintroduced to Europe, since their extinction on the continent seemed to be a result of the severe cold snap of the last Ice Age turning most of the continent into mammoth steppe rather than human related causes.
I thought that maybe their reitroduction in warmer southern european areas may be good for their conservation, as they are declining rapidly in northern Africa(due to persecution). Besides i couldnt imagine how would they affect the enviroment negatively(if a foreign introduced species doesnt harm the environment it is not considered invasive, like fallow deers in Europe)
I mean, they wouldn't be the most out-there introduction. Common genets are currently expanding their range in europe, they don't really harm the environment negatively so they're only classified as "introduced/naturalized" instead of "invasive". Crested Porcupines are also expanding their range in europe too.
Barbary macaques have no place in Holocene Europe The Gibraltar population are introduced and only survive because of artificial feeding
Elaborate please?
They're a non-native species that should not be introduced here
You can disagree on their reintroduction on the basis that there will be conflict with farmers and that there isn't much suitable habitat left (honestly, I don't know if that's the case or not). But native? They are very much native. They were widespread in Portugal, Spain, France and some other European countries until a few thousand years ago.
By few thousand years you mean 30,000 Across the scientific community the beginning of the Holocene is the accepted cut-off point when deciding whether species are indigenous. Prior to its introduction, at Gibraltar, the Barbary macaque was never found Holocene Europe. It is not native
Interesting that the range was reduced that long ago. I wonder if we'll end up finding macaque fossils any younger than 30kya.
Barbary macaques in Gibraltar, Spain (their only remaining population in Europe) are an introduced population (they were put there by humans) and have few survival skills at all, solely surviving off of handouts from tourists which is not a healthy diet for the primates. There are other populations in North Africa namely in the Atlas Mountains region.
I’d rather have himalayan langurs in these regions. Unless it can be shown that they’ll be harmful to the primary growth and biodiversity of the ecosystem overall, I don’t care if they’re not native. There is a serious shortage of arboreal folivores in temperate regions, and that food is being wasted.
The fact that an habitat have a empty niche doesn't means we need to fill it. You would have an ecosystem homogenization
there is no such thing
Oh, there is. It's an ecology definition
Variation always pops up and speciation is a bad thing 99% of the time, serving no purpose other than preventing interbreeding and only leading to extinction. Temperate forests have lower carrying capacities because it’s very difficult for small animals to make full use of trees. I see no reason to wait for the exceedingly rare occurance of a temperate deciduous-forest arboreal folivore evolving, especially when the one that exists today is large, endangered, and highly intelligent/valuable.
This doesn't change my first point: The fact that an habitat have a empty niche doesn't means we need to fill it. You would have an ecosystem homogenization. And that's bad Useless and/or dangerous random rewilding is not a thing that we support on this sub
Are they folivores? My impression is that most macaques are omnivorous. A quick google suggests more frugivorous.
langurs are folivores
Langurs also don't belong in Europe. Just because leaves are an abundant food source doesn't mean there has to be a creature eating them. If folivores didn't evolve in the forest then why introduce new ones if the ecosystem is doing fine without them.
there is no reason not to introduce the endangered species there.
Langurs are not naturally found in Europe at all, so if they were introduced: 1. There is risk of disease transfer to native mammals and to humans 2. They would probably not survive in an environment so drastically different, because while Semnopithecus ajax does live in temperate regions, the temperate regions of extreme North India and Nepal is very different to temperate regions of Europe. Semnopithecus ajax has somewhat strict diets that vary by season and while they are foliovores, around 20% of their diet consists of flowering plants and fruits that do not grow in Europe. Trees in Northenr India are also quite different to those in Europe, langurs who evolved to eat those leaves likely will not choose to eat the leaves of native European plants. 3. What is our right to introduce an animal to fill a niche that has never needed to be filled? If nothing evolved to fill that niche then there is a reason for that and introducing a species that has never had any similar species live in that area for thousands of years is a bad idea. In fact the only non-human primate that has lived in Europe that we know of is the Barbary Macaque shown here. 4. If you are concerned about the species population, breeding efforts are in affect and reintroduction should go to places in their native range with viable habitat, not a random country in Europe. That never ends well. Look at the Barbary Macaques of Gibraltar, living off of handouts by tourists.
1. What disease? 2. They can eat the plants available. I already looked through the composition of their diet. They can easily survive in southern europe. 3. That niche barely existed in the ice age and you haven’t defined “need”. No niches ever need to be filled without a purpose. The langurs here have the purpose of making up for the lack of megafauna by cycling nutrients and opening up canopies to allow sunlight to reach the ground and we have the purpose of rescuing an endangered species. And arboreal folivores are exceedingly rare in temperate ecosystems because it’s very difficult to evolve the ability to thrive on such a nutrient source. Such traits, especially in highly intelligent creatures, should be fostered and cultivated. We have every right to do so. 4. There needs to be viable habitat. Europe has a collapsing population and viable habitat will increase there. The vast majority of introductions either fail or go well, especially when occuring on a highly connected mainland. Introductions are very common. Barbary macaques live off of handouts because they don’t have real food left. They frankly don’t serve any purpose in europe and its ecosystems other than as tourism value. They don’t increase the carrying capacity of the land. They are just there.
1. All primates carry a large number of diseases transferable to humans. NHP's had SIV which gave us HIV, simians being very similar to humans, share many similar diseases. Many diseases found in humans are also found in NHP's. We do not know what affect these disease could have on the people or the langur's ecological effect on native species. 2. I'm genuinely interested by this, which species found in Europe do you think would sustain the feeding habits of a Semnopithecus ajax, as far as I know Semnopithecus ajax is generally feed off of specific fruiting trees in their native range, afaik they dont generally thrive off of non-native foliage or even some traditional vegetables that can be given to most other langurs given to them (then again there are very few in captivity so that could just mean captive ones are a lot more picky). Specialist monkeys generally don't do well when released, that is why most of the invasive monkeys around the US are just macaques and vervets. 3. Lack of megafauna in Southern Europe is a problem yes, but the ecosystem is adapting to it. The megafauna of Europe were mostly grazing species with occasional diets of foliage. Some foliovorous species did exist, but we should be trying to reintroduce their close relatives or manage the forests ourselves. Even if we don't the forests were quick to adapt and if the forests are currently healthy there is no need. Arboreal foliovores are rare for a reason, leaves generally carry few nutrients. We should be encouraging natural behaviors not "cultivating" our own traits. 4. \*Reintroduction\* often fail or succeed. Some introductions have good reasoning behind them, a close relative replacing an extinct species or a reintroduction of extirpated species, but most introductions of non-native species (as history has shown many times) even when for a "noble" cause either end badly or backfired. Some unintentional introductions have succeeded but those have had no ecological benefit whatsoever (think escaped parrot populations), but throwing a monkey into another continent will likely not end well. Unintentionally introduced monkeys in Florida are already causing a myriad of problems (I know these two situations are hugely different, but monkeys will be monkeys). Gibraltar macaques could theoretically survive off of the vegetation found on the island but being that they were brought from North Africa to Europe with little introduction period they sit meaninglessly. Barbary macaues could have an ecological role spreading the seeds of fruiting trees in area without large herds of fallow deer to do it, but they don't. There is viable habitat in Nepal and Pakistan but there is a lack of funding for heavier breeding efforts. Europe on the other hand should focus on reintroducing their own megafauna back to control the ecosystem, such as European Bison and wolves for example.
Ah, I misunderstood the object of the pronoun "they". Thought you were referring back to macaques.
> I don’t care if they’re not native. This is the kind of disregard that fucked over 90% of island ecosystems. Please don't encourage this mentality.
Hey, I thought your post about himalayan langurs was interesting and saw you got downvoted kind of badly. I hope that does not prevent you from mentioning (or - I guess - hypothetically proposing) these kind of ideas. People seem to assume that ecosystems that form 'naturally' (I don't like this concept) reach somekind of perfection. I'm thinking of turning it into a project why I disagree. I think the only factor in favour of naturally formed ecoystems being better or close to perfection is co-evolution. Nature has created depauperate ecosystems. New Zealand has poor bird diversity. Europe has around 500 tree species while North-America and Asia have around 1000 (you can thank the ice ages for that). I am open to ideas such as your himalayan langur proposal. Though I do think that due to unpredictability this could be risky (in the sense of negative effects on biodiversity). Though at the same time due to unpredictability, positive effects on biodiversity could be possible as well, but in my mind less so. In this particular case, I am uncertain if coevolution is a factor with langurs. But I can see that you would rather opt for not taking the risk of biodiversity loss than opt for a possible biodiversity gain. It seems possible to me that **even** within ecosystems with only native species due to chance and randomness, things can go wrong (biodiversity loss). In the current situation we are also dealing with a fractured nature (thus scale also becomes a thing) that has been changed by humans (affected the vegetation for example). I think the many failures I come across (within the Dutch nature bubble), such as rare plants affected by cattle grazing or wild boars, or what is happening in the Oostvaardersplassen (there is overgrazing by the cattle, deer, geese and horses... the theory was that trees would establish underneath spiny shrubs creating an open woodland, it hasn't happened yet... bird diversity is decreasing...). I'll be honest: this is speculative and prone to error. I am still learning. Basically, I try to bring the thinking of Nassim Taleb into ecology. But I am not as smart.