Darimont et al., in Communications Biology. They then used this information to determine the degree to which a species was endangered by human predation.Ĭredit: Amanda Montañez Source: “Humanity’s Diverse Predatory Niche and Its Ecological Consequences,” by Chris T. For the approximately 47,000 vertebrate species examined, Darimont and his colleagues also checked on which types of human use were rated by the IUCN as a serious threat. But for the purposes of their study, Darimont and his team defined it as “any use that removes individuals from wild populations, lethally or otherwise, via processes ranging from local subsistence to global commercial harvesting and trade.” In the study, published on June 29 in Communications Biology, the team analyzed data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) that categorize how a vast range of species are used-for example, as human or animal food or in sport hunting or medicine. Predation usually refers to catching and killing prey for food. The researchers explored how our prey choices vary from place to place and how our predatory motivations-from the exotic pet trade to sport hunting and fishing-affect species’ extinction risk. So Darimont, who works at the University of Victoria in British Columbia and the nonprofit Raincoast Conservation Foundation, assembled colleagues in Brazil, Canada, the U.S. Though the ecological impacts of predators such as wolves, bears and orcas are well studied (Darimont himself has studied wolves for decades), modern human predator ecology has received much less attention. “Personally, I thought that was strange,” given that humans are also predators, Darimont says. Study author Chris Darimont, an ecologist who is also an avid hunter and angler, says he first thought to look at patterns of human predation after he heard fellow hunters disparagingly calling wolves and bears “goddamn predators.” And now a new study examining human predation’s influence on nature reveals some fresh insights, such as the fact that we capture even more terrestrial vertebrate species for medicine, the exotic pet trade and other uses than we do for food-setting us apart as a highly unusual kind of predator. It's probably best for the great white bear to remain in the north.Humans have long been successful predators, thanks to our advanced cognition, tools and technology. Their voracious appetite, combined with the local faunas' ignorance of large land predators, would likely lead to ecological collapse. The Antarctic landscape would be a free-for-all buffet for a polar bear - which is why no one should ever bring polar bears there. Plus, none of those animals have evolved to be wary of large, land-roving predators. Antarctica is abundant in all three, with six seal species and five penguin species. In the Arctic, polar bears feed on seals and the occasional bird or egg. To Derocher, the answer is simple: 'They would have so much fun in Antarctica.'

The area is also known for powerful storms and rough seas as cold water from the south runs into warm water from the north.īut if polar bears got the opportunity, would they survive on the South Pole? To get to Antarctica, polar bears would have to cross the treacherous Drake Passage. The closest landmass to Antarctica is the southern tip of South America, which includes Chile and Argentina. But even 5 million years ago, the continents were in similar positions to where they are today, so polar bears never got the opportunity to travel from pole to pole. They evolved from a common ancestor of the brown bear ( Ursus arctos) sometime between 5 million and 500,000 years ago, Derocher said.

Polar bears are, evolutionarily, a relatively young species. Can fish and other marine animals drown? How did coyotes become regular city slickers?

Who are a polar bears predators