Playing God with Haiti’s freshwater ecosystems

Originally Posted @ Strange Attractions: April 20, 2011 @ 10:52:26 PM UTC | Reposted with the permission of the Author: un.chemyst

In September of 2010, thousands of live fish of the species Gambusia holbrooki^* were transported by air from a rural fish farm in the Mississippi Delta region of the southern United States to one on the outskirts of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, where they are to be raised in tanks and released into freshwater ecosystems all over the country. These fish, one of two Gambusia species commonly known as “mosquitofish” in English, are native to the southeastern United States, and no sightings of the fish have previously been reported in freshwater ecosystems in Haiti or elsewhere on the island of Hispaniola. The reason given for this mass introduction is to aide in malaria eradication efforts in Haiti: malaria is transmitted by mosquitoes, mosquitoes lay their eggs on the surface of standing bodies of freshwater, and the omnivorous mosquitofish, in addition to any other food source available, will certainly eat mosquito eggs and larvae as their name suggests. Intentional introductions of these fish as a biological method of mosquito control have been carried out all over the world since 1905, with many introductions resulting in long-term establishment of mosquitofish populations outside of their native range [1].

Successful invasions of alien species in island ecosystems often have severe ecological and socioeconomic impacts [2], and mosquitofish meet two important criteria which suggest that a successful invasion would likely result from their introduction into an area [3]: they can survive under a large range of environmental conditions, especially temperature [4] and salinity [5], allowing them to successfully establish populations wherever they are introduced, and they are highly mobile [6], allowing established populations to spread rapidly. Also, mosquitofish have a history of successful, and ecologically disruptive, invasions outside their native range. They often populate the ecosystems they invade at high densities, and since zooplankton constitute the overwhelming majority of their diet, their presence often results in elevated phytoplankton levels, and even algal blooms [7]. They attack native fish in the ecosystems they invade, compete with them for food, and eat their minnows [8] [9]. Amphibian species, some of which are also important mosquito predators [10], have been shown to be particularly threatened by mosquitofish introductions [11] [12] [13], as moquitofish eat their eggs and tadpoles. There are at least three related Gambusia species endemic to Hispaniola, and it appears that the proponents of this project have completely overlooked these fish both as a potential native species for use in biological mosquito control and also as species that would be potentially impacted by a mosquitofish invasion. Competition and hybridization with invading mosquitofish have threatened multiple rare species of Gambusia endemic to the southwestern United States, and the invasion of mosquitofish almost certainly contributed to the recent extinction of G. amistadensis in Texas [14] [15].

This, of course, is not to downplay the reality of the long history of human suffering caused by malaria in Hispaniola, a history that goes back to the first arrival of Europeans on the island in 1492. Malaria likely played a role in the decline and eventual extermination of the Taíno people who were living on the island when the first Europeans arrived, although probably not as significant of a role as smallpox or the cruel policy of genocide and forced assimilation practiced by the European conquerers. Malaria subsequently spread to much of the rest of the Americas, although contemporary Hispaniola is the only island left in the Caribbean where malaria has yet to be eradicated, with much of the effective disease reservoir being localized to the rural lowlands of Haiti [16]. In 2009, evidence for malaria resistance to chloroquine, an important drug for the treatment and prevention of malaria, was first reported on the island [17], and in 2010, a massive earthquake displaced over a million people, increasing their susceptibility to the disease [18]. Both events make the need for a campaign towards comprehensive malaria eradication even more timely [16].

The most essential tool for malaria eradication, however, would be the ability to effectively diagnose and treat malaria across the entire island, with the large scale distribution of mosquito netting to prevent transmission of the disease also being of prime importance [16]. Control of mosquito populations would certainly help these efforts, but the effectiveness of fish introductions is more or less limited to eliminating mosquitoes from fishless ponds. Tree holes, coconut shells, discarded tires, and peridomestic containers are also important breeding grounds for mosquitoes in rural tropical areas [19] [20] [21], making fish introductions only effective when integrated with environmental management, other biological methods, and possibly even chemical methods [22]. And fortunately, there are countless species of omnivorous freshwater fish around the world which will also consume mosquito larvae when they are available as a food source and which have just as much potential as do mosquitofish for biological mosquito control within their native range [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29], making mosquitofish introductions completely unnecessary. There is, of course, one thing that all of these tools for successful malaria eradication all have in common: they all require a significant and prolonged engagement with and investment in rural communities across Haiti.

The potentially severe consequences of this attempt at using mosquitofish to control malaria in Haiti and the rather naive assumptions immanent in its rationale make it a rather curious project. The organization behind it is Operation Blessing International (OBI), a non-profit organization with an explicitly Christian mission and an annual revenue in excess of $400,000,000 founded by wealthy televangelist Pat Robertson in 1978. But there is an additional level of irony in that, even assuming that the intentions at all levels of the organization are genuine, OBI is, by engaging in such deliberate ecosystem engineering, effectively disregarding two important convictions that are nearly universal in Christian theology: that the Earth is God’s creation, and that God’s judgment should not be questioned. In the biblical creation narrative, the reason that Adam, the first man, is placed in God’s creation at all is merely “to tend and watch over it” (Gn 2:15), and Adam is never called upon to improve upon it as he sees fit, or to move things around. Adam’s descendants, at various points in the Old Testament, question God’s judgment and will. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Jb 38:4) is what God says to Job after one such incident. The Book of Ecclesiastes, echoing its persistent theme of human vanity, asks in reference to the work of God “who can make straight what He has made crooked?” (Ec 7:13).

Pat Robertson has been well known for his large investments in mineral extraction interests in the countries where OBI operates, his use of OBI resources for his personal business ventures, and his close ties to right-wing dictators who violently expropriate land from and enforce crippling economic policies on the people they rule [30]. But whatever the organization’s larger plans for Haiti may be, the project to introduce mosquitofish to the country appears to be nothing more than a gimmick: a mythical “silver bullet” born in the heart of the rural U.S. South and about to be used against an exotic foe for once and for all, which when stripped of the reality of its certain ineffectiveness and its potentially severe consequences, is sure to win over the hearts of North American donors. The long-term consequences of this project for Haiti’s freshwater ecosystems are completely irrelevant to the project’s viability anyways, as it is not the people who live in Haiti and depend on its freshwater ecosystems for their livelihoods who control the means in which their collective suffering is exploited as the Christian tradition of charity is commodified. Equally irrelevant are the theological contradictions inherent in the project, as the project is not in any way an act of Christian charity, but a gimmick which is being sold to charitable Christians. Like the introduction of malaria itself to Hispaniola, the brutal extermination of the people who inhabited the island at the time, the clearing of the island’s forests for plantation agriculture, the damming of its rivers, and the reckless extraction of its mineral resources, the introduction of mosquitofish to Haiti amounts to simply another permanent alteration of Hispaniola’s landscape and ecology for short-term private profit, this time in the name of the empire of Pat Robertson.

Photo Credit: Paparazzo Presents

References

1. L.A. Krumholz, "Reproduction in the Western Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis affinis (Baird & Girard), and Its Use in Mosquito Control", Ecological Monographs, vol. 18, 1948, pp. 1-. DOI.
2. J.K. REASER, L.A. MEYERSON, Q. CRONK, M. DE POORTER, L. ELDREGE, E. GREEN, M. KAIRO, P. LATASI, R.N. MACK, J. MAUREMOOTOO, D. O'DOWD, W. ORAPA, S. SASTROUTOMO, A. SAUNDERS, C. SHINE, S. THRAINSSON, and L. VAIUTU, "Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of invasive alien species in island ecosystems", Environmental Conservation, vol. 34, 2007, pp. 98-. DOI.
3. C.S. Kolar, "Ecological Predictions and Risk Assessment for Alien Fishes in North America", Science, vol. 298, pp. 1233-1236. DOI.
4. R.G. Otto, "Temperature tolerance of the mosquitofish, Gambmia affinis (Baird and Girard)", Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 5, 1973, pp. 575-585. DOI.
5. J. Chervinski, "Salinity tolerance of the mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard)", Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 22, 1983, pp. 9-11. DOI.
6. J.S. Rehage, and A. Sih, "Dispersal Behavior, Boldness, and the Link to Invasiveness: A Comparison of Four Gambusia Species", Biological Invasions, vol. 6, 2004, pp. 379-391. DOI.
7. S.H. Hurlbert, and M.S. Mulla, "Impacts of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) predation on plankton communities", Hydrobiologia, vol. 83, 1981, pp. 125-151. DOI.
8. N. Caiola, and A. Sostoa, "Possible reasons for the decline of two native toothcarps in the Iberian Peninsula: evidence of competition with the introduced Eastern mosquitofish", Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 21, 2005, pp. 358-363. DOI.
9. D.K. Rowe, J.P. Smith, and C. Baker, "Agonistic interactions between Gambusia affinis and Galaxias maculatus: implications for whitebait fisheries in New Zealand rivers", Journal of Applied Ichthyology, vol. 23, 2007, pp. 668-674. DOI.
10. S.E. DuRant, and W.A. Hopkins, "Amphibian predation on larval mosquitoes", Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 86, 2008, pp. 1159-1164. DOI.
11. S. Komak, and M.R. Crossland, , Wildlife Research, vol. 27, pp. 185-. DOI.
12. H. A., L. S., and M. M., "The role of introduced mosquitofish ( Gambusia holbrooki ) in excluding the native green and golden bell frog ( Litoria aurea ) from original habitats in south-eastern Australia", Oecologia, vol. 132, 2002, pp. 445-452. DOI.
13. S.C. Gamradt, and L.B. Kats, "Effect of Introduced Crayfish and Mosquitofish on California Newts", Conservation Biology, vol. 10, 1996, pp. 1155-1162. DOI.
14. G. Huxel, "Rapid displacement of native species by invasive species: effects of hybridization", Biological Conservation, vol. 89, pp. 143-152. DOI.
15. K.T. Scribner, K.S. Page, and M.L. Bartron, , Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 10, pp. 293-323. DOI.
16. J. Keating, D.J. Krogstad, and T.P. Eisele, "Malaria elimination on Hispaniola", The Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 10, 2010, pp. 291-293. DOI.
17. B.L. Londono, "Chloroquine-Resistant Haplotype Plasmodium falciparum Parasites, Haiti", Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 15, 2009, pp. 735-740. DOI.
18. P. Adams, "Rainy season could hamper Haiti's recovery", The Lancet, vol. 375, 2010, pp. 1067-1069. DOI.
19. S.M. Kulkarni, and P.S. Naik, "Breeding habitats of mosquitoes in Goa.", Indian journal of malariology, vol. 26.
20. J.C. Anosike, B.E.B. Nwoke, A.N. Okere, E.E. Oku, J.E. Asor, I.O. Emmy-Egbe, and D.A. Adimike, "Epidemiology of tree-hole breeding mosquitoes in the tropical rainforest of Imo State, south-east Nigeria.", Annals of agricultural and environmental medicine : AAEM, vol. 14.
21. D.A. Yee, "Tires as habitats for mosquitoes: a review of studies within the eastern United States.", Journal of medical entomology, vol. 45.
22. L.A. Lacey, and B.K. Orr, "The role of biological control of mosquitoes in integrated vector control.", The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, vol. 50.
23. S.M. Nelson, and L.C. Keenan, "Use of an indigenous fish species, Fundulus zebrinus, in a mosquito abatement program: a field comparison with the mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis.", Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, vol. 8.
24. D.K. Lee, "Predation efficacy of the fish muddy loach, Misgurnus mizolepis, against Aedes and Culex mosquitoes in laboratory and small rice plots.", Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, vol. 16.
25. T.P. Hurst, M.D. Brown, and B.H. Kay, "Laboratory evaluation of the predation efficacy of native Australian fish on Culex annulirostris (Diptera: Culicidae).", Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, vol. 20.
26. A.R. Van Dam, and W.E. Walton, "Comparison of mosquito control provided by the arroyo chub (Gila orcutti) and the mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis).", Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, vol. 23.
27. P. Irwin, and S. Paskewitz, "Investigation of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) as a biological control agent of Culex mosquitoes under laboratory and field conditions.", Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, vol. 25.
28. V. Louca, M.C. Lucas, C. Green, S. Majambere, U. Fillinger, and S.W. Lindsay, "Role of fish as predators of mosquito larvae on the floodplain of the Gambia River.", Journal of medical entomology, vol. 46.
29. G. Chandra, I. Bhattacharjee, S.N. Chatterjee, and A. Ghosh, "Mosquito control by larvivorous fish.", The Indian journal of medical research, vol. 127.

^* UPDATE April 27,2011:
Operation Blessing International has said they did not import Gambusia Holbrooki Fish Into Haiti, they introduced Gambusia Affinis. In response, the author of this piece states:

The difference between G. holbrooki and G. affinis is minor. They are both known as "mosquitofish" in American English and though they are two separate species, they are often treated as one in the scientific literature because their biology is very similar. Some of literature that I cited, especially those by Australian scientists, actually deal with G. affinis, since that was the species introduced there (G. holbrooki was introduced in Europe, Asia, and Africa).

I'm not sure if I believe their claim that G. affinis already exists in Haiti, though. When I wrote the article, I searched pretty hard for any evidence that either species had been introduced to the island, but found none. If it was already there, why did they have to fly fish in from Mississippi? And why aren't they using native fish? Perhaps I could contact Dr. Abe personally to clarify this.

They claim that they are not going to release G. affinis into open water, which is good. This doesn't mean that G. affinis won't successfully invade freshwater ecosystems though, especially in the event of a flood.

So, although I will certainly edit my article to reflect their claim that it was G. affinis that they introduced, I certainly will not change my analysis. I'm working on drafting an open letter Bill Horan, which I will post on my website. I plan to address the fact that the press release seems to imply that they didn't just introduce a species of fish into Haiti, which they did. It also does not accept that what they are doing will have ecological consequences, which it will.

un.chemyst

An open letter to Bill Horan

Posted: April 27, 2011 @ 3:45:54 AM UTC | Author: un.chemyst

A Review of Professor Henry Louis Gates' Film "Black in Latin America"

A Bookmanlit Review by Jerry and Yvrose Gilles/April 18,2011
Permission to repost granted by Yvrose Gilles, Bookmanlit

Professor Gates' documentary will be broadcasted this evening [04/19/11] at 8pm on PBS. I think it's important to view the island as a whole unit which has been besieged by political forces both outside and within that are bent on destroying its African heritage.

–Yvrose Gilles

Professor Henry Louis Gates film “Black in Latin America” could not have come at a more appropriate time. This year, 2011, has been declared by the United Nations to be the International year for people of African descent. It is welcome news in Haiti where generations have celebrated their African ancestry. In part 1 of the documentary, Professor Gates looks at the lives of African descendants in Haiti and in the Dominican Republic. He recounts the history of the island mainly from a Dominican perspective. He refers to the island as “Hispaniola” as named by Christopher Columbus and not as the island of Haiti as it was named by its first inhabitants. The Dominicans prefer the term “Hispaniola”, little Spain, so that they can point to themselves as being of Spanish origin. Professor Gates’ film is important because it opens the gate to an important discussion that is at the root of the island’s division into two countries with differing racial identities. The film itself is groundbreaking in its perspective on the history of the two countries, but it misses important historical details that would have buttressed it further. The objective of this review is to add those details.

The people of Haiti are the descendants of Africans taken to the Americas between 1502 to 1866 when the world’s superpowers derived their workforce from the buying and selling and kidnapping of people. Haiti was the first modern nation to abolish slavery and to assert the sanctity of human life. So successful was Haiti’s Bwa Kayiman Revolt of 1791, that it ignited a 13 year war which eventually led to the withdrawal of all European slave trading powers from the island. Spain was the first European nation forced to abandon the island. It ceded its part of the island (present day Dominican Republic) to France in 1795 in the Treaty of Basel. The Spaniards were in such haste to leave the warn-torn island that they may have erroneously left the remains of Christopher Columbus in an old Cathedral in Santo Domingo. The British left in 1798 after an unsuccessful attempt to gain control of the island. The French were the last to leave in November 1803, after they were defeated at the Battle of Vertierres. Leaders of the Revolution proclaimed the island’s independence from European domination on January 1st, 1804.

Haiti’s history is an incredible David and Goliath tale of an island nation led by people of African descent struggling to survive in a world dominated by European powers bent on subjugating them. Isolated, demonized, and crushed by extortion and embargoes, the new Haitian state was never really given a chance to thrive by the nations that it defeated.

Internal feuds and nature also took their toll on the developing nation. In 1844, less than 2 years after a devastating earthquake paralyzed the central government, leaders of the eastern part of Haiti declared its independence as the Dominican Republic. Remaining colonists on the eastern part of the island seized the opportunity to secede from a country that had neither protected their social privileges nor given them access to international markets. The extent of the territory controlled by this new Dominican government remained unclear and the economies and cultures of the two countries remained integrated until the US invaded the island in 1915.

In 1936, under U.S. influence, Haiti and the Dominican Republic reached an agreement over the borders of the two countries. This treaty, signed in the 20th century and called the Trujillo-Vincent agreement, partitioned the island to largely reflect its borders nearly 150 years earlier when the territory was ruled by France and Spain. It was as if the Haitian Revolution had not occurred. Haiti was forced to abandon the notion of the entire island as one country as defined in its original Constitution.

The creation of the two countries from one island has a clear history but historians have distorted that history to support their political agendas. Dominican historians have presented Haiti as an aggressor nation that invaded the D.R. when in fact Haiti simply exercised its sovereignty over territory that it had won from France ever since the 1804 declaration of the island’s independence. Some Haitian historians support the invasion myth even though there was no Dominican state at the time. These Haitian historians find it easier to imagine Haiti as a conquering power rather than realize that it was a besieged country fighting to hold onto its territory.

Fewer in number and lighter in complexion than the Haitians, the Dominicans became largely a phenotypically mulatto state. Dominican leaders used this skin tone difference to argue that blacks are outsiders and that the people of the Dominican Republic are Indios, the descendants of the native population who were wiped out by the Spaniards by the early 1500s.

In the 1930’s, the Dominican dictator, Trujillo¹ took measures to further lighten the skin tone of the Dominican population. Such measures included facilitating the entry into the Dominican Republic of Europeans fleeing Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. At the same time he accused dark skinned people living in the Dominican Republic of being Haitians and slaughtered them. Professor Gates reports that at least 15,000 people were killed. Influenced by Hitler’s arguments about the supremacy of the Arian race, Trujillo commissioned historians to write a history showing that the Dominican Republic was as white a state as possible.

Through schooling and political repression, many Dominicans have learned to reject their African ancestry. Instead they embrace “Hispanicity’’. It is only by speaking Spanish, practicing the Catholic faith, and valuing light skin, do they consider themselves to be truly Dominican.

This year 2011, as the world celebrates African ancestry, we know that many Dominicans and Haitians will want to assert their African ancestry. Although Dominican denial of African heritage is widespread, it is not universal. Professor Gates was able to find an organization in the Dominican Republic calling itself the Kongo Brotherhood. Likewise the assertion of African heritage in Haiti, although widespread, is not universal. Like many Dominicans, there are Haitians who deny their African heritage. Hopefully, by opening up the discussion about African heritage, professor Gates will help people everywhere to recognize that we are all members of the human family and we owe it to the memory of those whose genes we carry to be true to ourselves.

Happy International Year for People of African Descent!

_____________________

REFERENCES:

¹ Trujillo's grandmother Luisa Ercina Chevalier was Haitian, she was the daughter of Diyetta Chevalier, a Haitian who settled in San Cristobal, Domminican Republic.

BLACK IN LATIN AMERICA | Interview with Henry Louis, Gates, Jr. | PBS Video

BLACK IN LATIN AMERICA | Haiti & the Dominican Republic: An Island Divided, Black in Latin America, PBS Video