Talk:Pleistocene Park

Wikipedia article traffic statistics: Pleistocene Park

Is this still going on?

I cannot find any recent (within the last year) article on Pleistocene Park. Is this still being created or managed? --Eraticus (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oberond (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)still going on. Last news - 22 September 2010 musk ox calves arrived from Wrangel island

Last edit on website now 1 May 2012. As explained in a youtube comments section: ″Well, what you expect. Slow internet connections (via sat), exuberant prices for everything, plus duties of the stuff (either they go to a nearest car dealer, which is c. 2000 km away, or ordering food for summer (c. 1200 km away [...])). Or find any up-to-date web site in 1000 km radius from Cherskiy. It is Siberia. I-phone is as good as paperweight here.″ (Eugene Potapov: Pleistocene Park. Video, 7:11 min., uploaded 21 October 2012. Accessed 23 April 2013.) --92.206.68.37 (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The coordinates are wrong. They point to a place north of Chersky while the text says "south of Chersky".--SibFreak (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any coordinates at all now. Kortoso (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

They′re found in the top right hand corner of the article, below the search box. The two articles (″Chersky (settlement)″ and ″Pleistocene Park″) use different systems to show coordinates smaller than whole degrees, which leads to the impression that the P.P. coordinates point to a place north of the Chersky coordinates. The Chersky article uses the traditional minutes and seconds, while the Pleistocene Park article seems to use some sort of decimal system which I hadn't aware of until now. Clicking on the coordinates leads one to a GeoHack toolserver page where both systems are shown at the very top. Roberta jr. (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC) / 11:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Through usage of ′Infobox park′, this article now also displays the traditional minutes and seconds. Roberta jr. (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Animals without references

The Lewis article as reference

After noticing that quite a few of the animals (and especially all the more controversial ones) in the ″Animals″ section are only listed by Martin Lewis (″Pleistocene Park: The Regeneration of the Mammoth Steppe?″, 2012) as ′considered for reintroduction′ but nowhere else, I compared the listed animals in Lewis′ article with those of the Wikipedia ′Pleistocene Park′ article from the same time (see old version of article) and found the lists to be identical. This means it is highly probable that Lewis had simply taken his information on animals to be introduced from the (unreferenced) Wikipedia article. Using the Lewis article would then constitute a referential circulus vitiosus, that is Wikipedia would be using itself as a reference. I therefore consider those animals as unreferenced and have removed them from the article and added them to the list below. --Roberta jr. (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Animals without references

I have removed the following animals from the article as I could not find references linking them directly to Pleistocene Park. Please only (re)insert them in the article together with a reliable source showing that the species in question is being considered for reintroduction by the Zimovs (the directors of Pleistocene Park and Northeast Science Station). Roberta jr. (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC), last edit 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Animals considered or suggested for reintroduction:

Herbivores:

• White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) or mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus): Occur as far north in Canada as the wood bison and breed like rabbits. High densities lead to forest degredation.
• Dziggetai or Mongolian wild ass (Equus hemionus hemionus): {Mentioned in Zimov (2005) w/out direct connection to Pleistocene Park.}
• Kiang (Equus kiang): Largest of the wild asses. Like the Yakutian horse, it grows a thick layer of fat in late summer and fall. {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being considered for reintroduction; no reference given.}
• Dzeren or Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa): {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being suitable for reintroduction; no reference given.}
• Argali (Ovis ammon) or urial (Ovis orientalis vignei): The argali is the largest of the wild sheep. The preferred habitat of both species are gently sloping grassy areas in upland regions, unlike the snow sheep, which is found in rockier terrain.
• West Caucasian tur (Capra caucasica) or East Caucasian tur (Capra cylindricornis): The Caucasian ibexes occur in gentler and much lower terrain than the other ibex species, especially in areas with little human disturbance. Besides grass and herbs, their diet also comprises leaves, bark, and lichen.

Carnivores:

• Snow leopard (Panthera uncia): Prefers more open habitats than the Amur leopard.
• Reintroduction of Spotted Hyena and Amur Leopard to Pleistocene Park mentioned in previous articles and this source (http://www.geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/siberia/pleistocene-park-the-regeneration-of-the-mammoth-steppe). Both were previous additions of the page. Amur leopards share the same habitat as Amur (Siberian) Tigers (forests in the Primorye region), both are critically endangered, and at the start of the article, were both reputed to live in historic times in northern Siberia. Both would hunt in the shrubs and forests on the edges of the grasslands, though the Amur Leopard can adapt to almost any habitat that provides it with sufficient food and cover (http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/amur_leopard2/). Spotted Hyenas would be introduced as an important primary predator and robust scavenger on the plains. Its largest subspecies (The Cave Hyena) roamed a range that extended to Eastern Siberia (http://www.asu.edu/research/researchmagazine/2003Summer/sum03p34-37.pdf), and todays modern Spotted Hyena would serve as a good proxy. Amur leopards, Siberian Tigers and Spotted Hyena all lived in conditions similar to Pleistocene Park during the Ice Age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.240.28 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC) {Both spotted hyena and Amur leopard listed only in the Lewis article}
• Asian lion (Panthera leo persica) or Transvaal lion (P. l. krugeri): The introduction of lions to the park is deemed controversial. Asian lions, currently endangered and present only in the Gir forest in India, ranged as far north as Hungary in the early Holocene^[1] and are both the northernmost and only subspecies of modern lion to exist out of Africa. However, genetic testing has shown that the cave lions that inhabited northern Eurasia before them were as much related to African as to Asian lions.^[2] Transvaal lions might therefore be another candidate on the basis that they sometimes produce leucistic individuals which, while not favored in their native South Africa, might have an advantage hunting in the snowy Siberian winter. ^[1] http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/archive/files/2009_lions%5B1%5D_b91eb3015e.pdf , ^[2] http://www.dur.ac.uk/greger.larson/DEADlab/Publications_files/Barnett_MEcavelions.pdf {Asian lion listed only in the Lewis article; no source found for Transvaal lion}

Animals which could be placed in the park in the event of being ′resurrected′ from extinction:

• Woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) (?): Woolly rhinoceros findings are not as common as mammoths. Only one fully preserved specimen (save for the skin and hooves) was retrieved from a tar pit in 1929 in Starunia, Ukraine (at the time part of Poland). If DNA could be extracted, Sumatran rhinoceros females might be used in the same way elephants are in the mammoth project. {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being suitable for reintroduction; given reference on the cloning of mammoths mentions neither rhinos nor Pleistocene Park.}
• Cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea): Studies in DNA show that it is a sub species of the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta crocuta), and one could possibly be resurrected in the future. {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being suitable for reintroduction; no reference given.}
• Irish elk or giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus): Despite its appelation neither a moose nor a wapiti. Traces in DNA show its closest relative to be the fallow deer (Genus Dama). Smaller than moose, but with larger antlers.
• Aurochs (Bos primigenius): Is being bred back at the moment. {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being suitable for reintroduction; no reference given. Unlikely, as not cold-tolerant enough.}

Animals which could be made suitable for the (sub)arctic climate through interbreeding:

• Northern aurochs (Bos primigenius ssp.): As a proxy for the extinct aurochs, Yakutian cattle might be used. While adapted to the far north, this breed is very small, and in many morphological features it does not conform to the extinct aurochs. This might be remedied by crossing it with one of the several ‘back-bred aurochsen’ that are being created in Europe right now (Taurus cattle, Tauros cattle, Uruz cattle), or by an an introgression of bison genes.
• Lowland yak (Bos mutus ssp.): The wild yak is presumably generally able to cope with the climate of the far north, but may have trouble with temperatures in the summer and possibly with the low altitudes. These problems could be avoided with an introgression of bison genes. Domestic yak could be used for the basic breeding program (as size would be supplied by the bison), but at least some fertilization with wild yak semen would be preferable. This would bring the number of bovines suited for the tundra-steppe up to three.
• Tundra zebra (Equus quagga ssp.): Equus quagga, the plains zebra, is highly social and usually forms small family groups which may combine to form large herds. It could be adapted to the climate of the far north through introgression of either kiang genes or Yakutian horse genes. This would be the most challenging breeding project of the three, as in the F1 generation not only all stallions but also the majority of mares will be inferile. The kiang is closer to the zebras both in ancestry and in chromosome count, so the number of fertile F1 mares should be higher, but the horse is closer in its social behaviour.
  

Yak / Aurochs

The plans of Pleistocene Park call for the introduction of wild yak (Bos mutus) at some time in the future. If wild yak should prove not to be easy to come by, or not to thrive at these low altitudes (as the Wikipedia article on wild yak indicates), domestic yak (Bos mutus grunniens) might be used instead. With an introgression of bison or wisent genes, domestic yak could be increased in size and adapted to the environment of the far north (see table below). An introgression of Yakutian cattle genes might be used at a pinch, though these will not help increase the size. (Bigger animals will have a larger impact on nature and a better heat conservation; both desirable.)
The same breeding program could of course be used to breed a northern aurochs if necessary, in which case the parental animals used would be Yakutian cows and bison/wisent bulls in the first step and Yakutian and/or ‘back-bred aurochs’ bulls in the second and third steps.
If necessary, even the wisent might be improved with an introgression of Yakutian cattle in this way, should it prove not to be able to adapt to the short summers of northern Yakutia.
Aurochs, yak and wisent can be used in the project side by side, as these species do not interbred in the wild.

Table: Breeding program
Legend:
P – parental generation (yak (Bos mutus) and bison/wisent (Bison spec.)),),
F and B – filial and backcross generations (the offspring). The B-linage differs from the F-linage in having tauros Y-haplotypes instead of yak-Y-haplotypes.

	Crossing	Explanation	Results
Step 1	PBison × PBos  = F1	Yak cows are fertilized with bison semen.	All resulting offspring are pure Bos mutus in the maternal line (i.e. have yak mtDNA). F1 bulls will be infertile.
Step 2	PBos × F1  = B1	The F1 cows are bred to yak bulls.	All offspring in the resulting B-linage are now also pure Bos mutus in the paternal line (i.e., if male, have yak Y-haplotypes).  B1 bulls may be infertile; if not, omit steps 3 and 4.
Step 3	PBos × B1  = B2	If necessary (no fertile B1 bulls), the B1 cows are bred to yak bulls.	The resulting B2 offspring will have lost 87.5 % of the bison-genes on average, which necessates step 4.
Step 4	B2 × F1/Bn  = B3	The B2 bulls are bred to the F1, B1 and B2 cows.	The average amount of bison-genes is raised again.
Step 5	Bn × Bn/Fn  = Bn	From now on, only bulls of the B-linage are used in breeding.  (Exception: Step 2 may be inserted as often in the breeding process as deemed beneficial. Doing this every second generation may be advisable.)	All resulting offspring are pure Bos mutus in both the maternal and the paternal line (i.e. they all have yak mtDNA and Y-haplotypes), but otherwise they have a very heterogeneous mixture of yak and bison chromosomes. They can now be bred selectively to (a) be adapted to the environment of the far north (selection on bison genes), and (b) confirm to the wild yak geno- and phenotype in all other respects (selection on yak genes).

Places like Pleistocene Park will presumably not have the resources for such a detailed breeding programme; here a rough-and-ready version can be used instead:

• Step 1 is carried out. This is the difficult step, as only about 25% of the inseminations will result in pregnancies at all and all male offspring will have to be culled.
• Yak bulls are joined to the yak cows and their hybrid offspring. From now on simply all male offspring will be culled that (a) show bison behaviour and instincts, (b) show morphological traits of the bison, (c) show domestic traits (white spotting, etc.) At the very least 25% of the male offspring should kept each year (and no less than three individuals), so only the healthiest and strongest will acquire prime status and pass on their genes.

Roberta jr. (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC), last edit 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Permafrost/global warming, etc.   –   topics needing to be added

The following topics need to be integrated in the article:

• permafrost / global warming issue: megafauna on grass steppe helps keep permafrost intact → prevents carbon and methane from being released → slows down global warming (sources: probably all articles listed in External links and References),
• Zimovs arguments against climatic change (increase in temperature and especially in humidity – “Twenty years ago, scientists explained the disappearance of numerous animals in the northern grasslands very simply—the arid steppe climate changed into a humid one, and when the steppe vanished so did the steppe's animals“ Zimov 2005) being reason for megafauna extinction:

• “Similar shifts occurred in previous interglacial periods, yet these did not cause catastrophic landscape reconstructions” (source: Zimov (2005) p. 797),
• musk oxen have been successfully introduced in ″super-humid″ Norway (sources: Zimov (2005) p. 797, Zimov (2007) p.107),
• climate (both temperatures and humidity) in todays northern Siberia similar to Mammoth steppe; radiation aridity ratio for northern Sib. on Mikhail Budyko’s scale is 2 (= steppe bordering on semi-desert) (sources: Zimov (2007) p.108, Zimov (2005) p. 797, Geo Currents (2012₂),

• “The park is a hub for international scientists and students, who come from around the world to conduct their own ecological research and experiments.” (sources: Davletyarova (2013) and others; see also ′Polaris Project’ in References).

Roberta jr. (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)