Bees are fish (well, at least they have something in common)
Have you heard of the landmark California Supreme Court decision that decided bees are now officially fish? I have some things to say about it.
It’s true – and like the giant redwoods, famous freeways, and Napa Valley wine – this is uniquely Californian. If you have already read about this, then you also already know that this decision was made on a legal basis after deliberation over the way the state had previously defined “fish.” Rather than this being a triumph of incomprehensible scientific advancement, it is rather the result of a word wrestling match. Before you entirely discredit the claim that “bees are fish” as worthless pandering in our court system, I hope to convince you that this classification is not actually so outlandish. In fact, bees and fish have a lot more in common than you might think.
The debate over the classification of “bees” as “fish” leads back to the question of whether or not the California Fish and Game Commission (CA FGC) had the authority to list several bumblebee species under the California Endangered Species Act. The listing of species as threatened or endangered enables some degree of additional protection. However, deciding which species ought to be listed is a formalized, complex process that requires assessing the status of that species population relative to historic baselines.
It’s true – and like the giant redwoods, famous freeways, and Napa Valley wine – this is uniquely Californian. If you have already read about this, then you also already know that this decision was made on a legal basis after deliberation over the way the state had previously defined “fish.” Rather than this being a triumph of incomprehensible scientific advancement, it is rather the result of a word wrestling match. Before you entirely discredit the claim that “bees are fish” as worthless pandering in our court system, I hope to convince you that this classification is not actually so outlandish. In fact, bees and fish have a lot more in common than you might think.
The debate over the classification of “bees” as “fish” leads back to the question of whether or not the California Fish and Game Commission (CA FGC) had the authority to list several bumblebee species under the California Endangered Species Act. The listing of species as threatened or endangered enables some degree of additional protection. However, deciding which species ought to be listed is a formalized, complex process that requires assessing the status of that species population relative to historic baselines.
There’s a major problem: we don’t know the status of most species’ populations. Insects, the most diverse group of organisms on the planet, are vastly understudied. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimates that while there are presently 1 million described species of insects, only about 1% of these species’ statuses have actually been assessed; plus, this does not even include the estimated millions of undescribed insect species.
That’s where my work comes in. Understanding that filling this monumental gap in knowledge is no simple task, I work under the supervision of Dr. Laura Melissa Guzman in the Ecological Data Science Lab at USC to leverage complex models and messy data to detect trends in understudied groups of organisms and identify what is causing changes in population sizes or species ranges.
So, what’s all the hubbub about bees and fish having something in common? For a species to be considered for listing as threatened or endangered, its population or range size trends must be known. In California, a few species of bumblebees were listed as endangered because the CA FGC found rapidly diminishing population sizes. After determining population/range trends, the next step is attributing any declines to particular phenomena. This knowledge is especially useful for conservation management decisions. Even in cities, there are still many new insect species constantly being discovered, and the reasons why different species are found where they are within and outside of cities are generally unknown.
We recently submitted a paper in collaboration with the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County that identified drivers of insect biodiversity in the greater Los Angeles area. In this paper, we estimated what effect different topographic, climatic, and human factors had on driving where each of the 232 species included in the study were found. Our study revealed mixed findings; no single factor uniformly drove biodiversity trends across groups studied except for the diurnal range in temperature, which had a consistent but weak negative effect on insect presence. High insect biodiversity is possible across urban gradients, but the composition of the community present changes. Although this study did not provide immediately useful information for the listing or delisting of insect species, it did compare the effects of several drivers of insect distributions in urban areas.
Knowing specific factors that impact biodiversity (e.g. pesticide application for many insects) can help directly reduce human impacts. Still, bees and fish generally always benefit from one brand of conservation treatment: protection of their habitat, most commonly through the establishment of conservation networks. It is widely accepted that sufficient conservation networks are critical for the protection of Earth’s biodiversity. It is also widely accepted that our current conservation networks are inadequate. Given limited resources to designate new nature reserves, choosing where to protect natural ecosystems becomes a delicate act.
Bees and fish can generally adapt to changes in their circumstances. Of course, there are limits to how much of a change an organism is capable of adapting to and how quickly that change occurs. Given the pervasive nature of climate change, most organisms will need to adapt to new conditions to persist, especially species that are already threatened. However, conservation networks with specific goals of protecting particular species generally do not take adaptation into account. I am currently being supported as a 2023 Sonosky Graduate Fellow to understand how the presence of adaptation can impact the success of conservation networks under different organismal and environmental conditions.
Here, I build upon the extensive literature that demonstrates the value of habitat connectivity and the ability of organisms to adapt to disturbances, especially climate change, through the nexus of these fields relevant to conservation management. Since I am examining a broad range of organismal and environmental conditions, coincidentally, I will also be looking at bees and fish. I am thrilled to continue my work with the Wrigley Institute and further share my findings.
Teagan Baiotto is supported by the USC Dornsife Wrigley Institute Graduate Fellowship.