I feel lucky to share this beautiful planet with such an insane diversity of wild and wonderful creatures and places. It troubles me deeply that we humans and our antics have devastated so much of this wondrous world over such a short time. I am a freshwater conservation biologist living in Cape Town, South Africa. My passion is to unearth and communicate the hidden beauty and plight of our freshwater ecosystems and thereby give them a fighting chance to share planet earth with us long into the future.
Beautiful film. Absolutely stunning habitats. Personally I'd love to do a breeding program with Sandelia curpensis ( I hope thats spelled correctly ) but that might be tough considering I'm in the USA. Are the streams, rivers and ponds in the Fynbos mostly acidic ? They look slightly tannin stained and I thought I read the soils of the Fynbos were mostly sandy and acidic.
one of the first pieces of info i've seen on local fish in a while - and this is was made in 2015. we are essentially the last generation to be around while "some" of these fish still exist.
I agree completely !! People destroy nature for a small profit! I have a house in the Cederberg mountains and it is probably one of the most beautiful places in the world and knowing that in 50 years it might all be gone truly devastates me.
can you help me pleaseAssignment 1 1. In which region, country and rivers was the documentary filmed? (5) 2. What are the main threats to rivers and fish highlighted in the video? (4) 3. What fish species are documented/highlighted in the video? (5) 4. (a) What are the effects of water abstraction on fish species? (2) (b) What season are fish most affected? (1) (c) What role are the local communities and local government playing in protecting the fish species? (2) 5. What were the main aims of the rotenone project? Did the project achieve the desired goals? (4) 6. In your opinion, what needs to be done to protect the fishes highlighted in the video? (7)
Hi Jeremy, if you are interested, feel free to contact me, I found a small colony of redfins today in the Wellington area. They used to live across the road from me, but the local population was eradicated by bass as well as municipal action to eradicate invasive (the took all the trees) trees.
I am wanting to start up with a new research area here at UWC that encompasses the broader definitions of biosecurity namely "to address threats posed to the economy, the environment, and human health by introduced organisms". I come from a conservation biology landscape ecology background (with skills in GIS, Remote Sensing, Land-use Classifications, Species Distribution Modelling and Systematic Conservation Planning. We also developed web GIS applications (e.g. bgis.sanbi.org). My honours students started looking at a risk analysis of ornamental fish (hobbyist aquarium industry) with regards to understanding how we can screen invasiveness using a variety approaches from Ecological Niche Models, Expert Systems and thermal resilience under experimental conditions. I have been in contact with Dean Impson of Cape Nature w.r.t to fresh water invasives from the hobbyist industry and extending to plant horticultural threats in the riparian zone. A friend posted a link on my Face Book page to this video so it would be good to follow up (your UCT email bounced) hence this posting. I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks for this nice little piece of propaganda Jem, I am sure it will come in handy for the next round of treatments. For any article, speech or RU-vid clip to be taken seriously, it needs to include both sides of the story. What I find concerning is that throughout this entire process, the scientists choose to only provide one side of the story. A few examples of this: 1. No mention of the hundreds of indigenous species killed in the first Rondegat treatment. 2. No mention of the recommendations in the EIA (commissioned by CapeNature) to rescue the indigenous fish during this treatment, recommendations which were ignored by CapeNature during the first treatment. 3. No mention of the fact that the Rondegat was treated a second time without a single confirmed sighting or kill of any bass. 4. No mention of the fact that a proper weir was not constructed as indicated in the EIA. 5. No mention of the fact that hundreds of indigenous fish died in the second treatment. 6. No mention of the fact that negative views in the DVD created by CapeNature after the first treatment, were edited out in the DVD given to investors for future phases of the project - after CapeNature assured us on the evening that they were recorded, that they would be included. 7. No mention of the fact that rare mayfly species never before recorded in South Africa were exterminated in the first treatment - have these ever returned? 8. No mention of the overdose that was applied in the first treatment of the Rondegat after being assured in various articles by Dr Dennis Tweddle (head of the EIA) and others that the dosage being applied would not have an effect on the invertebrates. 9. What are CapeNature doing to combat water abstraction and other non-alien fish issues affecting the Rondegat and other rivers scheduled for treatment? 10. What about CapeNature cutting off all communication with the CPS for several months regarding the project and not including them as interested and affected parties when discussing treatment plans in the Limietberg rivers? Excuse my scepticism of what seems like a noble cause. Without a balanced view and adherence to the correct procedures as set out in the EIA, I will continue to look at clips like this as nothing more than propaganda to soften public views before more badly run rotenone treatments.
capetrout With this film I sought to communicate the simple message that the alien fish eradication project in the Rondegat River was a success in that it met the objective of reclaiming valuable habitat for threatened native fish by completely eradicating alien fish from a stretch of river, without irreparable harm to the aquatic ecosystem. As far as I am aware, published data from the ecological monitoring conducted by the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) indicate (1) that no species (aquatic invertebrates like mayflies included) have been lost from the Rondegat River, and (2) that there has been a substantial and continuing increase in aquatic biodiversity within the treatment zone. Providing a detailed account of the mechanics of the project was beyond the scope of this film, and anyone particularly interested in such details is encouraged to consult the published scientific articles and technical report listed below (many of the points mentioned in the above comment feature in this literature). This was the first project of its kind in South Africa and no doubt mistakes were made, but what’s important is that we learn from these mistakes and incorporate the lessons into future conservation interventions. Weyl OLF, Finlayson B, Impson D, Woodford DJ, Steinkjer J. 2014. Threatened endemic fishes in South Africa’s Cape Floristic Region: a new beginning for the Rondegat River. Fisheries 39: 270-279. (www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03632415.2014.914924?journalCode=ufsh20#.VdSOtvmqqko) Bellingan TA, Woodford DJ, Gouws J, Villet MH, Weyl OLF.2015. Rapid bioassessment of the effects of repeated rotenone treatments on invertebrate assemblages in the Rondegat River, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science. DOI: 0.2989/16085914.2014.984651. (www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/16085914.2014.984651#.VdSO3_mqqko). DJ Woodford, OLF Weyl, M Cunningham, T Bellingan, FC de Moor, H Barber-James, JA Day, BR Ellender, NK Richardson. 2012. Monitoring the Impact and Recovery of the Biota of the Rondegat River after the Removal of Alien Fishes. Report to the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No. KV304/12 (www.wrc.org.za/Pages/DisplayItem.aspx?ItemID=10183&FromURL=%2FPages%2FKH_DocumentsList.aspx%3Fdt%3D1%26ms%3D4%3B9%3B%26d%3DMonitoring+the+Impact+and+Recovery+of+the+Biota+of+the+Rondegat+River+after+the+Removal+of+Alien+Fishes%26start%3D1)
capetrout as much as I detest the idea of engaging on a forum like the comments section on youtube with someone I have never met, and given the way people treat each other (read comments on pretty much any other video if you don't know what I mean), I am qualified to address some of the points you raise. Let me start by saying yes, hundreds of indigenous species were killed by the rotenone, its what rotenone does and why it was used and I know better than probably anyone else just how many were killed. Yes, you can focus on that, but you have to acknowledge the fact that all of the non-native species were also killed, and one was not feasibly possible without the other. To your points 1 and 5 above, re native species being killed, what you may be failing to grasp is the bass occupying the stretch of stream between the dam and Rooidraai cascade were in fact killing all of those indigenous fish anyway, all the time, and had been for what is arguably decades before. Its not possible in an ethically defensible manner to weigh the numbers of clanwilliam yellowfish (from the first treatment) and juvenile clanwilliam yellowfish, clanwlliam redfin and fiery redfin (from the second treatment) against the numbers of all three species that have been literally decimated by smallmouth bass for at least the last 30 years and not realize that something needed to be done. By not applying rotenone, more were dying and continuing to die than the rotenone removed. That's without mentioning the invertebrates because bass eat those too. Your point 7 is a good question, have the mayfly species returned and I will answer with a resounding yes, I would go so far as to say that all of the invertebrate taxa have!! In fact, as an aside, there is a larger amount of inter annual variation in invertebrate species composition than we witnessed before/after treatment. In lotic systems invertebrates drift, there is a mountain of published literature that proves that. And this is the crux of what made the project viable, feasible and practical: the healthy population of vertebrates and invertebrates able to colonize from upstream and it is and will continue to happen as long as that river flows. I don't think its fair to call this clip propaganda, and I am sorry you feel that it is.
Trout and bass and carp are all colonial imports and need to be removed as far as possible so that the indigenous fish can recover. I suggest that these exotic species be used to feed hungry people instead.. Why not catch the exotics, take them out , and fly fish for indigenous fish on a catch and release basis rather? It's very selfish to try and promote trout fishing in Africa.
Joubert Heymans Hi Joubert, one meaningful way to contribute is lodging fish records with the recently-launched atlas of African freshwater fishes - FishMap (vmus.adu.org.za/vm_search.php?database=fishmap&prj_acronym=FishMAP&db=fishmap&URL=&Logo=images/fishmap_logo.png&Headline=Atlas%20of%20freshwater%20fish%20in%20southern%20and%20eastern%20Africa.&Use_main_filter=0&User_id=&Full_name=&serve_sp_list=0&drop_down_list=Latin%20names&assessment=0) Alternatively, please email me if you are specifically keen on being involved in a conservation project (jembejem@gmail.com )