Content uploaded by Ricardo Rozzi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ricardo Rozzi on Dec 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 4
Underwater with a Hand Lens: Ecological
Sciences and Environmental Ethics to Value
Freshwater Biodiversity
Tamara Contador, Javier Rendoll-Cárcamo, Melisa Gañan, Jaime Ojeda,
James Kennedy, Peter Convey, and Ricardo Rozzi
Abstract Despite their impressive diversity and ecosystem relev ance, insects are
undervalued and rarely considered in conservation efforts, except for those that are
medically or economically important. In terms of funding and effort, insect conser-
vation research lags far behind vertebrate research, hampering the development of
methodologies to better understand their conservation needs. This taxonomic bias
has a severe limitation in that it only gives moral consideration to our closest
T. Contador (✉) · J. Rendoll-Cárcamo · M. Gañan
Sub-Antarctic Biocultural Conservation Program, Universidad de Magallanes, Punta Arenas,
Chile
Wankara Laboratory, Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile
Núcleo Milenio de Salmónidos Invasores, Concepción, Chile
Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile
Institute of Biodiversity of Antarctic and Subantarctic Ecosystems (BASE), Santiago, Chile
e-mail: tamara.contador@umag.cl; javier.rendoll@umag.cl
J. Ojeda
School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Punta Arenas, Chile
J. Kennedy
Wankara Laboratory, Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile
Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile
Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
Sub-Antarctic Biocultural Conservation Program, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
e-mail: kennedy@unt.edu
P. Convey
Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile
British Antarctic Survey, NERC, Cambridge, UK
Institute of Biodiversity of Antarctic and Subantarctic Ecosystems (BASE), Santiago, Chile
e-mail: pcon@bas.ac.uk
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
R. Rozzi et al. (eds.), Field Environmental Philosophy, Ecology and Ethics 5,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23368-5_4
53
evolutionary relatives, excluding the vast majority of other life forms on our planet.
In this regard, the Field Environmental Philosophy (FEP) methodology provides a
platform for the development of interdisciplinary approaches to biocultural conserva-
tion that combine ecological research and environmental ethics. We integrated eco-
logical research, education, and environmental ethics over the last 15 years through the
FEP to promote and foster freshwater insect awareness, conservation, and value in the
Magellanic sub-Antarctic ecoregion of southern Chile. The FEP practice has enabled
us to reach a wide range of people and raise awareness for these under-appreciated
co-inhabitants. This methodology also promotes educational practices that encourage
direct encounters with the inhabitants, habitats, and life habits, making them “visible”
once more. Our work aims to awaken appreciation and valuation of the small
co-inhabitants with whom we share the planet by providing a platform of scientific
trainingand thinking from the earlieststages of education, with a novel combination of
disciplines aiming to reveal the intrinsic value of freshwater insects.
54 T. Contador et al.
Keywords Biocultural ethics · Field environmental philosophy · Freshwater
insects · Magellanic sub-Antarctic · Intrinsic value · Instrumental value · Taxonomic
chauvinism
4.1 Introduction
An under-appreciated and seldom considered aspect of global change is its signif-
icant impact on invertebrate organisms, mainly insects (Sánchez-Bayo and
Wyckhuys 2019). Even though insects account for more than 90% of the planet’s
terrestrial faunal diversity and powerfully influence the overall state of biodiversity,
researchers and conservation biologists pay only limited attention to their modern
extinction (Fonseca 2009; Briggs 2017). In agreement with biodiversity losses
reported in other animal taxa, declines are particularly serious among aquatic insects
(Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999). Although we have insufficient knowledge avail-
able for most countries, we know that 33% of aquatic insects are threatened
compared to 28% of terrestrial insects (Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019; Dud-
geon 2019; Cardoso et al. 2020). In addition to the impact of global warming, the
quantity and quality of water have been drastically affected by aggressive agricul-
tural practices, degradation, and fragmentation of freshwater ecosystems worldwide
(Foley et al. 2005).
R. Rozzi
Sub-Antarctic Biocultural Conservation Program, Department of Philosophy and Religion and
Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Universidad de Magallanes, Puerto Williams, Chile
e-mail: Ricardo.Rozzi@unt.edu
4 Underwater with a Hand Lens: Ecological Sciences and Environmental... 55
There is extensive evidence about the drastic insect decline; however, only 10%
of conservation funding worldwide is directed toward their conservation (Cardoso
et al. 2011; Samways et al. 2020). There is a clear taxonomic bias in conservation
research, formal education, animal rights, and conservation initiatives, with verte-
brates enormously over-represented compared to invertebrates (Clark and May
2002; New and Samways 2014; Rozzi 2019). This scenario is even more alarming
in the freshwater realm, particularly in southern South America, where research on
the ecology and conservation of terrestrial and aquatic insects is minimal compared
to other regions of the world (Contador et al. 2012; Ramírez and Gutiérrez-Fonseca
2014; Nieto et al. 2017). Research in conservation biology is dominated by verte-
brates, with work on birds and mammals receiving a high proportion of funding and
effort (Fazey et al. 2005; Di Marco et al. 2017). In particular, the limited amount of
conservation research on invertebrates is likely to affect the development of appro-
priate research methodologies to understand their conservation needs, which cannot
be easily adapted from the better-studied vertebrate groups (Pawar 2003; Di Marco
et al. 2017). This taxonomic bias creates a further severe limitation because it gives
moral consideration solely to our closest evolutionary relatives, thus excluding the
vast majority of other life forms on our planet (Rozzi 2019).
What reasons underlie these inequalities and biases favoring vertebrates? Atti-
tudes toward insects have a philosophical and ethical basis, even though these may
not be recognized (Mather 2011). Fukano and Soga (2021) have found that insects
and other terrestrial arthropods are among the most disliked and least valued
taxonomic groups of living organisms globally, especially in developed countries.
The expansion of urban societies deepens the disconnection between most humans
and the most diverse groups of animals and nature as a whole (Soga and Gaston
2016). The rapid growth of cities alienates societies from natural spaces, particularly
causing a lack of awareness and negative perceptions toward insects (Basset and
Lamarre 2019; Fukano and Soga 2021). Fukano and Soga (2021) propose the
“urbanization-disgust hypothesis,” which states that urbanization is a significant
driver of the prevalence of negative attitudes and perceptions toward insects. Urban-
ization changes ecosystems and the diversity of habitats available for insects and
other invertebrates. Consequently, it reduces the diversity of insects and direct
human interactions or “face-to-face encounters” with them. Many of the most
abundant insects in urban settings are associated with the transmission of diseases;
hence, a psychological explanation might underly pathogen-avoidance behaviors
and negative attitudes toward invertebrates. Moreover, people experience insects
more frequently indoors than outdoors, thus augmenting disgust toward them
(Fukano and Soga 2021).
Why do we hold less considerat ion for insects? Why is it possible for us to kill
them as if their lives did not matter? Animal rights have focused their attention to
sentient vertebrates; mostly mammals (see Regan 2004; Sunstein and Nussbaum
2004). People tend to care and positively value animals closely related to us and
those who can feel pain (Mather 2011). Whether insects and other invertebrates are
capable of experiencing pain is heatedly debated (Lockwood 1988; Watkins et al.
2010; Andrews 2011; Elwood 2011; Magee and Elwood 2013; Klein and Barron
2016; Adamo 2016a; Burrell 2017). The utilitarian school ascribes moral consider-
ation only to animals capable of feeling pain. Most ethicists still assume that insects
cannot suffer and have subjective experiences; therefore, there is no need for ethical
(moral) consideration for them (Rozzi 2019).
56 T. Contador et al.
The utilitarian argument is based on the distinction between an insect’s ability to
respond to potentially damaging stimuli (nociception) and the capacity to have
subjective experiences and pain (Adamo 2016b). Psychologist Shelley Adamo
(2016a) examines four areas of research that touch on whether insects feel pain:
philosophy, insect neurobiology and behavior, artificial intelligence and robotics,
and evolution. These areas have provided new evidence that invertebrates have
forms of learning, memory capacity, and consciousness (Nityananda 2016; Perry
et al. 2017). However, some contest this conclusion and the capacity of insects for
suffering (Sherwin 2001). Insects have small nervous systems distributed throughout
their bodies in the form of ganglia (Gullan and Cranston 2014; Adamo 2016a). This
disaggregation of the nervous system is thought to limit the capacity for advanced
information processing, although counter to this their principal brains contain
complex neuroanatomical features, which could be equivalent to reward circuits in
vertebrates (Adamo 2016a). In summary, the nervous systems of insects do not
constitute a limitation for feeling pain nor memory and sophisticated and complex
behaviors (Giurfa 2013).
How can we address the ethical challenges discussed above? First, we propose
that insects should be valued and treated with respect, even if only limited evidence
is available on their ability to feel pain or consciousness. Second, to support our
proposal, we provide an overview of our long-term efforts to contribute to develop-
ing knowledge, valuing, and addressing conservation challenges relating to fresh-
water invertebrates in the Magellanic sub-Antarctic ecoregion of southern Chile
(Contador et al. 2012, 2014a, 2015a). During the last fifteen years, we have
integrated ecological sciences, education, and environmental ethics through the
praxis of the Field Environmental Philosophy (FEP) methodology to contribute to
the valuing and conservation of freshwater insects, their habitats, and life habits
(Contador et al. 2018; Rendoll Cárcamo et al. 2020). Third, we discuss how taking
this approach contributes to developing positive perceptions and values toward
insects, encouraging conservation actions in the long term by communities across
local, national, and international scales.
4.2 Praxis of Field Environmental Philosophy: Ethical
Valuing of Freshwater Ecosystems and Their
Co-Inhabitants
For over twenty years, the scientific team at Omora Park in the Cape Horn Biosphere
Reserve (CHBR), Chile, has developed the Field Environmental Philosophy (FEP)
methodological approach, which integrates ecological sciences, arts, and
environmental ethics (Tauro et al. 2021). In freshwater ecology, this approach was
initially developed as part of a doctoral dissertation (Contador 2011), and it was
consolidated with a master thesis (Rendoll-Cárcamo 2018). Furthermore, to contrib-
ute toward an appreciation of insects, we adapted FEP’s Four-Step cycle, which
includes: (1) transdisciplinary research, (2) poetic communication through the com-
position of metaphors, (3) design of field activities with an ethical and ecological
orientation, and (4) in situ conservation, to contribute to biocultural conservation
(Contador et al. 2018).
4 Underwater with a Hand Lens: Ecological Sciences and Environmental... 57
4.2.1 Step 1. Transdisciplinary Research
Our transdisc iplinary research has focused on the integration of ecological sciences
and environmental philosophy:
(a) Ecological Framework Our ecological work has focused on the adaptations
and biodiversity of freshwater and terrestrial insects to global environmental change.
Our primary setting is the Róbalo River watershed protected by Omora Park (Rozzi
et al. 2006). The Róbalo River runs through a steep altitudinal gradient and provides
drinking water to Puerto Williams (Navarino Island, 55°S), and is managed as a
natural laboratory (Contador et al. 2015a; Rendoll Cárcamo et al. 2019). In January
2008, we began studies on the biodiversity, distribution, ecophysiology, and phe-
nology of aquatic insects along the altitudinal gradient. Our research goals are to
(i) monitor climatic characteristics of Magellanic sub-Antarctic freshwater ecosys-
tems; (ii) study the phenological responses of freshwater insects along altitudinal
gradients; (iii) identify species that can play the role of “sentinels of climate change,”
and (iv) develop ethical research methodologies to tackle the above objectives in the
long-term.
(b) Philosophical Framework The philosophical basis of our long-term
multidisciplinary work includes the analysis and practice of biocultural ethics. It
contributes a new eco-philosophical paradigm to value the vital links that sustain the
life habits of living beings interacting with the other co-inhabitants with whom they
share and co-constitute habitats (Rozzi 2012, 2018). These are the “3Hs” of
biocultural ethics: co-in-Habitants, with their Habits forged in shared Habitats. The
“3Hs” model recovers the understanding that we are part of communities of
co-inhabitants, and the valuation of caring relationships, complementarity, and
reciprocity, which emerge in sharing in general and in sharing habitats in particular
(Rozzi 2019). Applying this philosophical approach contributes to the generation of
inter-specific relationships between humans and the other living beings with whom
we co-inhabit (Rozzi 2013). We primarily focus on overcoming the conceptual
omission of the intrinsic value of freshwater invertebrates, their habits, and habitats.
To recognize and ethically value the community of diverse life forms as
co-inhabitants, we must overcome the dualistic view between the subject (human)
and object (non-human). This dualism between subject and object has been
pervasive, deeply embedded in Western thought. It is at the root of various interre-
lated dualisms, such as activity (or agency) versus passivity or resonating in culture
versus nature (Klaver 2013). This way of perceiving the world implies a
preconceived sense of superiority over all non-human beings, resulting in an implied
legitimization of their use, domination, and exploitation (Klaver 2013). In the
science realm, a “logic of the specimen” has prevailed studying animals and plants
as individuals separated from their habitats. They are considered objects of study,
which can be used and exploited to fulfill research objectives (Rozzi 2019). To
overcome this dualism in freshwater ecology, the result of our long-term research
has been the creation of a new methodology to observe, study, and value freshwater
invertebrates in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve. This methodology can be a pplied
in other places of the world (Box 4.1).
58 T. Contador et al.
Box 4.1 Can We Justify the Collection and Killing of Hundreds
of Individual Insects in Entomological Research?
In this box, we present a novel ethical research methodology for ecological
studies in freshwater ecosystems. Entomologists use a variety of methods to
collect a large number of insects to help answer a variety of ecological
questions. This is not to say that entomologists do not value insects, as most
follow informal and formal codes of conduct as well as collection regulations
such as not indiscriminately collecting rare insects if this could lead to
population decline or extinction (Didham et al. 2019). However, these codes
only consider individual insects as general exemplars of their species and tend
to focus on their instrumental value within ecosystems (Didham et al. 2019;
Fischer and Larson 2019). This common practice in scientific research often
considers individuals, populations, communities, and ecosystems as mere
objects of study. From the perspective of biocultural ethics, insects are con-
sidered subjects, co-inhabitants that have an intrinsic value. Most ethical
debate fails to propose actions to overcome dualities and ethical considerations
in entomological research. We agree with Bob Fischer and Brendon Larson
(2019) that “entomologists should aspire to study insects without killing
them.” For this reason, we developed a methodology based on the 3H
approach to avoid causing pain and death in insects (and other invertebrates)
by both researching and respec ting their habits and habitats (Contador et al.
2018). This methodology includes the following phases:
1. Rigorous training in-situ and in the laboratory. Researchers undergo an
in-depth training process to identify each species in the field. After the
training, researchers are able to identify in situ each species within its
habitat of origin. Scientists conduct all observations regarding the species
of interest within its habitat (Fig. 4.1).
2. Habitat characterization, sampling, and identification of
co-inhabitants. Researchers take samples using conventional methods
(continued)
4 Underwater with a Hand Lens: Ecological Sciences and Environmental... 59
Box 4.1 (continued)
(e.g., Surber samplers or D-frame nets) to ensure the quantitative rigor of
sampling techniques. In the field, researchers conduct standard habitat
assessments (e.g., physico-chemical habitat characterization) and sample-
targeted species. Identification and quantification are performed in situ.
Identification of invertebrates may be difficult depending on the season of
the year. Fo r example, insects in early developmental stages cannot be
identified with the naked eye, so they must be observed with a stereoscope
at a laboratory. In such cases, specimens are reared in the laboratory under
controlled temperature and physico-chem ical water conditions to ensure
their survival (Fig. 4.1).
3. Analyses and return to the habitat. When organisms are transported to
the laboratory for identification or to conduct phenological studies, organ-
isms must be carefully measured. In this case, invertebrates are transported
alive to the laboratory, where they are kept in oxygenated aquariums to be
photographed and measured with stereoscopic magnifiers. Once all obser-
vations and measurements are made, the invertebrates are carefully and
respectfully returned to their habitat of origin (Fig. 4.1). In most cases,
however, we conduct our observations in the field. In these cases, organ-
isms are delicately removed from their micro-habitats (e.g., rocks, aquatic
plants) to be counted and identified. Afterward, they are immediately
returned to their exact original place in the stream.
4.2.2 Step 2. Composition of Metaphors: The River
as a Community of Life and Aquatic Insects, Invisible
Sentinels
Metaphors are considered cultural messengers, which not only constitute a purely
linguistic expression and are also a fundamental part of the cognitive structure of
human beings (Rozzi 1999). The Greek root of the word “metaphor” means “to
transfer or carry” and implies communication between the biophysical and cultural
domains (Larson 2006). To help overcome the conceptual omission of the intrinsic
value of freshwater invertebrates, their habit s, and habitats, we collectively com-
posed the metaphor “The River as a Community of Life.” We composed this
metaphor with students and tourism guides from Puerto Williams through a series
of workshops conducted between 2010 and 2013. We also collaborated with artists,
scientists, and anthropologists associated with Omora Park (Contador et al. 2018).
The composition of metaphors took place during field activities in which participants
learned to identify, recognize, and understand essential ecological concepts about
freshwater invertebrates (Contador et al. 2018). These activities were conducted
within the conceptual framework of biocultural ethics and were based on
encouraging:
(a) Face-to-face encounters with insects through guided field experiences
(b) Contemplation and meditation about the experiences and perceptions generated
during face-to-face encount ers
(c) Ethical valuing of insects, their habitats, and habits
60 T. Contador et al.
Fig. 4.1 Illustration of a long-term study on the phenology of Edwardsina dispar (Insecta:
Diptera), a freshwater insect adapted to cold, running waters. This study exemplifies the three
phases carried out in the field and in the laboratory for an ethical treatment of aquatic insects in
ecological research. Phase 1: Researchers are trained in the field as well as in the laboratory to
identify insects and other invertebrates (a, b, c). Phase 2: Habitat characterization, sampling, and
identification of the co-inhabitants occur in the field, when possible (d, e, f). Phase 3: If necessary,
invertebrates are transported to the laboratory, where they are respectfully maintained in oxygen-
ated containers with elements from their habitat to be measured and analyzed (g, h). When all
measurements are finished, the invertebrates are returned to their habitat (i). Photographs by
Gonzalo Arriagada (a, d, e, f, and i); Tamara Contador (b); Javier Rendoll (c and g)
4 Underwater with a Hand Lens: Ecological Sciences and Environmental... 61
Fig. 4.2 Methodological sequence of five phases to contribute to biocultural conservation through
the composition and implementation of metaphors in communicational processes about the various
values of living beings. Figure adapted from Rozzi (2013), and Contador et al. (2018).
“Direct encounters” stimulate reflections on the various values that we assign to
insects and other invertebrates. As participants reflected upon the importance of
insects for the overall health of the river, metaphors contributed to the understanding
of key ecological concepts such as nutrient cycling and phenology. Participants
described aquatic insect communities as “insect villages ” and found that these
“villages” resembled the communities in which they lived. The river was not “just
water and stones,” but a “place full of life,” much like Puerto Williams . In this way,
with a process that combines participatory fieldwork, readings, and reflections, the
metaphor The River as a Community of Life was created (Fig. 4.2)
Another metaphor was composed: Aquatic Insects, Invisible Sentinels. This
metaphor highlights the instrumental value or usefulness freshwater insects as
sentinels of a persistent problem: global environmental change. The adjective
“invisible” denotes that insects (and other invertebrates), as well as their habitats
and life habits, are little known and undervalued in both conservation strategies and
everyday culture (Rendoll Cárcamo et al. 2020). The scientific literature focused on
the usefulness of invertebrates as bioindicators exceed by orders of magnitude the
literature dedicated to their state of conservation (Contador et al. 2012; Ramírez and
Gutiérrez-Fonseca 2014). Hence, the term “invisible” catalyzes a breakdown of
scientific and conservation paradigms, inviting students and other citizens to join
the action of observing, inquiring, and knowing. Finally, through metaphors and
face-to-face encounters with the Róbalo River and its co-inhabitants, participants
recognized them as living subjects. When people experience a face-to-face encounter
with these tiny organisms, they have an opportunity to live an ethical transformation:
they stop defining them as objects and begin to appreciate and accept them as other
subjects with whom we share habitats and some life habits. In this way, the “utility”
of the insect (for example, as an indicator of water quality or “sentinel” of climate
change) ceases to be the only value of these organisms, and participants recognize
their intrinsic value and dignity.
62 T. Contador et al.
4.2.3 Step 3. Design of Field Activities with an Ecological
and Ethical Orientation: Underwater with a Hand
Lens
To counteract the phenomenon of the extinction of experience, and to share new
knowledge and discoveries generated by research on invertebrates in sub-Antarctic
freshwater ecosystems, we designed the activity, Underwater with a Hand Lens.
This activity was designed with school and university students in 2009. The “Omora
Workshop on the Environment” at the local school included studies and weekly field
activities on the Róbalo and other rivers near Puerto Williams. Afterward, we
extended the practice of Underwater with a Hand Lens from formal education into
scientific tourism. This novel educational and ecotourism activity continues to be
practiced today, and it helps visitors discover, appreciate, and ethically value the
underwater inhabitants, habits, and habitats. It is organized in the following three
phases (Fig. 4.3):
First Phase: Habitat Observation Participants observe and identify river habitats
and learn to recognize the connections with riparian ecosystems. Through observa-
tion, they understand how terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems interact, noting how
tree leaves and branches fall into the river and become food for insects and other
invertebrates. Familiarization with both micro and macro habitats is essential to
understand the role played by the different co-inhabitants that make up the “com-
munity of life.” For example, “inver tebrate inhabitants” live between aquatic and
terrestrial habitats, moving from one habitat to another during the different stages of
their life cycles. Macro-habitat refers to different ecosystems at a landscape scale
(e.g., high Andean, riverine, lacustrine habitats). Micro-habitat refers to smaller-
scale structures within an ecosystem (e.g., submerged plants, woody debris, leaf
packs, or rocks within a particular portion of a river or lake).
Second Phase: Face-to-Face Encounters Using a net, a hand lens, spoons, and/or
soft-touch forceps, participants collect a small part of a micro-habitat, recording the
exact sampling location. The micro-habitat sample is placed in a container with
water, and participants watch as inver tebrates, or “underwater co-inhabitants,” begin
moving in the container. Then, with the help of a magnifying glass, they carefully
observe the diversity of morphologies of our submerged co-inhabitants and their life
4 Underwater with a Hand Lens: Ecological Sciences and Environmental... 63
Fig. 4.3 Underwater with a Hand Lens in the rivers of the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile.
The activity is performed in three phases. (1) Observing and recognizing macro- and micro-habitats;
(2) Face-to-face encounter with co-inhabitants; (3) valuing and respecting co-inhabitants, their life
habits, and habitats. Adapted from Contador et al. (2018). Photographs by Gonzalo Arriagada.
Design and composition of illustrations by Felipe Portilla and Silvia Lazzarino
habits (e.g., eating behaviors and movements), relating them to the micro- and
macro-habitats identified in the previous step.
64 T. Contador et al.
Third Phase: Respecting the Habitats, Habits, and Co-Inhabitants
of the River After observing the invertebrates, the participants return each micro-
habitat sample to the exact place where they found it. They pay special attention to
include all of its original insect co-inhabitants. This proces s is not trivial. During the
field experiences, students from Puerto Williams discovered that the richness and
abundance of invertebrates varied according to the type of micro-habitat and that
there was a greater diversity and abundance of invertebrates on the rocky bottoms of
the rivers. Through this explor ation, the students concluded that most invertebrates
live in rocky micro-habitats. Consequently, students proposed valuing and respect-
ing their home or “habitats” by returning the rocks to precisely the same place where
they were found. This exercise is a concrete action that integrates cognition and
emotion, triggering an ethical transformation: the stone ceased to be just a rock. The
rock now is perceived as the home of other-than-human co-inhabitants, which
should be respected and valued. Participants stop seeing the freshwater insects as
mere objects and begin to appreciate them as subjects and co-inhabitants, who
unfold their life habits within habitats in which we all co-inhabit.
4.2.4 Step 4. In-situ Conservation: Underwater Inhabitants
of Cape Horn Interpretative Trail
The Magellanic sub-Antarctic ecoregion is one of the last pristine areas of the planet.
Nevertheless, it is under increasing pressures due to climate change, invasive
species, and biocultural homogenization. If well directed, tourism can contribute
positively to this region’s socio-economic well-being and biocultural conservation
(Tauro et al. 2021). In this context, we designed, built, and implemented the
Underwater inhabitants of Cape Horn interpretative trail at Omora Park. This trail
provides an in-situ conservation platform to share research results by using the
metaphor The River as a Community of Life and the praxis of the activity Under-
water with a Hand Lens (Fig. 4.4). An essent ial part of the narrative along this trail
and its interpretive stations signal the appreciation for:
(a) The small and large patterns in the landscape (habitats)
(b) The diverse co-inhabitants of the Róbalo River watershed
(c) The life habits associated with ecological interactions among co-inhabitants and
processes that link terrestrial with aquatic ecosystems
Visitors are guided throughout five interpretive stations which illustrate contrasting
facets of the habitats of the Róbalo River valley (see Contador et al. 2018). Visitors
appreciate how different life stage and habits of insects are associated with different
plants and types of freshwater and terrestrial habitats (see Contador and Kennedy
2014).
4 Underwater with a Hand Lens: Ecological Sciences and Environmental... 65
Fig. 4.4 Underwater co-Inhabitants of Cape Horn Interpretative Trail at Omora Park. Platforms
enable respectful observation of the invertebrate co-inhabitants within their river habitats (a, b).
FEP participants and other visitors are guided to have “direct encounters” with invertebrates and to
identify them in situ, often using field guides and other support materials (c). Meridiolaris
chiloensis, a mayfly that is one of the most common co-inhabitants in the Róbalo River (d).
Adapted from Contador et al. (2014b). Photographs by Gonzalo Arriagada
4.3 Concluding Remarks
There is an urgent need to rekindle the excitement and fascination for nature that is
inborn within us (Wilson 1984; Simaika and Samways 2010). From 2010 to 2020,
the interdisciplinary research and the metaphors described above have been shared
with over 3000 visitors participating in various activities at Omora Park. Visitors
include students, teachers, tourists, local people, public authorities, and researchers
from around the world. We have disseminated the knowledge and concepts through
over 200 publications ranging from social media to scientific publications as well as
books that provide information for school education, tourism operators, and citizens
who wish to learn about freshwater invertebrates in the Cape Horn Biosphere
Reserve (Contador et al. 2014b; Contador and Kennedy 2014; Contador et al.
2015b). Interaction with a broad array of participants is essential to achieve
biocultural conservation (Rozzi et al. 2006). The protection of the habitat is indis-
pensable for conserving the community of freshwater co-inhabitants and the contin-
uation of formal and non-formal educational activities. Through FEP, students learn
that for achieving biocultural conservation scientific research is necessary but not
sufficient; it requires continuous long-term transdisciplinary work. To strengthen the
conservation of the Róbalo River, we are currently working on a proposal for legally
considering it as a subject of biocultural rights, as it has been done for rivers in
New Zealand, India, and Colombia (Macpherson and Ospina 2015;O’Donnell
2018).
66 T. Contador et al.
The praxis of FEP as it applies to freshwater insects in the CHBR has allowed us
to reach a wide cross-section of people and increase awareness and value for these
under-perceived co-inhabitants. However, the inclusion of insects in formal educa-
tion remains limited. This is particularly problematic because early childhood
experiences are central in fostering pro-active support of environmental causes
(Lemelin et al. 2017). The FEP methodology supports a diversity of educational
practices that promote discovery, understanding, and valuation of the inherent
uniqueness of habitats, life habits, and diversity of co-inhabitants in specific habitats.
Direct exposure to natural habitats, its beauty, and its diversity of co-inhabitants, has
become an increasingly rare experience in formal education as well as in everyday
life (Feinsinger et al. 1997; Leopold 2004; Smith 2004; Louv 2008). For FEP
participants, the experience of direct “face-to-face” encounters with co-inhabitants
and their habitats has been essential toward obtaining a biocultural understanding
(Rozzi et al. 2006). We extended the original concept of “face-to-face” encou nters
developed by philosopher Emanuel Lévinas within the realm of human ethics (Davy
2007) to include encounters with other-than-human co-inhabitants. These face-to-
face encounters have enabled FEP participants to stop understanding biocultural
diversity merely as a concept and engage in experiences of co-inhabitation with
diverse living beings with their life histories that regularly remain outside the scopes
considered in formal education and decision-making processes (Rozzi et al. 2008).
Educational activities that include insects in their purview provide training and
scientific thinking platforms from preschool to higher education, society, industry,
and policymakers. Direct encounters with these small co-inhabitants, their habitats,
and habits have amazed visitors and encouraged an appreciation for aquatic insects,
making them “visible” (Contador et al. 2018; Rendoll Cárcamo et al. 2020). Such
activities also have provided platforms for training and developing scientific think-
ing from the earliest stage s of education by integrating disciplines into novel
approaches that combine a scientific, aesthetic, and ethical appreciation of inverte-
brates. In this way, we make a valuable contribution from the extreme south of the
Americas that has global application for the appreciation and valuation of the small
co-inhabitants with whom we share the planet.
Acknowledgment Authors Contador, Ojeda, and Rozzi received basal support from the Cape
Horn International Center (CHIC) - ANID PIA/BASAL (PFB210018).
References
Adamo S (2016a) Do insects feel pain? A question at the intersection of animal behaviour,
philosophy and robotics. Anim Behav 118:75–79
4 Underwater with a Hand Lens: Ecological Sciences and Environmental... 67
Adamo S (2016b) Subjective experience in insects: definitions and other difficulties. Animal
Sentience 1:15
Andrews PLR (2011) Introduction: laboratory invertebrates: only spineless, or spineless and
painless? ILAR J 52:121–125
Basset Y, Lamarre G (2019) Toward a world that values insects. Science 364:1230–1231
Briggs JC (2017) Emergence of a sixth mass extinction? Biol J Linnean Soc 122:243–248
Burrell BD (2017) Comparative biology of pain: What invertebrates can tell us about how
nociception works. J Neurophysiol 117:1461–1473
Cardoso P, Erwin T, Borges P, New T (2011) The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation
and how to overcome them. Biol Conserv 144:2647–2655
Cardoso P, Barton PS, Birkhofer K et al (2020) Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect
extinctions. Biol Conserv 242:108426
Clark JA, May RM (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297:191–192
Contador T, Kennedy J (2014) Underwater Inhabitants of the rivers of Cape Horn. Universidad de
Magallanes
Contador T, Kennedy J, Ojeda J et al (2014a) Life cycles of freshwater invertebrates and global
climate change in the sub-Antarctic Magellanic ecoregion: long-term ecological research at the
Omora .... Bosque
Contador T, Méndez M, Medina Y et al (2014b) Río Róbalo Comunidad de Vida
Contador T, Kennedy JH, Rozzi R, Villarroel JO (2015a) Sharp altitudinal gradients in magellanic
sub-antarctic streams: patterns along a fluvial system in the cape horn biosphere reserve (55°S).
Polar Biol 38:1853–1866
Contador T, Rosenfeld S, Ojeda J, Kennedy J (2015b) Historia natural de los invertebrados
acuáticos del Cabo de Hornos. Universidad de Magallanes
Contador T, Rozzi R, Kennedy J et al (2018) Sumergidos con lupa en los ríos del cabo de hornos:
Valoración ética de los ecosistemas dulceacuícolas y sus co-habitantes. Magallania (Punta
Arenas) 46:183–206
Contador TA (2011) Benthic macroinvertebrates of temperate, sub-Antarctic streams: the effects of
altitudinal zoning and temperature on the phenology of aquatic insects associated to the Róbalo
river, Navarino Island (55 S), Chile. University of North Texas. Denton, Texas, USA. Doctorate
Dissertation University of North Texas
Contador TA, Kennedy JH, Rozzi R (2012) The conservation status of southern South American
aquatic insects in the literature. Biodiv Conserv 21(8):2095–2107
Davy BJ (2007) An other face of ethics in Levinas. Ethics Environ 12:39–65
Di Marco M, Chapman S, Althor G et al (2017) Changing trends and persisting biases in three
decades of conservation science. Glob Ecol Conserv 10:32–42
Didham R, Leather S, Basset Y (2019) Ethics in entomology. Antenna 43:124–125
Dudgeon D (2019) Multiple threats imperil freshwater biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Curr Biol
29:R960–R967
Elwood RW (2011) Pain and suffering in invertebrates? ILAR J 52:175–184
Fazey I, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2005) What do conservation biologists publish? Biol Conserv
124:63–73
Feinsinger P, Margutti L, Oviedo RD (1997) School yards and nature trails: ecology education
outside the university. Trends Ecol Evol 12:115–120
Fischer B, Larson BMH (2019) Collecting insects to conserve them: a call for ethical caution. Insect
Conserv Divers 12:173–182
Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574
Fonseca CR (2009) The silent mass extinction of insect herbivores in biodiversity hotspots. Conserv
Biol 23:1507–1515
Fukano Y, Soga M (2021) Why do so many modern people hate insects? The urbanization–disgust
hypothesis. Sci Total Environ 777:146229
Giurfa M (2013) Cognition with few neurons: higher-order learning in insects. Trends Neurosci 36:
285–294
68 T. Contador et al.
Gullan PJ, Cranston PS (2014) The insects: an outline of entomology. John Wiley & Sons
Klaver I (2013) Environment imagination situation. In: Ricardo Rozzi STA, Pickett CP, Armesto JJ,
Baird Callicott J (eds) Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world, values, philosophy and
actions. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 85–108
Klein C, Barron AB (2016) Insects have the capacity for subjective experience. Anim Sentience 1:1
Larson BMH (2006) The social resonance of competitive and progressive evolutionary metaphors.
Bioscience 56:997
Lemelin RH, Dampier J, Harper R et al (2017) Perceptions of insects: a visual analysis. Soc Anim
25:553–572
Leopold AC (2004) Living with the land ethic. Bioscience 54:149–154
Lockwood JA (1988) Not to harm a fly: our ethical obligations to insects. Between Species Online J
Study Philos Anim 4:. https://doi.org/10.15368/bts.1988v4n3.10
Louv R (2008) Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin
Books
Macpherson E, Ospina F (2015) The pluralism of river rights in Aotearoa, New Zealand and
Colombia. J Water Law 25:283–293
Magee B, Elwood RW (2013) Shock avoidance by discrimination learning in the shore crab
(Carcinus maenas) is consistent with a key criterion for pain. J Exp Biol 216:353–358
Mather JA (2011) Philosophical background of attitudes toward and treatment of invertebrates.
ILAR J 52:205–212
New TR, Samways MJ (2014) Insect conservation in the southern temperate zones: an overview.
Aust Entomol 53:26–31
Nieto C, Ovando XMC, Loyola R et al (2017) The role of macroinvertebrates for conservation of
freshwater systems. Ecol Evol 7:5502–5513
Nityananda V (2016) Attention-like processes in insects. Proc Biol Sci 283. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2016.1986
O’Donnell E (2018) Legal rights for rivers: Competition, collaboration and water governance.
Routledge
Pawar S (2003) Taxonomic Chauvinism and the methodologically challenged. Bioscience 53:861–
864
Perry CJ, Barron AB, Chittka L (2017) The frontiers of insect cognition. Curr Opin Behav Sci 16:
111–118
Ramírez A, Gutiérrez-Fonseca PE (2014) Estudios sobre macroinvertebrados acuáticos en América
Latina: avances recientes y direcciones futuras. Revista de Biología Tropical 62:9–20
Regan T (2004) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, Berkley
Rendoll Cárcamo J, Contador T, Gañán M et al (2019) Altitudinal gradients in Magellanic
sub-Antarctic lagoons: the effect of elevation on freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and
distribution. PeerJ 7:e7128
Rendoll Cárcamo J, Contador T, Gañán M (2020) Filosofía Ambiental de Campo: Educación e
investigación para la valoración ecológica y ética de los insectos dulceacuícolas. Magallania
(Punta)
Rendoll-Cárcamo J (2018) Variación estacional y altitudinal en la diversidad, distribución y
tolerancias térmicas de macroinvertebrados dulceacuícolas sub-Antárticos: en la búsqueda de
bioindicadores térmicos para el cambio climático global. Tesis de Magíster. Punta Arenas,
Chile: Departamento de Recursos Naturales ...
Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1999) Extinction rates of North American Freshwater Fauna. Conserv
Biol 13:1220–1222
Rozzi R (1999) The reciprocal links between evolutionary-ecological sciences and environmental
ethics. Bioscience 49:911–921
Rozzi R (2012) Biocultural ethics: recovering the vital links between the inhabitants, their habits,
and habitats. Environ Ethics 34(1):27–50
4 Underwater with a Hand Lens: Ecological Sciences and Environmental... 69
Rozzi R (2018) Biocultural conservation and biocultural ethics. In: et al. From biocultural homog-
enization to biocultural conservation. Ecology and ethics, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-99513-7_19
Rozzi R (2019) Taxonomic Chauvinism, No More!: antidotes from hume, darwin, and biocultural
ethics. Environ Ethics 41:249–282
Rozzi R, Massardo F, Anderson CB et al (2006) Ten principles for biocultural conservation at the
southern tip of the Americas: the approach of the Omora Ethnobotanical Park. Ecol Soc 11
Rozzi R, Arango X, Massardo F et al (2008) Field environmental philosophy and biocultural
conservation: the Omora Ethnobotanical Park educational program. Environ Ethics 30:325–336
Rozzi R, Pickett ST, Palmer C et al (2013) Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world: values,
philosophy, and action. Springer, Dordrecht
Samways MJ, Barton PS, Birkhofer K et al (2020) Solutions for humanity on how to conserve
insects. Biol Conserv 242:108427
Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KAG (2019) Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its
drivers. Biol Conserv 232:8–27
Sherwin CM (2001) Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy? Anim Welf
10:103–118
Simaika JP, Samways MJ (2010) Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conserv
Biol 24:903–906
Smith D (2004) Issues and trends in higher education biology fieldwork. J Biol Educ 39:6–10
Soga M, Gaston KJ (2016) Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Front
Ecol Environ 14:94–101
Sunstein CR, Nussbaum MC (2004) Animal rights: current debates and new directions. Oxford
University Press
Tauro A, Ojeda J, Caviness T et al (2021) Field environmental philosophy: a biocultural ethic
approach to education and ecotourism for sustainability. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 13:4526
Watkins AJ, Goldstein DA, Lee LC et al (2010) Lobster attack induces sensitization in the sea hare,
Aplysia californica. J Neurosci 30:11028–11031
Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press
