Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management ISSN: 1463-4988 (Print) 1539-4077 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaem20 Prayer animal release: An understudied pathway for introduction of invasive aquatic species Kit Magellan To cite this article: Kit Magellan (2019) Prayer animal release: An understudied pathway for introduction of invasive aquatic species, Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 22:4, 452-461, DOI: 10.1080/14634988.2019.1691433 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2019.1691433 Accepted author version posted online: 06 Dec 2019. Published online: 27 Feb 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 22 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaem20 Prayer animal release: An understudied pathway for introduction of invasive aquatic species Kit Magellan University of Battambang, Battambang, Cambodia [email protected] It is more cost effective to prevent invasions than to eradicate or control invasive species once they are established. We therefore need a thorough knowledge of the pathways by which invasive species are introduced. Prayer animal release is the mainly Buddhist and Taoist tradition of releasing captive animals to gain merit. Although it is assumed to benefit the animals being released as well as the practitioners, prayer release as it is currently practiced has negative impacts that are at odds with the intended compassion. Major impacts are the introduction of invasive species and enhancement of spread and establishment. In this overview, I detail what is currently known about prayer release for aquatic invasions and provide consensus views of the best ways to address any potential impacts. Prayer release is rarely investigated as a potential pathway for introduction of invasive species and there is a marked lack of research on the subject, especially in aquatic ecosystems. Invasion research- ers urgently need to 1) conduct research to establish the extent and impacts of prayer release, 2) engage with faith-based groups to encourage alteration of the practice so that it maintains its spiritual intent while promoting ecological responsibility, and 3) recognize prayer release as a major pathway for the introduction of invasive species. Keywords: mercy release, merit release, religious release, introduction pathways, conservation- religion cooperation Introduction use, escape from aquaculture facilities, intentional release from aquaria or as a form of biocontrol, and Eradicating invasive species once they have unintentional release of ‘hitchhikers’ such as para- established is notoriously difficult (Mack et al., sites (Bax et al., 2001; Hulme et al., 2008; Molnar 2000; Lockwood et al., 2007; Simberloff, 2009), et al., 2008; Duggan, 2010; Clarke Murray et al., especially in aquatic ecosystems (Dudgeon et al., 2011; Lapointe et al., 2016). However, one active 2006; Simberloff et al., 2014). It is more cost introduction pathway which is rarely considered is effective to avert invasions by preventing these prayer animal release. species from being introduced (Simberloff et al., Prayer animal release is the practice of 'releas- 2013; Lockwood, et al., 2007). To do this, we ing' animals for religious purposes (Severinghaus need to know how this is occuring. Some and Chi, 1999; Shiu and Stokes, 2008; Liu et al., common pathways in aquatic ecosystems are via 2012, 2013; Wasserman et al., 2019). This shipping, ballast water or attachment to ship hulls, traditional, mainly Buddhist and Taoist practice together with canal construction, recreational boat (Shiu and Stokes, 2008; Liu et al., 2012, 2013; 452 Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 22(4):452–461, 2019. Copyright # 2019 AEHMS. ISSN: 1463-4988 print / 1539-4077 online DOI: 10.1080/14634988.2019.1691433 Magellan / Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 22 (2019) 452–461 453 Awoyemi et al., 2016), dates back to the fifth or animals may be so high that often hunters are sixth century (Shiu and Stokes, 2008; Pu, 2014; waiting to recapture them once they have been Li and Davey, 2013). Prayer release is rooted in released, thus increasing the risk of death (Shiu a deep respect for the environment and motivated and Stokes 2008; Gilbert et al., 2012). Other gen- by a desire to cause no harm to any living thing eral adverse effects on biodiversity include gen- (Liu et al., 2013; Pu, 2014). Its adherents believe etic swamping (i.e. the replacement of local that releasing animals benefits the living creatures genotypes by hybrids or large numbers of non- they release, which may improve the karma of native genotypes), competition, vulnerability to the releaser and their loved ones and remove predation, and disease (Awoyemi et al., 2012a, life's obstacles (Agoramoorthy and Hsu, 2005; 2016). In addition to extreme animal suffering, Shiu and Stokes, 2008; Liu et al., 2013). It is the release of so many animals raises human called fangsheng in Chinese, hoj o-e in Japanese, health concerns. For example, of 94 birds tested and tshe thar in Tibetan. It is also known as reli- that were obtained from around Buddhist pagodas gious release (Liu et al., 2013), merit release in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and likely destined (Guttierrez et al., 2011; Gilbert et al., 2012), for prayer release, 50 birds tested positive for wildlife release (Shiu and Stokes, 2008), animal H5N1 (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza) viral liberation (The Mahayana Buddhist Association: RNA while 24 carried infectious particles on http://www.fpmtmba.org.hk/), life release, lucky their feathers (Gutierrez et al. 2011). The pres- release and mercy release, although mercy release ence and potential transfer of other zoonotic dis- usually includes other forms of compassionate eases remains to be investigated. Also under- release, such as release from the aquarium trade investigated are ecosystem level impacts of for non-religious reasons (e.g. Rixon et al, 2005; prayer release. Such impacts must therefore be Duggan, 2010). Large scale events organized by extrapolated from other studies of released ani- temples are known as Ceremonial animal releases mals. However, arguably the primary environ- (Severinghaus and Chi, 1999). It is most wide- mental and ecological issue is the introduction of spread in Asia (Severinghaus and Chi, 1999; invasive species (Severinghaus and Chi, 1999; Awoyemi et al., 2012a; Liu et al., 2013), with Shui and Stokes, 2008; Gilbert et al., 2012; reports from China (Liu et al., 2012, 2013), Awoyemi et al., 2012a, 2016). One tenet of prayer Taiwan (Agoramoorthy and Hsu, 2005), release is that all animals should benefit, so if a Cambodia (Gilbert et al., 2012) and Hong Kong new species becomes available it will be preferen- (Shiu and Stokes, 2008); but also occurs world- tially released. Moreover, market availability is a wide, for example in the U.K., U.S.A, Canada major influence on what species are released with and Australia (Shiu and Stokes, 2008; Awoyemi practitioners purchasing whatever species are et al., 2012a; Liu et al., 2013). In this paper, I available rather than specifying designated spe- use 'prayer release' as a label for this practice so cies (Liu et al 2013). Many of the species released it is clear that religious release of animals is the during religious ceremonies are thus exotics focus, but note that the many other names given (Figure 2; Shiu and Stokes, 2008; Liu et al., 2012, are used in other literature. 2013; Awoyemi et al., 2012, 2016; Wasserman Prayer animal release poses a paradox. et al., 2019). For example, prayer release was the Despite the intended compassion and respect, it major source of intentional animal introductions has several potential negative effects for the ani- in Taiwan (Chinese report cited in Shui and mals that are being released, the humans doing Stokes, 2008). If these exotic species become the releasing, and the environments into which established, it can have serious consequences for they are being released (Shiu and Stokes, 2008; the recipient ecosystems. Invasive species are a Awoyemi et al., 2012a, 2016; Liu et al., 2013). major driver of global change (e.g. Lockwood Animals must firstly be obtained to be set free et al 2007; Ricciardi 2007) and biodiversity loss and sometimes come from captive breeding, e.g. (e.g. Lockwood et al 2007; Brook et al 2008) and aquaculture facilities, but more often are captured their impacts may be far reaching. from the wild. Many animals die during capture Although prayer animal release has been and in captivity (Figure 1; Shiu and Stokes 2008; reported in the scientific literature for around Awoyemi et al., 2012, 2016) and the demand for twenty years (Figure 3; Liu et al., 2012), little 454 Magellan / Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 22 (2019) 452–461 Figure 1. Turtle without its shell. For sale by vendors at the Royal Botanical Gardens, Siem Reap, Cambodia. This animal was replaced the following day. Photo credit: Hang Chansophea, April 2019. Magellan / Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 22 (2019) 452–461 455 Figure 3. The frequency of publications and reports associat- ing prayer animal release with biological invasions from 1999 to 2019: large white circles – articles covering any species or ecosystem that mention that prayer release may promote bio- logical invasions; medium grey circles – the subset of articles that examine prayer release as an invasion pathway specific- ally for aquatic ecosystems or species; small black circles – systematic studies that investigate prayer animal release and biological invasions. to commercialization of the practice (Shui and Stokes, 2008), Urgent action is thus needed to avoid further devastating potential impacts of prayer release. Occurrences and impacts Figure 2. Animals for sale for prayer release by one vendor on the Yen Stream, Huang Pagoda, near Ha Noi, Vietnam: a) The lack of systematic data (Shiu and Stokes, buckets containing release animals, 50% of which were b) 2008) together with the difficulty of studying Red-Eared Sliders.