Natural selection is one of the fundamental mechanisms of evolution in addition to migration, genetic drift and mutation. (Evolution 101, 2008). There are a number of factors which are vital in making up the theory of natural selection as stated: The main objective of all species is reproduction, survival and being able to pass on their genes down the generations. As their populations increase, there will be lack of adequate resources to support them therefore due to the competition for the resources some will perish. The ones perishing are those not fit for the competition for survival in the prevailing conditions. The other organisms which survive usually have some genetic compositions which will enable them to survive and thus only the superior organisms will be left to continue reproducing (Biology Online, 2000).
Biodiversity is the multiplicity of living things on this planet at all the ranks, right from the genes of organisms to whole ecosystems, and the various ways in which they all depend on one another and the ecological processes and evolutionary procedures that create and put up the ecological systems which are referred to as the biomes (Connexions, 2008). These are featured by the ways in which the inhabiting organisms adapt to them and it is the existence of these organisms on which the ecosystems depend and therefore it is evident that this diversity of organisms on earth has been very instrumental in evolution.
Studies in evolution have shown that in a situation whereby there is huge diversity in a particular genus or family, then its chances of being able to endure any adverse environmental changes will be much higher (Trowbridge J, 2003). In this regard it is evident that to a great extent, evolution is dependent on biodiversity. In the recent years man has made a big, perhaps the biggest contribution towards the changes occurring in the environments and the effect has been that many organisms, both flora and fauna, have found the rate of change brought about by man to be unbearable and this has led to their demise. The main reason for this is the interference with the diversity o the living things on earth as they cannot adapt to the changes.
Since different organisms are suited for different purposes within an ecosystem, biodiversity offers ecological stability in an ecosystem and therefore when the variety of organisms in an ecosystem reduces, there are some important roles which are not preformed and this leads to hardships for other organisms and finally their extinction if they cannot adapt to the situation.(Importance of Biodiversity, 2008) Biodiversity is important in helping to stop possibilities of gene erosion. This is a situation whereby many species may vanish from an ecosystem. This may be occasioned by changes in their ecosystem.
In a biologically diverse ecosystem, there are multiple organisms which are all supported by more or less the same kinds of resources. The more the organisms in a particular ecosystem, the more there will be interdependence amongst them thus leading to higher survival rates of the offspring (Trowbridge J, 2003). This may not be the case for a long period of time, since slowly the populations will start growing higher and putting pressure on the support system. This high diversity will mean that competition among the organisms will also be much more complicated and more intense. This will therefore mean that the environment will be adverse thus necessitating adaptation of these organisms to the prevailing conditions. The ones which are not able to adjust will either have to migrate or die off. The result of such a situation is that there will be newer organisms which, due to the ecological conditions presented by the biodiversity, have changed to enable them survive further. This is in contrast to a situation where there might be fewer organisms inhabiting an ecosystem. With less competition for the supporting resources, there will be no urge or impetus for adaptation, one of the fundamentals for evolution.
There has been increased emphasis on the results of the way plant interact with each other. This emphasis is due to ecologists and environmental biologists. With the increased environmental changes in the environment due to climatic and man made consequences, ecobiologists have been at pains to investigate and come up with relevant conclusions as to the complete impact of these changes. Ecologists have been forced to predict and come up with hypothesis on the responses that occur on natural systems. The interaction on these natural systems is not as simple as seen as seen through the eyes of any layman. These interactions are complex hence making the investigations on the matter seem like looking for a target in the dark, hoping to hit the bulls’ eye. Without any clear interpretation and understanding on the field of plant interaction, forecasting on plant community reaction to rising deposition in nitrogen levels and composition of plant species becomes more and more difficult. This does not eliminate the fact that there are increases in diversity to the rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Tillman 1999)
The author is an ecologist whose main area of interest is in the field of biodiversity and composition of the ecosystem. His other areas of expertise include the areas of plant stability and ecological productivity. The author pursued his PhD studies in University of Michigan in 1976. The author has published over one hundred and sixty papers. His works on the consequences of changes in Biodiversity is a result of his long exploration on how to match the human requirements be it through food resources, energy or any other services in the ecosystem. The author has conducted conclusive studies on the importance of grasslands as a source of biofuels.
In his article ” The Ecological Consequences of Changes IN Biodiversity: A Search for General Principles.” David focuses on results of an experiment that lasted 20 years. He also formulates theories and comes up with models to try and forecast on diversity versus stability in plant community and other variances. Man’s ruthless supremacy over his environment has led to a reduction in the variety of species in the habitat all around the world (Tillman 1999). As of today animals and plants alike are becoming extinct due to environmental threats. The full impact of the consequences remains to be fully evaluated as only hypothesis have been drawn out.
Research Methodology
The author uses field experiments that were carried over a long period of time. Data collected from 200 plots in grassland fields in Minnesota. The data provided information on the number of unlike species in an area and biomass that has been formed in each community. Quantitative observations in combination with theories based on mechanistics were used as evidence to test the hypothesis. These hypotheses strongly pointed that the impact on the processes driving the ecosystem are closely linked to the biodiversity. The author used 245 plots that measured 9 meters by 9 meters that contained up to 16 plant species that were randomly chosen.
Composition of Plants versus Variety
Differing traits in the ecological processes and species are attributed to composition matters. These trait are manifested in the form of presence of nitrogen fixation have impacted greatly on ecological processes. The composition of species is said to be a great determinant of ecological stability and other trait that may be present in the ecosystem. The composition that was present in each plot was subjected to experimental analysis; the findings showed that on average, the species were equal in their chances of being present in any plot. What this means is that there was no bias as to the composition of species that could be found in any plot. Hence to have any control in the composition of the species, there was need to manage the differences in diversity. Techniques of multiple regressions are used to control the compositional aspects. Climate factors, soil type, affect the composition of species and not the latitudinal gradients.
Diversity and Stability Factors
The author disapproves a past hypothesis which showed that diversity had a part to play in the stability factor in any ecological system. This hypothesis was that an increase in diversity was proportional to the stability. It went ahead to show that communities that are highly diverse were less likely to be invaded by exotic species. This differed in the Lokta-Volterra model whereby the level of diversity was inversely proportional to multi species stability. Stability is the opposition to disturbance and constancy. The author bases his argument on temporal stability, as the mean overflow may show some difference. Diversity increase leads to more coverage present in ant given habitat (Tillman 1999).
Biodiversity Impact on Ecosystem
The results from the experiment show that an increase in diversity, leads to a boost in productivity in plant communities. This is also observed by the increased retention of nutrients in the ecosystem. This was attributed to the factor of nutrient loss in soils that was compounded by leaching hence leading to reduction in soil fertility which resulted in lower productivity.
Conclusion
Trade offs and Consequences in the Society
Over the course of the formation of the earth which has taken over 3 billion years, species have evolved through the process of natural selection. This has promoted efficiency in the habitat, productivity and specialization. Energy has been transformed as a result of catalytic reactions caused by organisms to result in products such as food, fuel among other things. The same species are used in the recycling process of waste so as to come up with pure water that is good enough for drinking. The same species are used in the biogeochemical cycles important in the creation of aerobic environment. The same cycles are used in the regulation of climatic conditions in the globe as green house gases are mitigated through the process of evapotranspiration. The same species are responsible in the generation of soil fertility and provision of ecosystem goods and services.
Any loss in biodiversity, is likely to impact on humans greatly as the ecosystem will have a diminished capacity to provide humans with goods and services that are relevant to man’s survival.
Reference
Tillman, D. (1999). The Ecological Consequences of Changes In Biodiversity: a Search For General Principles. New York: John Willey.
Evolution is the process of developing new structures over time and ages. There could be a misconception that evolution is all about change in the physical properties of man. For example we may think that evolution is all about a man developing from simple cell microorganisms through levels like monkeys to what he is today. Though this is a fact in the face of contemporary views on evolution, it is not the only aspect of evolution in question.
Change in so many structures of the earth has lead to many other forms of evolution resulting from the forces acting from these changes. Change in character is also a form of evolution; change in tendencies is also a form of evolution and, change in views and conceptions about certain issues is also a form of evolution and so many other things which are evolutions in their own way. In brief, we talk about change as a result of time and other forces when we talk about evolution. (Greig-Gran, 256-312)
Human beings have a tendency to value long term benefits over short term benefits. Short term benefits are the benefits that someone receives after a short period of time while long term benefits are the ones that one gets after a long period as the term itself points out. Mostly, people prefer to venture in short term benefits rather than long term benefits whether in business or any other activity which they engage in (Patent 46-59).
Over time people have changed from preferring long term benefits to preferring short term but this is not absolute since there are also changes from short term to long term. For example, people have evolved from preferring huntering and gathering to cultivation of crops which take a longer period of time to reap or harvest. This helps them to survive in a world where food supply is decreasing day after day. Initially people thought of long term benefits and that is why they reproduced.
How ever, most of the changes have been a shift from preferring long term benefit to preferring short term benefits. The technological advancements are some of the causes for this change. For example in the field of agriculture, people have developed new breeds that develop faster and that take a short time to grow and be harvested. Where the concept of shortening the time came from is a matter of time also and simply a matter of evolution though it may also been caused by some forces acting on the environment. (Greig-Gran 256-312)
Technological advancements have also contributed to this shift. Increase in population is also a factor that leads to such a change. People have mated at very high rates and this calls for increased amounts of food. There has been an evolution from growing long term crops to growing crops that a very short period of time to develop completely. People have started to use fertilizers to speed up the growth; genetically modified crops which grow first are replacing the normal crops that used to take a long time to develop.
This is due to the fact that man is evolving from the tendency of valuing long term benefits to a tendency of valuing short terms benefits. This kind of crops did not exist before, but they are common today. This and many others illustrate that man has changed or evolved from valuing long term benefits to valuing short term benefits and there is no going back because evolution does not regress and besides its evident that we are moving ahead and not backwards. (Patent 46-59).
So how can we quantify biodiversity? The view of so many people is that we should not question the importance of natural provisions. But we have to understand that human nature benefits from these provisions whether in the long term or in the short term. This way, he should also conserve biodiversity and we must know the worth of biodiversity. The cost benefit analysis can be used to do this. Through this we can know how changes in biodiversity can affect the welfare of human nature. These changes in biodiversity can be influenced by man in one way or the other and this is why the cost and benefits of this activities or actions have to be calculated.
For example in the year 1995, Alaskan gray wolfs which had been extinct from 1930 were re-introduced in the Yellowstone national park. The cost here had to be calculated because it is an activity that involves spending. The benefits have to be compared to the cost of the operation. Short term benefits and long term benefits should be assessed. (Greig-Gran 256-312)
Three quantities can be use to determine the worth of conserving biodiversity. These are direct use value, indirect use value and non use value. From this we can come up with a relationship to determine the value of biodiversity. Thus
Value (Benefits) of conserving biodiversity = direct use value +indirect use value +non use value.
Where, direct use refers to the present and the expected benefits of the program in comparison to the cost involved. In this case we will consider the value of preserving biodiversity. Thus
Direct use=Expected benefits-cost of operation
Indirect use value is the value of those things that can not be bought or sold but have some benefits. In ecosystems, these values include the carbon cycle, purification of air, preservation of water sheds and others. (Greig-Gran 256-312)
Non use values are the benefits people get if they don’t use biodiversity. For example, in a case of extinction, people like visiting the extinct sites to see what has happened. If the species are replaced, then this will not happen. Some of these values can not be determined easily but since we must quantify the value of biodiversity, we must determine them under whatever cost. (Greig-Gran, 2006)
The benefits of biodiversity are both long term and short term. Human beings get so many benefits from biodiversity. These services may include food, wood, nitrogen fixation, pollination, and beauty. Other services include maintenance of climate and life, prevention of overflow of water and famine, natural bug’s control, and even spiritual enrichment. Some of these benefits are long term while others are short term. (Greig-Gran, 256-312)
Quantifying the relative merits of short term unsustainable versus long term sustainable usage may not be an easy task. So many quantities have to be considered. One starts by determining which benefits are long term and which ones are short term. This introduces a quantity of time. The time taken by an ecosystem to bring some benefits is a function of the value of the ecosystem. Another quantity is the degree of sustainability which is a probability quantity. Through experience and statistics one can determine the sustainability of a certain benefit of biodiversity. All these functions combined together will lead to the quantification of both long term and short term biodiversity usage. This can be summarized by the relationship (Maclaurin 17-217)
Long term benefit is a function of time and sustainability.
Short term benefit is a function of time and sustainability.
Total benefit is a function of long term benefits and short term benefits
Human beings were created to benefit from the provisions of nature. There can always be a balance between all aspects and members of an ecosystem. This becomes impossible when man exploits the natural environment and destroys the biodiversity instead of conserving it. Let’s join hands and let’s make a decision to take care of nature so that nature can take care of us. (Chivian 19-434)
Works cited
Chivian, Eric. & Bernstein, Aaron. “Sustaining life; How human health depends on biodiversity” Oxford University Press. 2008:19-434.
Greig-Gran, M. “Is tacking deforestation a cost-effective mitigation approach?” International Institute for Economic Development, 2006: 256-312.
Maclaurin, James. & Sterelny, Kim. “What is biodiversity?” University of Chicago Press. 2008:17-217.
The human species have gone extinct since the beginning of life, but human fingerprint is a useful marker that differentiates current and past extinctions. Environmental factors have been shown to cause human threats with regard to biodiversity (Duffy 440).
Human species are threatened when they come under pressure from different factors in the environment. It has also been shown that some factors act in a synergistic manner to cause combined threats. For example, research was conducted in Ontario to investigate the impact of climate change and acid rain on lakes.
The study found that the two environmental factors acted in a combined way to make water more penetrable by UV. The observation was that the climate change and acid rain removed materials that acted as barriers to UV.
The materials that acted as barriers to UV were identified as organic carbon and other natural products from soils and plants, which protect biological activities of aquatic organisms from the harmful effects of UV (Bradshaw, Sodhi, and Brook 80; Chivian and Bernstein 30).
Habitat loss: On land
Human beings have caused varying degrees of changes on the earth’s surface due to their activities. It is expected that the level of habitat destruction will increase by about 70% in the next few decades (Chivian and Bernstein 34). This causes an alarm because habitat for many organisms will be destroyed in the near future.
Human activities have resulted in varying degrees of deforestation, which has resulted in the loss of habitat for many big and small animals. This has also contributed to disturbances of ecosystems.
Some of the human activities that cause deforestation include tree cutting, selective logging, wood harvesting, and forest fires, among others. Most of the deforested areas do not grow back and are left as land with limited capacity to support diversity.
In the recent past, an increasing number of natural endemics have contributed to significant losses of forest cover on the surface of the earth. It has been asserted that a good understanding of localization of natural endemics will be essential in deciphering recent and future extinctions due to deforestation (Chivian and Bernstein 35).
Habitat loss: In the oceans
Although the level of marine biodiversity has not yet been established, it is widely acknowledged that human beings cause significant impacts on the oceans (Duffy 440). It is evident that about 50% of the total world populations live within a distance of about 60 kilometers from the oceans.
Thus, human activities have caused high levels of water pollution and large scale losses of wetland habitat. Most of the marine biodiversity is found in the tropics, especially coral reefs that support the growth of organisms (Bradshaw et al 83).
In fact, coral reefs support the growth of about 100,000 species of organisms in the oceans. Twenty percent of the world’s coral reefs have already been destroyed by humans. Also, 50% of the remaining coral reefs are at risk of collapse due to increasing human activities around the oceans (Chivian and Bernstein 38).
Habitat loss: Fresh water
Although rivers and lakes cover about 1% of the earth’s surface, they support a considerable amount of biodiversity. For example, freshwater fishes comprise about a quarter of vertebrates found on the earth. Other organisms found in freshwater are crocodiles, turtles, otters, river dolphins and water shrews, among others.
Most of the freshwater species are found mostly in tropical regions, but this is not a universal observation. The extent to which freshwater biodiversity is being destroyed by humans is greater than that of terrestrial and marine systems.
This could be best explained by the Living Planet Index, which estimated the trends of vertebrates from 1970 to 2000. Among the three categories of indices that were studied, freshwater index fell by 50%.
One reason that has contributed to the destruction of freshwater habitat is that the freshwater is an important resource for human activities. For example, it supports human health, production of food, generation of hydropower, economic growth and development.
It is also essential for many cultures and religions across the world. Overfishing, extraction of water for irrigation, construction of massive engineering systems for water storage and alteration of water flows are some of the activities that have caused destruction of freshwater biodiversity (Chivian and Bernstein 39).
Another important threat to freshwater biodiversity is coal mining. After mining, coal is washed in freshwater systems to remove various forms of impurities so that it could fetch better prices in the market. The process of washing leaves a lot of waste in freshwater systems.
Some of the impurities that cause threat to organisms in freshwater systems are mercury, lead and arsenic, which are all heavy metals characterized by high levels of toxicity.
In order to protect freshwater systems from biodiversity destruction, it would be important to control upstream network, the surrounding land and downstream regions (Chivian and Bernstein 40).
Overexploitation on land
Overexploitation occurs when organisms are harvested at a rate that they cannot maintain their population numbers. Some of the examples of organisms that have become extinct due to overexploitation are the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon.
Some of the plant species that have become extinct as a result of overharvesting are Vinca rosea and Prunus africana. Trade in live animals is another form of overexploitation that resulted in the extinction of some animal species.
In fact, income from the world trade in endangered animal species and plants is over $10 billion on an annual basis (Chivian and Bernstein 43; Duffy 440).
Bush meat
The number of nonhuman primates has been on the decrease due to hunting practices that aim at obtaining meat for food from wild animals. Expanding global populations have resulted in high demand for bush meat.
The proliferation of wildlife restaurants across the world will further endanger animal species across the world.
Overharvesting in the oceans
Overexploitation in the oceans is caused by overfishing and fishing practices that cause destruction of biodiversity. The threats are caused by activities such as the use of chemicals that poison organisms in the oceans.
The destruction of coral reefs results in the oceans that have limited capacities of supporting life. Thus, biodiversity and ecosystems in oceans are at risk due to human activities. Some of species of fish that have become extinct due to overfishing are Dugongs, Steller’s Sea Cows, Gray Whales and Atlantic Sturgeon (Chivian and Bernstein 44).
Introduced species
Some human activities have resulted in the introduction of species into new environments. However, some species could be introduced into new environments by other events that are not related to human activities. The species that are moved into new environments could be a threat to the existing organisms.
Some of the species that have caused destruction of biodiversity in new environments are Soybean Rust, P. pachyrhizi, Aspergillus sydowii, Sturnnus vulgaris, Euglandina rosea, Achitina fulica, and Partula turgid (Chivian and Bernstein 50). In the recent past, invasive alien species have received attention by organizations across the world because they cause more harm to biodiversity than non-invasive species.
Works Cited:
Bradshaw, Corey JA, Navjot S. Sodhi, and Barry W. Brook. “Tropical turmoil: a biodiversity tragedy in progress.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7.2 (2008): 79-87. Print.
Chivian, Eric, and Aaron Bernstein, eds. Sustaining life: how human health depends on biodiversity. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, 2008. Print.
Duffy, J. Emmett. “Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7.8 (2008): 437-444. Print.
If one views the Earth from space or glances at a geographical map, one can notice the predominance of blue and light-blue colors. These are the seas and oceans; they occupy a considerable part of the Earth’s surface. The oceans are where life originated many millions of years ago. During that time, primitive forms evolved into a variety of modern organisms that inhabited the aquatic environment and transitioned to life on land. The abundance of marine life forms substantially exceeds the number of life forms on land (Woodhead et al., 2019). Thus, it is essential to characterize a coral reef and describe flora and fauna living in coral ecosystems.
The Coral Reefs
A coral reef is special, spectacular, and full of a mysterious world. It is inhabited by reef-building organisms and various creatures that have settled on them. Coral reefs are formed only in the tropical zone of the ocean; the temperature limits their life – are from +18 to +29oS, and at the slightest deviation from the boundaries of the coral die. Lighting must be the highest, unstained water, transparent, depth of – 10-20 m and salinity of – 33-35% (Eddy et al., 2021, p. 1279). That is, desalination or pollution of water corals cannot sustain. When corals die, their skeletons become solid foundations to which new colonies expand. In this way, the natural process of coral reef growth is permanent.
Coral reefs are wall or rampart-like formations in the coastal zone of tropical seas, either just below the water’s surface or deep into the sea. These reefs are studded with many living creatures, mainly calcareous, soft, and horny corals, sponges, and many other animals, together with small and large algae (Eddy et al., 2021). Thus, each coral reef represents some biological and ecological unit found only in tropical seas, built by lime-releasing living creatures. At present, coral reefs are mostly confined to the warm zones of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans and do not extend beyond 22° south or north latitude (Servis et al., 2020, p. 178). The composition and appearance of corals and other reef inhabitants can reconstruct the composition and location of an ancient reef and the characteristics of water currents that once dominated.
It is important to note that among modern coral reefs, there are three types. The first one, the fringing, or shore reefs, stretches along the shore and is separated by an intermediate zone with a sandy bottom, usually referred to as a lagoon. This area of the sandy bottom can reach a width of several hundred meters; its depth rarely exceeds 30 m (Bellwood et al., 2019, p. 949). The reef itself is mostly no more than 50 m wide. Fringing reefs are located along the coast of East Africa and the islands of the Indo-Australian archipelago (Bellwood et al., 2019). The second type is barrier reefs formed from fringing reefs.
They are several kilometers away from the shore; the channel between the coast and the reef is much deeper, and the reef itself is more powerful than the shore reef. It can reach several kilometers in width and stretch for hundreds of miles. For instance, the Great Barrier Reef on the northern coast of Australia is 1200 kilometers long and 30-150 kilometers wide Bellwood et al., 2019, p. 949). The third kind is ring-shaped reefs, or atolls, which are more or less circular and rise from the ocean depths to the surface. Atolls are predominantly found in the central Indian Ocean and the central and west Pacific (Bellwood et al., 2019, p. 951). Thus, coral reefs are highly diverse and have a unique nature.
Plants in the Coral Ecosystems
In this system, one can find different kinds of marine plants, but the primary role is played by algae that live in symbiosis with polyps. In coral gardens, the lack of plants is immediately noticeable on land and in many other areas of the ocean. However, plants on a reef are quite inconspicuous does not mean that they are almost non-existent (Lesser, Slattery and Mobley, 2018). They are present in the reef biocoenosis and have just as prominent a role in it as in other ecosystems. The fact is that most of the available plant mass is not directly visible because it is actually inside the tissues of the most numerous subgroups of reef animals, madrepores corals, alcyonarians, and their relatives (Lesser, Slattery and Mobley, 2018). The other portion of it appears quite unusual, which baffled biologists for a long time until they resorted to the help of a microscope.
The smooth blocks of pink rock, which together can sometimes form massive rocky ramparts, appeared to be calcareous red algae. They, like madrepore corals, have a carbonate skeleton, which is then incorporated into the reef limestone and settled where the strongest surf occurs (Lesser, Slattery and Mobley, 2018). The bottom line is that reef plants fulfill an essential function in two ways. First, they serve as a source of energy, converting solar power into chemical energy, which is the basis of life on Earth. Second, since this is a coral reef built from limestone, plants are a significant contributor to the deposition of calcium carbonate.
Fauna in the Coral Ecosystems
It is essential to mention that the primary inhabitants of coral reefs are coral polyps. Coral polyps are a class of marine invertebrates of arrow-type, colonial, and solitary benthic organisms. Numerous coral polyp types have calcareous bones and are implicated in the development of reefs. This group contains many species whose entire structure is composed of protein and without a solid body structure. (McClanahan, 2019, p. 77). There are about 6 thousand species, along with aquarium fish and plants, and coral polyps are contained in aquariums (McClanahan, 2019, p. 77). At the same time, the skeletons of some species are used in jewelry.
Corals live in the sea; they are motionless and resemble vegetation branches, but they are not plants. Each branch of coral is a collection of small creatures, coral polyps; these groups are named colonies. Once a new polyp is formed, it adheres to the preceding one and begins to create a new coral shell; thus, the coral increases. “Growth” of a coral is about 1 cm per year under favorable conditions; large clusters of corals form coral reefs (Montano, 2020, p. 350). Coral polyps live in warm tropical seas, where water temperatures are at least 20 °C, and at depths of no more than 20 meters, with abundant plankton, which they consume (Montano, 2020, p. 352). Some coral polyp species live in symbiosis with autotrophic protozoa in their mesh globe.
Coral reefs are inhabited by many mollusk species, from chitons to giant bivalves and octopuses, and countless sponges, anemones, worms, crustaceans, and echinoderms. Reefs worldwide are famous for their diversity of fish and are valuable even for some species of whales, which breed only in “near-coral” waters. Six of the world’s seven species of sea turtles live there, and more than 240 species of sea birds nest on the coral islands (Pearman et al., 2018, p.17). They are home to bristle worms, animals with elongated, segmented bodies that have paired bristle tufts on each segment. In some species, these bristles develop into a spiny protective mechanism. Others have powerful jaws with which they can inflict painful bites Pearman et al., 2018). The peristyle tentacles assist the worms in moving around in the water tubular as required. Tubular polychaetes are almost impossible to swim and lead a sessile life.
The fish that inhabit a coral reef are strikingly brightly colored and varied in shape. The coloration makes the fish invisible against the background of the multicolored coral reef, hiding from predators and helping to stealthily approach their prey. It can warn of the fact that its owner has reliable means of protection. Fish, change their coloration, communicate with each other, expressing calm, anger, and fear (Montano, 2020). A gregarious fish coloration helps to quickly build a tight row and coordinated movement without disturbing the order in the right direction. In coral reefs, there are different types of fish, such as spinor ogi are medium-sized fish with body length ranging from 15 to 50 cm, the largest species, can reach 1 m (Montano, 2020, p. 352). At the same time, it narrows to the end. Hence the body spinorogi has a rounded-rhomboidal shape.
The pectoral fins are relatively small, and located high, and the tail fin is often simple rounded shape. These specific structural features make spinorogi easy to recognize among other fish. In all species, there is no spinor hag sex dimorphism, meaning that males and females appear to be the same. For movement, they use the pectoral fins, and use the caudal fin only for sprinting (Montano, 2020). The basis of feeding are corals, sea urchins, crabs, and mollusks. Spinorogi occupies separate areas, but there may be several females in the male’s territory.
The next fish to watch on coral reefs are angelfish. This is a family of tropical marine fish from the order Sharks. Their average size is 20-30 cm, but there are species up to 60 cm in length, and the minor family representatives have a distance of 12-15 cm (Brandl et al., 2019, p. 445). The body of these fish flattened at the sides, a large head and tail shortened, making the body appears rectangular. Angelfish permanently inhabit small coral reefs, the borders of which they defend. These fish have a distinctive diurnal activity; during the day, they search for food, and at night they sleep in sheltered reef splits. In this way, the fish interact with the corals and function.
Besides the previous fish species, other fish live in coral reefs. It is possible to see butterflyfish on coral reefs; they have a length of 15 to 30 cm (Brandl et al, 2019, p. 448). Their body is strongly flattened on the sides and appears tall. The head is relatively large, the mouth is tiny, and the lips can be extended into an elongated tube in some species. This mouth structure enables them to get food from the hard-to-reach slots of the coral reef (Brandl et al, 2019). They eat different small invertebrates, which they catch in different ways. Most species search for small critters among the corals and often steal tidbits from the tentacles of coral polyps.
It is essential to mention the existence of seahorses in coral reefs. The appearance of seahorses is unusual; the body of seahorses is curved, the back bulges out with a hump, the abdomen protrudes forward, and the front of the body is thin and curved. The head is small; its front part is an elongated tube, and the eyes are convex. The coloration of these fish is often monochromatic, but different species are colored differently. Seahorses that live among aquatic plants are often brown, yellowish, or greenish; seahorses that live among corals can be red, bright yellow, or purple (Pearman et al., 2018). Their range envelopes the entire Earth layer; seahorses live in shallow waters among the thickets of seaweed or the corals.
Interestingly, other unusual organisms inhabit a small coral world. One can observe both sea urchin and flute fish, sea eels and zebrafish, poisonous sea snails and rockfish, grouper, parrotfish, reef sharks, and whale sharks. In addition to large organisms, there are bacteria, fungi, and protozoa (Francini-Filho et al., 2018). The coral reef world is fascinating in its colors and intensity of life. Altogether, the diverse species on the reefs represent a quarter of all ocean life.
Conclusion
Hence, coral reefs are among the richest in biodiversity and highest in productivity of ecosystems on the planet. Much of their biodiversity consists of tiny organisms that live deep within the three-dimensional space of reefs. Coral reef biodiversity includes algae that live in symbiosis with polyps, clams, and various fish species. Accordingly, coral reefs aim to protect shorelines from the ravages of waves and tropical storms and offer habitat and shelter for many marine organisms.
Reference List
Brandl, S. et al. (2019) “Coral reef ecosystem functioning: Eight core processes and the role of biodiversity”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(8), pp. 445-454.
Bellwood, D. et al. (2019) “The meaning of the term ‘function’in ecology: A coral reef perspective”. Functional Ecology, 33(6), pp. 948-961.
Eddy, T. et al. (2021) “Global decline in the capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services”. One Earth, 4(9), pp.1278-1285.
Francini-Filho, R. et al. (2018) “Perspectives on the Great Amazon Reef: extension, biodiversity, and threats”. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, pp. 140-142.
Lesser, M. P., Slattery, M., and Mobley, C. D. (2018). “Biodiversity and functional ecology of mesophotic coral reefs”. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 49, pp. 49-71.
McClanahan, T. R. (2019) “Coral reef fish communities, diversity, and their fisheries and biodiversity status in East Africa”. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 632, pp. 75-191.
Montano, S. (2020) “The extraordinary importance of coral-associated fauna”. Diversity, 12(9), pp. 350-357.
Pearman, J. K. et al. (2018) “Cross-shelf investigation of coral reef cryptic benthic organisms reveals diversity patterns of the hidden majority”. Scientific reports, 8(1), pp. 1-17.
Servis, J. et al. (2020). “Characterizing coral reef biodiversity: Genetic species delimitation in brachyuran crabs of Palmyra Atoll, Central Pacific”. Mitochondrial DNA Part A, 31(5), pp. 178-189.
Woodhead, A. et al. (2019) “Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene”. Functional Ecology, 33(6), pp.1023-1034.
Schwartzman (2014) observes that the existing biodiversity and human civilization have been grossly affected by catastrophic climate change (3that Cs). The review begins by noting that an effective prevention program is necessary to avoid the impending threat of climate change. In other words, threats associated with climthe ate change are inevitable.
Global pandemic and nuclear war also pose similar threats to humanity, although they are not inevitable as it is the case with catastrophic climate change. Past studies confirm that the human race has continued to burn the fossil fuel reserves with impunity. The study goes on to illustrate withthat governments across the globe and especially major emitters of toxic gases have not demonstrated firm commitment to cut down their emission quarters.
The author inquires if there is sufficient time left to avoid environmental threats posed by climate change. The available opportunity to reduce harmful emissions is gradually narrowing down according to estimates provided by climate scientists. Within a period of five to ten years, the world might begin to experience irreversible climate change with a definite rise of 2 degrees centigrade of global temperature.
A similar estimate has been provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The author suggests that major emitters of greenhouse gases can opt for clean energy sources such as solar, wind, or hydro power instead of transforming global economies from capitalism to socialism.
Evaluation
The author seeks to explore whether zero economic growth is the best solution for catastrophic climate change that seems to endanger biodiversity.
Schwartzman (2014) objects the idea that the world should divert from capitalistic to socialist economy in order to minimise environmental threats posed by greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere. The author argues that it is not technically achievable to lower the expected temperature rise if the current emission quotas are not checked.
The article is constructed around literature reviews of both past and current studies on catastrophic climate change. For example, the 2012 World Energy Outlook report proposed a significant reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels if the five-year emission target is to be achieved. The ability of the global society to attain ecological sustainability will be largely determined by governments if they are willing to use alternative sources of energy.
The author in conjunction with a team of other researchers used a modelling study to illustrate the fact approximately 2 percent of global energy is currently being deployed in the generation of wind and solar power. A number of secondary research studies have also been used to support research findings of the model.
Transnational political power is probably a major stumbling block in the realisation of emission goals. Schwartzman (2014) reiterates that the inevitability of dangerous change in climate should not be accepted at all because there are unlimited options for reducing threats associated environmental pollution.
From the above analysis, it is indeed evident that the author has remained objective and sound throughout the article. He has done his job well especially by incorporating both primary and secondary research. Both sides of the argument have been presented by the author with the aim of shedding light on the issue at hand. Second, the author has highlighted and discussed the pros and cons of proposals made by the green energy revolution.
However, there is still some gap in the review study. Most of the pieces of evidence presented by the author in the article are past theoretical studies. A study of this magnitude demands some raw quantitative data that can be used to substantiate arguments and assertions. There are no graphs or pictures used in the article. However, they may not be necessary for this type of a review.
Nonetheless, I agree with the author since he has offered practical solutions for reducing greenhouse emission without necessarily resorting to zero economic growth.
Reference
Schwartzman, D. (2014). Is zero economic growth necessary to prevent climate catastrophe? Science & Society, 78(2), 235-240.
The Everglades is a rain fed wetland that used to cover the area starting from Lake Okeechobee southwards to Florida Bay (McCally, 1999). The gentle flowing shallow water moved as a massive body through diverse landscapes from mangroves bays to grasslands marshes completing the movement at Florida Bay. From as early as the eighteenth century, drainage of this wetland has been taking place and as at today, over half of its total area has been drained off. This is mainly brought about by the pressure put on the ecosystem by the increasing human settlement in the area. The spectacular biodiversity and productivity of South Florida’s Everglades’ ecosystem is endangered by the immense diversions of fresh water.
These water diversions aim at controlling floods in the wetland areas and providing water for urban and agricultural use (National Research Council, 2003). With credible research studies projecting double population numbers for South Florida by the year twenty fifty, an effective system of sustainable water use is compulsory if the ecosystem is to withstand the rising human pressure. This essay discusses the biodiversity challenges facing the Everglades and what measures can be put in place to mitigate these challenges. It will also examine the restoration goals and look at the relationship between human activities and ecological sustainability of the natural system.
Restoration
Research institutions among them Universities and several state and federal agencies have embarked on restoring the Everglades. The agencies include the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S National Park Service, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, the World Wildlife Foundation, South Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Numerous biodiversity challenges have been identified by most of these agencies but the most important restoration challenges documented are: Mercury Contamination, Hydro pattern, Vegetation changes and loss, Eutrophication and Endangered and exotic species.
The legislature in Florida enacted a number of statutes under the Florida Water Resources Act to protect and restore the Everglades. The Act lays out the functions and roles of the Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District in restoration of the Everglades. The Everglades Restoration Investment statute assigns the South Florida Water Management District the responsibility of funding most of the restoration activities. However, some other restoration programmes are being implemented and funded by either Non Governmental Organizations or the state and federal government.
A plan aiming at restoring the ecosystem and still provide sufficient water for urban and agricultural use was made and approved by the U.S. Congress in the year 2000. The plan called The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan was projected to take over thirty years in implementation at a cost of around eight billion US dollars. The plan’s restoration activities are currently ongoing and they reconcile the competing needs of the ecosystem and those of the human population. As much as there is need to restore the Everglades natural system, any restoration plan must factor in and consider the socio-economic needs of the area (Bonnie, 2010).
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) has sufficiently integrated the socio economic aspects of the region. During the commencement of the plan the US Vice President then, Al Gore, stated that it was hard to choose between a healthy environment and a strong economy in South Florida because the two are inseparable. The CERP has two sets of goals namely: Enhancing ecological standards and improving economic values and social well being.
A consultative stakeholders’ forum called by Florida’s Governor established that the Everglades’ future was to be secured by ensuring sustainable usage of water and by restoring natural water flow systems that had been interrupted by years of drainage. The World Wildlife Foundation realized that most restoration efforts neglected Lake Okeechobee, which was the source of most of the water that generally fed the Everglades.
The World Wildlife Foundation reacted by formulating a plan for conserving and restoring the Lake. The World Wildlife Foundation prioritized three restoration goals. The first one was proper implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan through an organized and effective conservation programme. The second goal was improvement of the water quality and water resource management. The final one being establishment of eco friendly, feasible and sustainable agricultural production activities.
The Importance of Restoring the Everglades
The cost of restoration activities may appear colossal in terms of funding costs, time and other resources but the long term benefits surpass the cost of restoration. It may take years to complete the restoration process but the results will be very beneficial both to mankind and the environment. If the restoration is done right and sustainability maintained, many generations of human settlements will depend on the Everglades. The Everglades ecosystem supports Florida’s vibrant multi billion dollar fishing and tourism industry which is the lifeline of thousands of people not only in Florida but also the larger U.S (Mazzotti, Elizabeth, Nicholas &Tom, 2004).
If the ecosystem is totally destroyed, many lives will be affected; jobs, families and even homes lost. The negative effects will also be felt by wildlife and the vegetation too. Most importantly, the climate will be adversely affected by the destruction of this natural system; destruction of wetlands like the Everglades is a big contributor to global warming. All the above reasons justify why the restoration of this biodiversity is an investment worth much more than the money and other resources agencies put into it.
Effects of Human Settlement on the Everglades
Human settlements have existed in South Florida for many years. In the early years the human settlements and the indigenous subsistence way of life did not affect the balance of nature at the Everglades ecosystem. As from 1880, the region experienced an exponential population growth that made history in the U.S (McCally, 1999). Population increased by over 100 percent per decade for over ten consecutive decades. Consequently, part of the wetlands was hived off for agricultural and other human uses.
Recommendation and Solutions
An important step in solving the Everglades’ problem is human population stabilization. The relationship between population increase and strain on land can be solved by population stabilization. This is the most practical way of reducing strain on land use with sustainable controls (Kolankiewicz and Beck, 2001). The human population in South Florida absolutely needs the Everglades for its survival. Without this natural biodiversity normal life in South Florida would have been insupportable.
This is the reason why measures like population stabilization need to be undertaken so that the Everglades is can support a sustainable human population density, consequently, preserving the ecosystem. Population growth management programs in South Florida should be enhanced and increased. There are currently some population management programmes in the region. Although the programmes have not had much impact, the Everglades natural system would be worse off without these programs.
Conclusion
Reconciling rapid growth in population and socio economic development in a delicate ecosystem is a difficult but important undertaking that restoration agencies must do for the next thirty to fifty years. Restoration of the each of the diverse landscapes of the Everglades should be ensured. The wetland’s vivacity and permanency should be guaranteed. Sustainable agricultural activities and urban water use should be advocated for by restoration agencies as sustainable practices play an important role in conserving the biodiversity. With proper implementation of the laid down restoration plans, the Everglades will definitely regain it’s fading natural and hydrological vigor.
References
Bonnie, K. (2010). The Human Context for Everglades Restoration: The South Florida Case Study. Yale University Publications 35(4), 98-100. Web.
Kolankiewicz, L., & Beck, R. (2001). Forsaking fundamentals the environmental establishment abandons U.S. population stabilization. Washington D.C: Center for Immigration Studies.
Mazzotti, F., Elizabeth, F., Nicholas, G., &Tom, A. (2004). The Role of Flow in the Everglades Landscape. University of Florida, IFAS Extension. Web.
McCally, D. (1999). The Everglades: An Environmental History. Florida: University Press of Florida.
National Research Council. (2003). Does Water Flow Influence Everglades Landscape Patterns? Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Tropical Rainforest South is the forest that should be conserved. One of the reasons why it should be conserved is because the size of the forest is larger compared to the other forests. Therefore, the forest will be of great help in protecting a lot of species (Saterson, 2014). The forest is not a threat to many species and that, therefore, helps in showing that conserving this forest will be of great benefit to many species. Another reason why the forest should be conserved is because the forest is more diverse compared to the other forests. The forest has not been tampered with by the occupants of the area decided to live on the northern part. Therefore, conserving this forest will not affect the lives of human beings in this area. Most of the primates that are in this forest do not have to use the ground since all they need is the tall trees for them to move.
One advantage of conserving this forest is that it will greatly contribute in generating a lot of income for the area. That is because the forest will become a tourist attraction and thus the tourists will have to pay a certain amount to visit the forest. As a result, it will contribute to the creation of employment. That is because conserving the forest will help in the creation of many employment opportunities and thus many people that live in this area will end up getting employed.
The disadvantage of conserving the Mangrove Forest is that the area is prone to floods. Therefore, the forest is at risk of getting destroyed by the floods. The forest does not have a lot of species to protect and thus having to conserve the forest can result in a lot of waste in a situation where floods end up destroying the area (Huckauf, 2013).
The disadvantage of conserving the Tropical Rainforest North is that the area to be conserved is small and thus it might not be enough for the protection of a lot of species. Another disadvantage is that not much has been left of this forest since many people decided to settle in this area. Therefore, a lot of trees have been cut for the people to plant their crops. Conserving this forest will also affect the lives of many people in this area. For example, one family will no longer have a source of living since the family will no longer manage to import coffee that they have in the forest. The family will also not manage to offer employment to the people that work on that farm. It is, therefore, evident that conserving this forest will greatly negatively affect the economy of the area.
The disadvantage of conserving the Tropical Montane Cloud Forest is that the land that has to be conserved is very small compared to the other areas. Therefore, the land will be small for the species that will have to be protected in the forest. Another disadvantage is that the cloud forest has been degraded by certain human activities. Therefore, it is evident that this forest is at risk since it cannot manage to protect species without having difficulties. The pollution in this area is also high and that can greatly affect the environment of the forest.
References
Huckauf, A. (2013). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Flora, Vegetation Und NaturschutzZwischen Schleswig-Holstein Und Südamerika, 329-344.
Saterson, K. A. (2014). Biodiversity conservation. Washington, DC: RFF Press
Extinction is a term used to refer to the loss of species which are found on the earth’s surface. When extinction occurs it is normally irrevocable and the particular species disappear for ever meaning that some biological aspect of the Earth is lost. The Earth is the only place where living species are found. Extinction can be caused by a number of factors, for instance it can occur due natural calamities which are not predictable such as floods, or drought or it can occur due to man’s activities.
It can also be caused by increased predation due to competition for food, environmental stress, and disease outbreaks. Of late, the rate of extinction has increased because of human beings who have dominated the earth and are a major cause of environmental stress and degradation; this includes increased rates of population, overexploitation of marine mammals, deforestation, among others.
Biodiversity can be defined as to the numerous number of species found on the planet. These species are found on different ecosystems in which they are adapted to. Scientists have managed to identify a large number of these species but surprisingly enough the number of unknown species is estimated to be higher than the number of known species.
Geologists estimate that there are more than 30 million species living on earth although scientist have been able to identify about 1.4 species. Most of the biological diversity is concentrated near the equator and few are found as one move towards the latitudes. Tropical rain forests are believed to provide a habitat of millions of species. This paper looks at extinction are being the greatest threat to biodiversity, looks at the major causes of extinction and concludes with a controversial issue that have risen concerning the rates of extinction.
Loss of biodiversity and extinction
According to Wilson (1992), the worst thing has happened in the 1900s was not depletion of energy sources, nor was it an increase in nuclear war but loss in the biodiversity. The other catastrophes can be repaired within a very short period but loss in biodiversity would take millions of years to correct.
The biggest threat to biodiversity is extinction; this can either occur due to natural processes or can be influenced by human beings. It is estimated that the number of species that have become extinct is greater than the number of species that are currently found on earth. Over the pat two centuries, the rate of extinction is estimated to be one species in every two per year (Anon. “Biodiversity- Biodiversity and extinctions” 2010).
However, in the recent times, this rate has almost doubled and there have been instances of mass extinction. This has been caused by the increase in human actions. From research, it has been known that, most species appear and disappear over a given period of time.
So it is possible that most of the species and families we find today were not present some 500 hundred years ago. For example many families of invertebrates that flourished during the Cambrian era more than five hundred and seventy million years ago are now extinct. Just like animal species, many divisions of plants have been known to appear and disappear over time, this includes the seed ferns, woody plants, pteridospermales, just to name but a few
Causes of extinction
The highest rate of extinction is caused by natural forces. Many species that were originally found on earth have become extinct not because of human activities but because of natural forces such as climate change, disease outbreak, unpredictable catastrophes, and increased rates of predation.
Geological records show that for the past many years, there has been a uniform rate of extinction with some mass extinctions characterized by catastrophic episodes. The Permian epoch recorded the highest extinction rate. Another similar extinction occurred towards the end of the Cretaceous period many million years ago.
To a greater extent, man can be held responsible for the recent mass extinction that is almost surpassing the ones documented in geological records.
This increased rate of extinction has been as a result of over harvesting, distance of their natural habitat, although some arte just victims of circumstances for instance the Vaquita which are normally trapped in nets used for harvesting fish. The increasing rate of extinction is causing an even greater loss of the Earth’s biodiversity (Anon. “Biodiversity- Biodiversity and extinctions” 2010).
The earth is known to be a home of millions of species making it a biodiversity place, however, with the extinctions that are currently occurring, it is losing its biodiversity. This loss is to a greater extent being caused by man’s interference with the ecosystems whereby most rainforest are converted into agricultural land through deforestation.
These lands are not able to maintain a big number of species and most of them become extinct. Tropical ecosystems for instance, the rain forest are habitats for thousands of species and if they are destroyed, the earth losses its biodiversity. Most of these species that become extinct will never occur again meaning that, a part of the earth’s richness is permanently destroyed (Raup, 1991).
Some of the human influences that are believed to cause mass extinctions are over exploitation, introduction of predators, competitors and disease causing organisms, and disturbance of the natural habitat. Most of the species that have been affected by these influences over the past few centuries are the vertebrates.
For instance, nearly 700 species has gone extinct (over the last 500 years) as a result of human activities. That not outstanding, a bigger number of species is at the blink of extinction because they are endangered; about one thousand bird species are endangered and might become extinct after some time (Quammen, 1997).
Human influences that cause extinction
Increase in population
Over the past few centuries, the human population has been growing at a very high rate thereby increasing the rate at which the ecosystems are converted to agricultural land for sustaining this big population. The increase in human population has led to the destruction of almost half of the rain forests found in the world while others have been degraded. This population use most of the fresh water and harvest almost everything that is found in the ocean.
Over harvesting
One of the major causes of extinction is overharvesting. Hundreds of specious have become extinct through overharvesting while others are endangered especially the whales. Most of these species are harvested for food, or for commercial purposes. Commercial harvesting is the principal threat in this case.
This includes harvesting fish, rhinos because of their hones, over fishing leads to depletion of resources, reduced biological growth rates and low biomass levels. Sharks are the common type of fish that are over harvested. Over fishing of sharks results in disturbance of the marine ecosystem
Disturbance of the ecosystem
The ecosystem is interfered with due to various human influences for instance deforestation of the rain forests renders most species homeless because their habitat is found in these forested. As they homes are destroyed, they are exposed to their predators who harvest them for food while others die to the harsh environment they are exposed to.
Increased human activities in the ocean such pollution and thermal stratification interferes with the ocean’s ability to act as a carbon sink. For a long time, oceans have been known to store a lot of carbon dioxide. They act as a carbon sink and can hold back more than 50 times of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
However, thermal stratification of the oceans has resulted in a reduction of the ocean’s ability to hold carbon dioxide. Ocean’s can now hold very little levels of carbon dioxide leaving the rest in the atmosphere which consequently results in global warming. On the other hand, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes oceans to acidify leading to the death of the plants found in the ocean with some becoming extinct.
Global warming
Natural habitats are also being interfered with by global warming. Global warming is the increase in the temperatures of the earth’s air surface and the subsequent increase in the water levels that is, oceans and sea levels increase. It results from numerous human activities that emit gasses they prevent the radiation of sunlight back to the atmosphere.
Generally when sunlight reaches the earth’s surface, there is an amount of it that is reflected back to the atmosphere at a higher wave length; when this happens, the earth’s temperatures are regulated. In cases where the air is polluted by green house emissions then these green house gasses break the reflected sunlight radiations from reflecting back to the atmosphere, leaving them just at the earth’s surface.
Thing increases the earth’s surface temperature. This is not only harmful to human beings, but to all living organisms including plants and animals. When these harmful rays get to the earth’s surface, they absorb most of the moist that helps in the growth of vegetation.
As the growth of vegetation for instance, forest is interfered with, the water cycle changes resulting into shorter periods of rainfall. Growth of plants and vegetation declines consequently resulting in lack of food for both animals and human beings. This increases the mortality rate and some plant species may even become extinct.
A controversial issue about the rate of extinction
There is a controversial issue that has caused scientists to involve themselves in many augments, many scientist disagree with the fact that, the rate of extinction that is recorded in geological books is too high and does not represent a real life situation.
It is assumed that, in every year, more than seven thousand species become extinct; this is rather too high for many people. On the other hand, other scientist hold that, the rate that is recorded is actually too low keeping in mind the increase in human influences. This increased population has to be fed, sheltered and even clothed. There is no other source of resource to cater for this increased population rather than the ones found on earth.
The biggest number of species lives in the rainforest and these forests are being cleared at a very high rate (Anon.” Estimates of the extinction rates” 2010). This means that, the rate of extinction might be actually higher than what is recorded. Statistics taken in 2008 showed that, many species are endangered by human influences and might soon become extinct. The following table shows the percentage of endangered species to the number of evaluated species.
Scientists who disagree with the alarming figures that have been recorded about species extinction argue that, it is not even possible to stop in every part of the world to carry out a research of the number of species that are becoming extinct. Yet there records that estimate the number of species that go extinct on a daily basis, weekly, monthly or even annually.
It is surprising to note that, the estimated rate of extinction exceeds the number of species that have actually being declared extinct through research (Raup, 1991). The high rate of extinction seems to be exaggerated given that, the number of species that have been identified is less than the number that still remains unknown.
The question is how then can it be possible to estimate the number of species that go extinct every day given that most of them are unknown? The majority species are known to have vanished. Where then did the species we find today come from? It is true that, human influences have led to the accelerating rate of extinction of species but at the same time, many urge saving species for their aesthetic value.
Many people have changed their perspective about the environment and have are now using measures of conserving it. Trees are being planted and the government is constantly issuing bans to prevent the exploitation of marine animals. With all these measures being put in place, we expect the rate of extinction to be declining but it seems to be increasing on a daily basis.
Human beings have become more conscious on the role played by living organisms. For instance forests and vegetations are believed to regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere thereby controlling the rate of global warming. Measures have been put in place to ensure that certain areas are left as reserves and most governments have gone to the extent of planting forests. This has created an increase in the habitat of most species and the rate of extinction is expected to go down.
Conclusion
Research has found that, most of the specious that lived many millions years are now extinct. Others keep on appearing and disappearing over time. According to scientist, the rate of extinction that has been recorded over the past two centuries is higher than that which was recorded about 2000 years ago.
Human influences are assumed to have caused the accelerating rate of extinction although some scientists hold that, this rate does not reflect the rear number of species that go extinct every year. They argue that, the rate is too high given that many species have not yet being recognized and the government has been putting measures to conserve some of the ecosystems.
The term habitat refers to a natural or environmental locale where a given kind of fauna, flora or other form of organism dwells in. It is the instinctual set up in which an organism, or the corporeal surroundings that bounds a genus populace. Extinction refers to the ceasing to exist of an organism or a cluster of life forms. The instance of extinction is by and large regarded as the demise of the very last character of the genus (Frankham, Ballou & Briscoe, 2010, p. 6). As a result of a genus’ probable range being especially large, settling on this instant is easier said than done, and is normally carried out with the benefit of hindsight.
Habitat destruction is the procedure in which normal environment is caused to be functionally not capable to prop up the species existent. In this occurrence, the species that until that time used the site are put out of place or wiped out, trimming down biodiversity. Habitat obliteration due to human exploits majorly for the reason of reaping natural resources for manufacturing production and urbanization. Clearing natural habitats for farming is the primary basis of habitat obliteration. Other notable causes of habitat obliteration comprise of mineral excavation, lumbering, scouting about and metropolitan spread out. Habitat obliteration is at present classified as the principal grounds of species extinction world over. It is a course of ordinary ecological alteration that may be due to habitat disintegration, ecological procedures, atmosphere modification or as a result of human exploits such as the bringing in of all-encompassing species, ecological unit nutrient exhaustion and a host of other human activities that will be looked into detail below.
Biodiversity is the extent of disparity of life sorts within a particular ecological unit, biotic community, or a whole planet. It is the gauge of the wellbeing of ecological units. Superior biodiversity means enhanced wellbeing. Biodiversity is in fraction an element of ambiance. In earthly ecological setups, tropical regions are on average rich while Polar Regions shore up smaller amounts of species. The time following the appearance of humans has shown a constant biodiversity trimming down and an associated loss of hereditary multiplicity. Referred to as the Holocene extinction, the cutback is principally as a result of human exploits, especially habitat obliteration. The effect of biodiversity on human wellbeing is a foremost international matter.
Environmental conservation holds an even greater importance for the existence of life on earth. An ever-growing world population, fast alteration of vital habitation to other exploits, and the widening of insidious kind to foreign-born habitations create a severe danger to the planet’s innate resources and to the rest of forms of life that rely on them for foodstuff, energy, protection and medication. Guiding principles that disfigure marketplaces and offer inducements for unsustainable progress always end stepping up the predicament. With each passing year, there is a net loss of twenty two million acres of forested land globally. At the same time, deadly compounds, with some of them have the capability to move thousands of land, water and air miles from their starting place and lasting for long in the environment. This paper is therefore an in-depth exploration of the factors leading to the loss of biodiversity and how they can be effectively managed.
Species loss rates
In the period of the last century, drop offs in biodiversity have been all the time more detected. In the year 2007, Sigmar Gabriel alluded to approximations that up to 30 percent of all species will have been wiped out by 2050. Gabriel was the German Federal Environment Minister. Of the species expected to be wiped out, approximately an eight of identified flora species are vulnerable to extinction. Ballpark figures hit as high as 140,000 species per annum (White, Murray, & Rohweder, 2000, p. 13). This is founded on the Species-area hypothesis. This number is a sign of environmental practices on a shaky ground, since a small number of species become known each passing year. More or less all scientists accept that the velocity of species loss is higher at present as compared to any other period in human history, with extinctions taking place at tempos hundreds of times more than backdrop disappearance paces.
Habitat destruction
Habitat obliteration has played a major part in wiping out of species, and it is bound to continue with the same trend. This is the case particularly with tropical wooded area obliteration. The magnitude of the habitat and figures of species are methodically linked. Bodily bigger sorts and those existing at lower latitudes or in woodlands or marine environments are more responsive to trim down in habitation region. Adaptation to minor homogenous ecological units, for instance, monoculture after disforestation, in point of fact obliterates habitat for the more varied species that came first before the alteration. In a number of nations there are no property rights or authoritarian provisions and this ends up in great multifariousness loss.
A research carried out in 2007 by the National Science Foundation established that multifariousness and hereditary multiplicity are mutually dependent. As a result, multiplicity among species calls for multiplicity within a species, and the other way round. In the case that any one form is gotten rid of from the set up, the set can collapse, and the ecosystem becomes prevailed by a particular species (Geist & Lambin, 2002, p. 143). At the moment, the most endangered ecological units are located in fresh water. This is agreeing to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report of 2005. Another form of habitat obliteration is co-extinction. This takes place when the disappearance or decline in one becomes an adjunct to the other. A perfect example for this is in plants and beetles.
Factors causing habitat obliteration are majorly as a result of human environmental exploitation. These exploits have ended up in environmental degradation and climate change, making the conditions hard for various species’ existence and even for man himself. Below is a look at how this takes place.
Global warming
Global warming is the continual increase in the temperature of the atmosphere spanning long periods of time. The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cited that overall exterior temperature went up by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C which translates to 1.33 ± 0.32 °F. These figures are for the 20th century. Much of the experiential temperature rise from the middle of the 20th century has been as a result of rising amounts of greenhouse gases, which are a consequence of human activities. Some of these activities include burning of fossil fuels and disforestation. There is also the consequence of global dimming, which is a lessening of sunbeams getting to the earth’s surface as a consequence of rising atmospheric densities of manmade particulates (WRI, 2003). Such particulates have served to some extent respond to the consequences of warming stimulated by greenhouse gases.
Climate replica protuberances recapitulated in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pointed out that the universal surface temperature is expected to go up an additional 1.1 to 6.4 °C, which translates to 2.0 to 11.5 °F. These projections were for the 21st century. The ambiguity in this approximation crops up from the use of mock-ups with contradictory predisposition to greenhouse gas densities and the use of conflicting approximations of prospective greenhouse gas discharges. A rise in global surface temperatures will result in the rise of sea levels and will alter the volume and form of rainfall, in all probability as well as extension of subtropical arid regions. Warming is projected to be most pronounced in the Arctic and would be linked to ongoing moving away of ice masses, permafrost and sea ice. Other probable impacts of the warming take account of recurrent incidences of intense climate proceedings including heat waves, droughts and profound precipitation occurrences, species wipe outs as a result of altering temperature regimes, and alterations in farming harvests. Warming and associated alterations will show a discrepancy from area to area around the earth, despite the fact that the temperament of these area alterations is tentative.
The technical agreement is that global warming is taking place and is majorly as a consequence of human activity. This conclusion is accepted by the national science schools of all the foremost developed nations and is not rebuffed by any scientific body of national or global stature. An up to date Gallup poll shows that people in a majority of the nations are more probable to link global warming to human activities than to natural foundations. The main exemption is the United States where about half the populace links global warming to natural reasons (MEA, 2005). This is the prevalent proportion of any nation.
Verification for warming of the climate system takes account of experiential rises in earth standard air and water bodies’ temperatures, extensive melting of snow and ice and increasing global standard sea level. The most widespread gauge of global warming is the inclination in internationally standardized temperature near the earth’s surface. Put across as a one-dimensional drift, this temperature went up by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C in the period spanning from 1906 to 2005. The pace of warming over the last half of that phase was just about twice over that for the period as a whole. The metropolitan heat island impact is approximated to give explanation for about 0.002 °C of warming for every decade from 1900. Temperature levels in the subordinate layer have gone up between 0.13 and 0.22 °C per decade from 1979. These are conclusions drawn from satellite temperature recordings as illustrated in figures below. “Temperature is believed to have been comparatively steady over the one to two thousand years before 1850” (MEA, 2005, p. 109)
Figure 1: “Global mean land-ocean temperature change from 1880-2010, relative to the 1951-1980 mean” (MEA, 2005). “The black line is the annual mean and the red line is the 5-year running mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates” (NASA GISS).Figure 2: “Comparison of surface based (blue) and satellite based (red: UAH; green: RSS) records of global mean temperature change from 1979-2009. Linear trends plotted since 1982” (Mills, 2007, p. 35).
Figure 3 “The map shows the 10-year average (2000-2009) global mean temperature anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 mean” (Mills, 2007, p. 37). “The largest temperature increases are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula” (Mills, 2007, p. 37).Figure 4: Average ground temperatures for 2000 years concordant to various retraces, with every one of them evened on a ten-year span. The active temperature trace is superimposed in black.
“Earth Observatory Up to date approximations by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Climatic Data Center are to the effect that 2005 and 2010 were the years that the earth experienced the warmest temperatures from the late 19th century” (Cincotta & Engelman, 2000, p. 141). The late 19th century marked the period when dependable, widespread active dimensions became available for use. The warmest years, 2005 and 2010 surpassed 1998 by a small amount of hundredths of a degree. Present approximations by the Climatic Research Unit places 2005 as the second warmest year, coming after 1998. 2003 and 2010 are at the same position for third warmest year.
Temperatures in 1998 were abnormally warm because of the fact that the strongest El Nino in the past century took place in that year. Universal temperature is subject to short-range variations that spread over the surface of long-standing tendencies and can for the time being masquerade them. The comparative constancy in temperatures from 2002 to 2009 is unswerving with such an occurrence.
Temperature alterations contrast over the globe. From 1979, terra firma temperatures have gone up approximately two times as fast as marine temperatures. The figures stand at 0.25 °C per decade for land as compared to 0.13 °C per decade for oceanic. “Marine temperatures go up more slowly as compared to those of land as a result of the larger effectual heat capacity of the water bodies and since these water bodies lose more warmth through evaporation” (Cincotta & Engelman, 2000, p. 141). The Northern Hemisphere heats at a higher pace when comparison of the same phenomenon is made with the Southern Hemisphere. This is due to the simple fact that the North consists of more terra firma. Additionally, contains across-the-board regions of persistent snowfall and sea-ice cover. One may argue that more greenhouse gases are given out in the Northern as compared to the Southern Hemisphere. It is important noting that this does not throw in to the inconsistency in heating in view of the fact that the prime greenhouse gases carry on for prolonged periods to blend amid the north and south. The thermal indolence of the water bodies and dawdling reactions of other circuitous impacts imply that climate can take centuries or even longer to fiddle with alterations in forcing. “Climate commitment researches show that even if greenhouse gases were evened out at 2000 levels, an additional warming of around 0.5 °C or 0.9 °F would still take place” (Begon, Townsend & Harper, 2006, p. 103).
Greenhouse gases
“The greenhouse effect refers to the system by which assimilation and letting loose of infrared frequency by gases in the atmosphere heat a planet’s lower atmosphere and ground” (Magurran, 2004, p. 97). Greenhouse gases occurring by nature hold an average warming consequence of approximately 33 °C or 59 °F. The foremost greenhouse gases are water vapor, which is responsible for around 36 -70 % of the greenhouse effect (Cincotta & Engelman, 2000, p. 141). Others are carbon dioxide, methane and ozone which are responsible for 9 – 26 %, 4 – 9 % and 3 – 7 %, in that order.
Figure 5: “Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and earth’s surface. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2)”Figure 6: The above chart is referred to as the Keeling Curve. It illustrates the long-run swelling of atmospheric carbon dioxide volumes in the period between 1958 and 2008. Monthly carbon dioxide capacities show recurrent cycles in a rising tendency; every year’s upper limit comes about at some stage in the Northern Hemisphere’s late spring, and turns down for the period of its budding period as vegetation releases a quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Source IPCC
Human exploits from the Industrial Revolution has augmented the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This has led to enhanced radiation forcing from carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and laughing gas. The densities of carbon dioxide and methane have gone up by 36 percent and 148 percent in that order since 1750. These echelons are much elevated than at any time for the duration of the last 800,000 years, the period for which unfailing information has been derived from ice cores. Less unswerving geographical proof shows that carbon dioxide levels elevated as compared to the level at which they were around 20 million years back. Fossil fuel blazing has emitted around three quarters of the rise in carbon dioxide from human activity over the past 20 years. The other component of this rise is majorly as a result of alterations in land exploitation, especially disforestation.
“Over the last thirty years of the 20th century, GDP per capita and population expansion were the main stimulators of rises in greenhouse gas discharges” (Cincotta & Engelman, 2000, p. 146). “Carbon dioxide emissions are still rising as a result of the burning of vestige fuels and land-use alteration” (Cincotta & Engelman, 2000, p. 147). Releases developments, approximations of alterations in upcoming release quantities of greenhouse gases, have been predicted that rely upon tentative economic, societal, scientific, and natural progressions. In most cases, releases go on to increase over the century, while in the minority, releases are diminished. These release cases, merged with carbon sequence modeling, have been employed to come up with projections of the way in which atmospheric densities of greenhouse gases will vary in the times to come. IPCC representations imply that by the year 2100, the atmospheric density of carbon dioxide could fall between 541 and 970 parts per million. This is a rise of 90 – 250 percent above the density in the year 1750. Vestige fuel coffers are adequate to hit these echelons and go on with releases over 2100 if coal, oil sands or methane reserves are used at length. “The all the rage media and public over and over again confuse global warming with the obliteration of stratospheric ozone by CFCs” (Begon, Townsend & Harper, 2006, p. 103). As much as there are only some areas of association, the link between the two is not sturdy. Trimmed down stratospheric air has had a trivial chilling impact on ground temperatures. On the other hand, enhanced troposphere air has posed a relatively superior heating impact.
Pollution
Environmental pollution is a problem that has affected the world for a long time. Although some people may fail to understand the long-term effects of pollution, its short-term effects are easy to discern. Such effects include diseases or death of both human beings and animals. Environmental pollution has effects on biodiversity, water, soil and even land. Despite this, human beings still pollute the environment, oblivious of the dangers that they are exposing themselves and animals to. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that some of the effects of pollution may take very long before they exhibit themselves. Aquatic life has been adversely affected by water pollution to the extent of extinction of some species (MEA, 2005, p. 109). Chemical pollution is one of the leading causes of death of aquatic life. It normally makes water acidic, and also makes it toxic. The animals that do not die are left living in very harsh conditions. Animals that consume these toxins may, in turn, be harvested for human consumption leading to diseases in human beings. Additionally, if water is polluted with chemicals, the amount of water available for human consumption reduces, and thus humans experience difficulties accessing safe drinking water. The water will also evaporate and make humans and animals inhale the chemical substances dissolved in it. This evaporation will also result in acidic rain which has the same effects as water pollution. It is thus evident that chemical pollution of water not only has negative effects on health, but it also substantially reduces the amount of water available for consumption by animals and human beings.
Pollution is one of the leading causes of climate change globally. It is the main cause of global warming that has been a nightmare for environmentalists for decades, and that has made the temperatures of the earth rise significantly in the recent past. To understand how pollution contributes to global warming, one needs to have an understanding of the mechanism that regulates the temperature of the earth. After absorbing heat from the sun, the earth radiates extra heat in the form of infrared. Gases in the atmosphere normally act as a blanket, preventing the radiated heat from escaping the earth’s surface. Some of these gases include methane, water vapor and carbon dioxide. From this discussion, it is evident that continued pollution, especially the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, is bound to increase global warming. This is because more release of pollutant gases to the atmosphere will have the stated effect of shielding heat from escaping the earth’s surface. This will in turn lead to noticeable climate change, in terms of temperatures, the severity and length of droughts, etcetera. It is thus of essence that the levels of pollution are minimized as far as possible since global warming, in particular, and climate change, generally, have a lot of undesirable effects
Effects of habitat destruction in the face of climate change
In the most basic terms, when a habitat is obliterated, the vegetation, animals and other creatures that thrived in that habitat have a diminished carrying capability so that populaces reduce and disappearance becomes more probable. Human induced climate alteration will adjust temperatures, rainfall and sea level, consequently sweeping away a number of habitats and drifting others at a higher rate than several species can migrate. Conceivably the furthermost danger to life forms and biodiversity is the course of habitat destruction. Every group develops to flourish in its own particular environmental forte with particular living surroundings. These surrounding entail temperature ranges, moisture levels, and other vegetation and animal species. A number of species are more adjustable as compared to others (Begon, Townsend & Harper, 2006, p. 103). For instance, rats and dogs can thrive under various surroundings, but koala can only thrive in an environment where there is eucalyptus. Common life forms that obtain restricted ranges are for the most part affected by habitat obliteration, majorly since these life forms are not found anywhere else within the universe and consequently, have a diminished opportunity of pulling through. Disappearance may occur long after the devastation of habitat, through an occurrence referred to as extinction debt.
Habitat devastation can also trim down the array of some life form populations. This can lead to the trim down of heritable multiplicity and perchance the bringing forth of unproductive young ones, as these life forms would have an elevated likelihood of copulating with related life forms within their populace, or dissimilar species.
There are various class and habitants at danger due to changing climatic conditions. Some of the cases in point are coral reefs, polar bears and various plants. Coral bleaching refers to a situation that can critically destroy and eradicate all coral reefs. Corals comprise of infinitesimal alga referred to as zooxanthellae. Zooxanthellae endow the coral with foodstuff and as well their vivacious colors. Increasing water temperatures result in corals being frazzled, and they drive out the zooxanthallae and end up being white. In the case that zooxanthallae do not get back to the coral’s tissue, the coral will pass away (Magurran, 2004, p. 97). As modest as a 1° Celsius or 1.8°Fahrenheight rise in temperature greater than the summer upper limit can result in corals bleaching. Tropical marine temperatures have gone up by 1° C over the past century and are projected to keep on increasing. A perfect example of this danger is Australia’s world renowned Great Barrier Reef. This reef lies off the state of Queensland and is the globe’s leading reef, at 1,243 miles long. In 2002 the reef went through its most terrible occurrence of bleaching. 60 percent of it was affected. If anticipated echelons of climate change are not diminished, a majority of the reef will be gone in decades. Dispossessed of their existing habitats, hundreds of species depending on the reef will also die off.
Due to rising temperatures, the Arctic sea ice could fade away within 70 years, and undomesticated polar bears with it. These animals are the planet’s prime land marauders. They can go for lengthy times, even months, minus ingestion, but they require to ramp up fat to push them through thin periods. The polar bear attains this majorly by feeding on seals they grab hold of on the ice. Minus the ice they will not get to their prey. As a matter of fact, minus sea ice, a good deal of the Arctic ecological unit would alter or disintegrate (Sinclair, Fryxell & Caughley, 2006, p. 67). These animals as well bring into play floating aquatic frost platforms in their movements. When the females that are at an advanced phase of their pregnancy put up snow retreats for the wintry weather, in which they deliver. “In the last 20 years, Arctic ice cover has backed away 5 % and the ice that is left has lost at any rate 30 % of its depth and a standard of two weeks have been subtracted from the animal’s hunting period” (Lindenmayer & Burgman, 2005, p. 123.
Reminiscent of animals and bugs, vegetation species call for definite types of weather. Alterations in rainfall and temperature will imply that a number of species can no longer thrive where they are at present exiting. As well, like animals plants, are susceptible to rivalry. As temperatures keep rising, species that have found their feet in thriving in cooler atmospheres can be pushed out of continuation by tenderfoots better apposite to the new temperatures.
A majority of vegetation cannot transfer very swiftly as may be measure up to animals and insects. They are limited by how distant their germ or pollen can move, and the atmospheric conditions will alter too fast for a majority of them if present tendencies carry on. “Barriers set up by humans such as farms and metropolitan area will hold back plant migrations” (Lindenmayer & Burgman, 2005, p. 123). A lot of animals and insects require definite vegetation, or forms of vegetation, as a component(s) of their surroundings. As a result, the destruction of will present a ripple effect that will end up in further flora and fauna exterminations.
Tropical forests have been on the spotlight regarding the obliteration of habitats. At present there are less than 9 million square kilometers of tropical forests world over as compared to roughly 16 million square kilometers that existed initially (Lindenmayer & Burgman, 2005, p. 123). The present pace of disforestation is 160,000 km2 per annum. This translates to roughly 1 percent loss of initial forest cover every year. Other forest ecological set ups have borne the brunt as much or further devastation as tropical forests. Agriculture and taking down have ruthlessly upset at any rate 94 percent of moderate broad-leaved woodlands. Loads of ancient growth woodlands have mislaid above 98 percent of their original area as a result of human activities. Tropical broad-leaved woodlands are more wanton to clear and destroy by fire and are more appropriate for agriculture and cattle ranching as compared to tropical rainforests. As a result, lower than 0.1 percent of dry woodlands in Central America’s Pacific Coast and lower than 8 percent in Madagascar continue from their initial levels.
Plains and dry regions have experienced degradation to a lower level. Merely 10 – 20 percent of the globe’s dry lands, which comprise of moderate grasslands, savannas and shrub lands, scrub and broad-leaved forests, have been to some extent corrupted. However, incorporated in that 10 – 20 percent of land is the roughly 9 million square kilometers of periodically dry areas that humans have turned to deserts through the course of desertification. The tall grass prairies of North America, however, hold lower than 3 percent of natural habitat outstanding that has not been turned to farmland.
Peat bogs and aquatic regions have suffered elevated levels of habitat obliteration. Above 50 percent of wetlands in the United States have been wiped out in just the last two centuries. Wetlands stuck between 60 and 70 percent have been totally wiped out in Europe. Approximately a fifth of aquatic coastal regions have been greatly altered by humans. This translates to 20 percent of aquatic seaward regions. A fifth of coral reefs have been obliterated, and an additional fifth has been greatly mortified due to overfishing, contamination and invasive life forms. The corals that have been obliterated in the Philippines stand at a massive 90 percent. Turning to mangrove ecological units, 35 percent of them have been obliterated world over. Habitat obliteration greatly raises a region’s susceptibility to natural calamities such as floods, famine, crop failure, water pollution and spread of infections. However, a hale and hearty ecological set up having good management carry outs will trim down the prospect of these occurrences coming about, or will at any rate take the edge off undesirable effects (Mills, 2007, p. 35).
Farming land can as a point of fact get affected from the devastation of the adjacent setting. Over the last half a century, the devastation of habitat neighboring farming land has destroyed roughly 40 percent of farming land world over through soil wearing away, salinization, densification, nutrient erosion, contamination, and urbanization. Humanity also mislays utilization of natural habitat when such places are devastated. Artistic uses like bird watching and other leisurely uses normally depend upon nearly uninterrupted habitat. A lot of people appraise the intricacy of the natural world and get distressed by the loss of natural habitats with their various life forms world over.
Drivers of habitat destruction
At the same time as the aforementioned activities are proximally or directly the grounds of habitat obliteration in that they in point of fact tear down habitat, this still does not make out the reason why humanity annihilate habitat. The thrusts that result in humans annihilating habitat are referred to as drivers of habitat devastation. There are various drivers and the foremost are the demographic drivers. These comprise of the growing human populace, speed of populace growth with time, spatial allotment of persons in a certain region (metropolitan compared to countryside), ecological unit form, and country. These with the joint impacts of paucity, age, family planning, sexual orientation, and education level of persons in various regions. A majority of the exponential human populace expansion world over is taking place in or more or less near biodiversity hotspots. This may account for the reason as to why human populace stands for 87 percent of the alteration in numbers of endangered life forms spreading over 114 countries (Geist & Lambin, 2002, p. 150). This offers beyond doubt proof that humans play the biggest role in eradicating biodiversity. The rise in human populace and entrance of humanity into such life-form-rich areas is turning conservation labors not only more pressing but as well more liable to clash with local human exploits. The elevated local populace numbers in such regions is straightforwardly associated with the paucity status of the local populace, a majority of who do not have an education and family planning knowledge.
Efforts directed at curbing nature destruction
The Kyoto Protocol is concentrating at steadying greenhouse gas densities to curb a critical anthropogenic intrusion. As of November 2009, 187 nations had become party to the modus operandi. Planned reactions to global warming entail lessening and eventual alleviation to cut down emissions, becoming accustomed to the impacts of global warming, and geo engineering to get rid of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
Conclusion
Environmentalists, conservationists, and other scientists have carried out studies relating to worldwide multifariousness. What has come out from all these researches is that humanity is to blame for the various exploits and forms of degradation that the world has seen. Consequently, to stop any further obliteration of the environment humans are left with no choice but to put to a stop their degradation practices. The protection ethic recommends supervision of natural resources for the aim of upholding multifariousness in groups, ecological units, the phylogeny process, and human way of life and social order. Conserving universal multifariousness is a major concern in tactical preservation procedures that are meant to involve community policy and issues having an effect on all fronts.
Bibliography
Begon, M., Townsend, C.R. & J.L. Harper. 2006. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems 4th ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
Cincotta, R.P., and R. Engelman. 2000. Nature’s place: human population density and the future of biological diversity. Population Action International. Washington, D.C.
Frankham, R., Ballou, J.D. & D.A. Briscoe. 2010. Introduction to Conservation Genetics. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Geist, H. J., and E. E. Lambin. 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52(2): 143-150.
Lindenmayer, D & M. Burgman. 2005. Practical Conservation Biology. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Magurran, A. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Covelo, CA.
Mills, L.S. 2007. Conservation of Wildlife Populations: Demography, Genetics and Management. Blackwell, Oxford.
Sinclair, A.R.E, Fryxell, J.M. & G. Caughley. 2006. Wildlife ecology, conservation and management. 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
White, R. P., S. Murray, and M. Rohweder. 2000. Pilot Assessment of Global Ecosystems: Grassland Ecosystems. World Resources Institute, Washington, D. C.
WRI. 2003. World Resources 2002-2004: Decisions for the Earth: Balance, voice, and power. 328 pp. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
