Chain Reaction-
What a lot of people do not realize is that by doing one, what seems like simple, thing, a chain reaction can be triggered and affects that were not intended can occur. For example, an anti-inflamatory drug given to cows, caused three different types of vultures to be endangered from consuming the drug from the dead cow carcasses. Since feral dogs are scavengers as well, and they now do not need to compete with the vulture, they thrive because they are not affected by the drug and increase the threat of rabies. All of these affects were completely unintended, yet still occurred from something that seemed so small, showing how delicate nature is.
Hot-Spot Strategy-
I can see how a Hot-Spot Strategy would not the best approach because not all areas that are high in plant diversity support a high animal diversity. Humans are very dependent and reap the benefits of plants for food, medicine, etc. So if there is an are with a high level of plant variety, humans may suffer fro this loss, and it is possible that we are conserving very few animals in the process.
Disastrous Habitat Loss-
Some of the areas that are at higher risk for natural disasters are also at higher levels of habitat loss. If we combined our efforts we could protect these natural populations while preserving human populations and civilizations simultaneously. How does this not benefit everyone? Mankind benefits as well as the ecosystem/ecosystems in question.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Biodiversity
i. What are ways in which preserving biodiversity locally might have a global effect?
There are many habitats that are just locally, but some of their effects can be global. For example, if a disturbance in an ecosystem in a specific area has a chemical imbalance, higher CO2 levels for example, it can affect the levels of chemicals globally through transportation by air of water. This in turn can create conditions that can not sustain some species that may have already been present in said ecosystem. The same effect can occur in the question of how preserving biodiversity locally can effect global aspects of nature. If the diversity of nature can be preserved, the tempering with balances could easily be avoided. Therefore, the consequences could be prevented entirely and the global balance would be in check if the biodiversity was preserved.
ii. How do habitat destruction and loss of species effect more than just one area?
As well, some species can be migratory and depend of more then one habitat. If a migratory bird in one area goes extinct, then all of the ecosystems that were influenced by their presence would be effected as well, possibly creating a global chain-reaction in the process. If there were to be a force strong enough to effect one type of habitat, that danger could easily be a threat to other environments as well. There are also some species that are in multiple environments, such as grass, that if they were to go extinct, many habitats would suffer.
iii. How does preserving biodiversity enhance the life of people?
Medicines most often come from animal and plants, but if these species were to be extinct, then humans would have to suffer without the medicine we depend on. With a lowering level of biodiversity, viruses and bacteria have a much better chance of becoming immune to the type of medicine that would be used against them, do to the lesser amount of things that they would need to be able to be immune to. But, preserving the amounts of biodiversity gives us the opportunity to use vaccines that would only be affective because of the high amounts of varying species.
There are many habitats that are just locally, but some of their effects can be global. For example, if a disturbance in an ecosystem in a specific area has a chemical imbalance, higher CO2 levels for example, it can affect the levels of chemicals globally through transportation by air of water. This in turn can create conditions that can not sustain some species that may have already been present in said ecosystem. The same effect can occur in the question of how preserving biodiversity locally can effect global aspects of nature. If the diversity of nature can be preserved, the tempering with balances could easily be avoided. Therefore, the consequences could be prevented entirely and the global balance would be in check if the biodiversity was preserved.
ii. How do habitat destruction and loss of species effect more than just one area?
As well, some species can be migratory and depend of more then one habitat. If a migratory bird in one area goes extinct, then all of the ecosystems that were influenced by their presence would be effected as well, possibly creating a global chain-reaction in the process. If there were to be a force strong enough to effect one type of habitat, that danger could easily be a threat to other environments as well. There are also some species that are in multiple environments, such as grass, that if they were to go extinct, many habitats would suffer.
iii. How does preserving biodiversity enhance the life of people?
Medicines most often come from animal and plants, but if these species were to be extinct, then humans would have to suffer without the medicine we depend on. With a lowering level of biodiversity, viruses and bacteria have a much better chance of becoming immune to the type of medicine that would be used against them, do to the lesser amount of things that they would need to be able to be immune to. But, preserving the amounts of biodiversity gives us the opportunity to use vaccines that would only be affective because of the high amounts of varying species.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)