Main | Site library | Forum | Guestbook |
The Norway rat, one of the few mammals as successful as humans, steps off the boat in Polynesia, circa 1767.
46
I have seen no grander sight than the fire upon a country
which has
never before been burnt. SAMUEL BUTLER |
Oxford is the odd twin of Cambridge, the slightly less illustrious sibling,
a bit of a neer-do-well compared with its slightly more senior fraternal
twin. Immensely illustrious certainly, old, rich, and smart. But not Cambridge.
A geologist will note other differences immediately. While Cambridge sits
upon the chalk of the Cretaceous, Oxford lies in the opposite direction from
London, toward older rocks. Its buildings are made of yellow and tan Jurassic
sandstone, limestone, and oolite (a delectable geologic term used to describe
a particular grainy limestone). And for reasons unknown, it has bred or attracted
a batch of evolutionists quite different from the Cambridge mix. Richard
Dawkins and Robert May are there. But the most iconoclastic may be Norman
Myers, a conservationist turned futurist who sees and fears the worst not
only for the future of biodiversity, but for the future of evolution itself,
in the upcoming years. Myers has been the most vocal prophet crying that
the end of biodiversity at least as we know it is nigh.
Has the Earth indeed entered a new mass extinction event, or is such an event
nearly over? The first of these two contentions was radical even as late
as the 1980s, but in the earliest part of the twenty-first century it seems
accepted as fact. (The second, that the most consequential phase of this
extinction, at least for large animals, is over, is still new scientific
territory.) Numerous articles and a succession of books have all treated
this subject in detail. Yet Myers was there first even arguing that the
loss of the Pleistocene megamammals is connected to the modern-day biodiversity
crisis. According to this hypothesis, the extinction of so many large
47
animals (mainly mammals and birds) over the past 50,000 years was only the
beginning of a larger wave of extinction continuing into the present and
for some unknown period into the future as well.
Myers believes that a new phase of this mass extinction a broadscale reduction
in biodiversity has been under way since about 1950, when a major increase
in human encroachment into wildlife environments began. At that time approximately
1.7 billion people lived in the so-called developing countries, located in
large tropical and semitropical regions characterized by vast forests and
other undisturbed habitats for wildlife. The human population of these regions
was approaching 5 billion people by the turn of the millennium. Myers maintains
that the forces producing deforestation, desertification, soil erosion and
loss, inefficient agriculture, poor land use, inadequate technology, and
above all, grinding poverty are driving habitat destruction and, ultimately,
extinctions of species, and that these forces are most pronounced in developing
equatorial countries. He estimates that 50% of the worlds species will go
extinct over the next several centuries at most. While this estimate may
sound drastic, it is in line with those of other biodiversity experts, including
E. O. Wilsons 1992 estimate that 20% of all species will go extinct before
2020 and another 30% or more thereafter; Peter Ravens 1990 calculation that
50% of all species on Earth will be extinct by the year 2100, and Paul and
Anne Ehrlichs 1992 estimate that 50% of all species will be extinct by 2050.
All of the aforementioned seers take the position that the majority of the
modern mass extinction is soon to occur (but has not yet happened). But how
accurate is this view? Where are the figures on current extinction rates
to support this claim?
Determining rates of species loss seems straightforward: tabulate the number of species living at a given period of time, and compare that number to the number living at other time intervals. Yet there are numerous problems with this seemingly simple methodology. To arrive at extinction numbers, we need an accurate census of the living. Such a global census of biodiversity at the species level is still lacking. No one disputes that the activities of humankind have caused extinctions in the recent and not so recent past. The phrase dead as a dodo is not pure whimsy. But there is currently great debate about the extent of anthropogenic extinctions, and even more about the prospects for such extinctions in the future. Ultimately, the entire issue devolves into numbers. But the numbers we need are very difficult to
48
One hundred years ago the vast Amazon rainforest was a virtually pristine ecosystem. Today there is almost no portion of it that has not been touched by humans.
49
obtain: How many species are there on Earth? How many have there been at
various times in the past? How many species have gone extinct in the last
millennium, the last century, or even the last decade or year? And, most
important of all, how many will be gone in the next century, or millennium,
or million years? None of these numbers is directly obtainable; all have
to be reached, if at all, by abstraction, inference, deduction, or just plain
guesswork. In contrast to the estimates above, some scientists wonder whether
the loss of species will approach even 10% of current world diversity, and
suggest that such a small loss would hardly be noticed.
Why is there any controversy at all about how many species are presently
on Earth? In this day and age, when modern science can detect planets among
stars light-years away and can deduce the age of the universe from the movement
and activity of subatomic particles, what could be simpler than counting
up the number of species on Earth and then, over a twenty-year time period,
for instance, observing how many are going extinct? Such an endeavor would
require a large army of biologists, many more than the small handful actually
engaged in this type of research. In reality, we have only the haziest idea
of how many species currently exist on Earth, how many there have been in
the past, and how many are going extinct at any given time. It is our lack
of the most basic and necessary information the current number of species
presently living on Earth that is the cause of the greatest dissention.
Of the Earths 1.6 million currently described creatures, about 750,000 are
insects, 250,000 are plants, 123,000 are arthropods other than insects, 50,000
are mollusks, and 41,000 are vertebrates; the remainder is made up of various
invertebrate animals, bacteria, protists, fungi, and viruses. The majority
of organisms leave no fossil record.
The precise figure for the worlds biodiversity is not known. There is no
central registry for the names of organisms, and because of this, many species
have been named several times. Taxonomist Nigel Stork believes that the level
of synonymy may approach 20%. For example, the common ten-spotted ladybird
found in Europe has forty different scientific names, even though it represents
but a single species. Such mistakes may seem easily avoidable, but many species
exhibit a wide range of variation, and the more extreme examples of a given
species are often mistakenly described as new or separate species.
Does this mean that the number of species on Earth today is less than the
currently defined 1.6 million? Probably not. Most biologists studying biodiversity
suspect that there are far more, but an intense debate rages about exactly
how many more. The most extreme estimates are in the range of 30 to 50 million
species,
50
meaning that taxonomists have named just over 3% of the species on Earth,
and thus have barely begun their work in the 250 years or so since Linnaeus
set out the task of describing every species. Other, more cautious souls
posit much lower numbers, between 5 and 1 5 million species. Yet even with
this lower number it is clear that the work of describing the Earths biota
has a long way to go.
The accuracy of species counts varies from group to group. For some groups,
such as birds and large vertebrates, our census is nearly complete; there
will be very few new discoveries of new species. Yet for the majority of
invertebrate groups, and for the legions of one -celled organisms such as
protozoans, bacteria, and other microbes, there are surely millions of forms
yet undescribed.
It is clear that scientists will never succeed in describing every species
(however wonderful that would be). Nevertheless, there is a pressing need
to establish a reasonable estimate of world biodiversity. Is it closer to
1.6 million or 50 million? How can a more reliable estimate be established
without describing every living species?
There have been several ingenious attempts to arrive at a reasonable estimate
of the number of species living on Earth. As far back as the 1800s British
zoologists knew that insects are the single most diverse group of animals
on Earth and tried to census world insect diversity, coming up with an estimate
of 20,000 species. It is now known that at least that many insect species
are found in Britain alone. How, then, to make a more accurate accounting
of the worlds species? The favored method today is to use the ratio of known
to unknown species in taxonomic groups that have been long studied and are
considered essentially well known (such as birds and mammals) to estimate
total world biodiversity. Botanist Peter Raven used this method in 1980 to
suggest that world biodiversity is about 3 million species. Specialists on
insect diversity have been particularly adept at coming up with new and clever
ways of making such estimates. Nigel Stork and his colleague K. G. Gaston
noted that of 22,000 insect species known in Britain, 67 are butterflies.
Assuming that the ratio of butterflies to other insect species is the same
in the rest of the world (an assumption utterly untested, but plausible),
they arrived at a global biodiversity estimate of 4.9 to 6.6 million species
of insects alone.
A second method of arriving at a global biodiversity estimate is to extrapolate
from samples. Samples from a particular geographic area, rather than a taxonomic
group, are scaled upward to encompass the entire biosphere. It was this method
that yielded the most famous of all recent biodiversity estimates, that of
Smithsonian entomologist Terry Erwin published in 1982, which posited that
there are at
51
least 30 million species of beetles in the worlds tropical forests. This
particular estimate has been so widely quoted (and misquoted) that it bears
further scrutiny.
Erwins concern at the time was not global diversity, but simply that the
upper reaches of the rainforest canopy were little known and rarely sampled
by taxonomists. Most known organisms from rainforests came from the forest
floor. The multistoried canopies of large trees were known to harbor a quite
different fauna, yet because of the difficulties of sampling this environment,
its inhabitants were poorly known. Erwin devised a new method of sampling
the upper canopy regions. Over three field seasons he poisoned and collected
all of the insects living in nineteen trees belonging to a single tree species
(Luehea seemannii, a forest evergreen). He found that there were an average
of 163 species of beetles specific to that particular tree species. So far,
well and good. At this point, however, Erwin set out a number of assumptions
to arrive at his famous 30 million beetle estimate. First, he assumed that
each hectare of forest in his sample area contained, on average, 70 different
tree species. He then assumed that each of these tree species also had its
own 163 species of beetles a veritable army of beetles specific to that
tree living in its canopy. By multiplying these numbers, he arrived at an
estimate of 11,140 tree-specific beetle species in one hectare of forest
in Panama, and then added in another 1,038 species of beetles just passing
through the trees, to arrive at a figure of 12,448 beetle species per hectare
of forest. Next, he assumed that beetles made up 40% of the total arthropod
fauna in the canopy, so that the entire biodiversity of insects in his one
hectare was 31,120 species of arthropods. He then added another third of
this total to his estimate to take into account the insects found on the
forest floor, and arrived at a grand total of 41,389 arthropod species per
hectare of Panamanian forest. The final step scaling up from a hectare
of Panamanian forest floor to the entire world was accomplished in the
following way. Erwin noted that there are 50,000 species of trees in the
tropics. Assuming his figure of 163 host-specific beetle species per tree,
he arrived at his much-repeated estimate of 30 million species of beetles
in the world.
Erwins thought experiment was simple and elegant, but full of untested
assumptions. However, since it was based (at least at the start) on real
sampling in regions that up until that time were virtually unknown, it took
on a life of its own and was treated quite seriously. It is still the basis
for the larger biodiversity estimates cited today.
The Erwin estimates were widely publicized, and rightly so. They gave us
a whole new view of global biodiversity. But because of the way in which
they were
52
produced, they were immediately controversial. New surveys that attempted
to confirm or falsify these new, higher estimates of global biodiversity
soon followed. One of the most thorough was carried out in Indonesia.
Project Wallace was a yearlong collaboration between scientists of the Natural
History Museum in London and the Indonesia Department of Science. Some two
hundred net-waving, jar-toting entomologists descended on the island of Sulawesi.
Many insects were collected, including more than 6,000 species of beetles
and almost 1,700 different species of flying insects, more than 60% of which
were new to science. These scientists, applying methods similar to Erwins,
estimated a worldwide biodiversity of between 1.8 and 2.6 million insects.
Since insects are only one part of total biodiversity (albeit the single
most important one), these new estimates confirm that world biodiversity
in indeed far higher than the 1.6 million species currently described. On
the other hand, even with so many insect species, world biodiversity would
still fall well short of the 30 million species predicted by the Erwin estimate.
Yet another type of estimate was derived by noted biologist Robert May, who
in 1988 pointed out that the observed correlation between body size and species
diversity could be used to arrive at a rough estimate of world biodiversity.
Using such a method, May estimated that the Earth contains between 10 million
and 50 million species, a figure that seems to support the Erwin estimates.
One of the great surprises of the mid-1960s to 1970s was the discovery that species virtually all species are characterized by far higher amounts of genetic variability than previously supposed. The then-nascent techniques of gel electrophoresis and DNA sequencing allowed geneticists to evaluate just how different individuals of the same species were. While everyone knew that genomes the number and type of genes varied tremendously from species to species, no one foresaw the great genetic variability that characterizes virtually every living species. Every organism carries a large number of genes: a bacterium typically carries about 1,000 genes, a mushroom about 10,000, and typical higher plants and animals as many as 50,000 to 400,000. It is variability among these genes that differentiates the various species on Earth, today as in the past. But there remains a great deal of variability within each species as well, which creates the various races, sub-races, and populations that make up a species. This variability appears to be of utmost service to species, for it provides a hedge against sudden changes in the environment: in highly variable populations, there will probably be at least a few
53
individuals that are preadapted for whatever new conditions come along,
thus allowing the survival of the race. Any reduction in genetic variability
is thus dangerous to a species and appears to be a sure indicator of
a species sliding toward extinction. Prior to the final extinction of a
species, we see a dying off of its populations caused by a reduction in
the overall genetic variation.
In the mid-1970s, a study of twenty-four proteins extracted from North American
elephant seals revealed that this rare and highly endangered species shows
essentially no genetic variation. This particular species had been hunted
nearly to extinction, and even though there has been a rebound in the population
since it was protected from further hunting, its overall genetic makeup was
severely affected. The elephant seal population is said to have passed through
a population bottleneck. At its low point, each seal seeking a mate had
only a very small number of other seals to choose from, resulting in severe
inbreeding and a loss of genetic variation. Such unions between close relatives
are often characterized by high rates of birth defects, retardation, and
reduced sperm counts. Inbreeding is so deleterious that humans of every culture
have produced laws against it.
An extreme example of such genetic loss is the Florida panther. This subspecies
of the American cougar has been reduced to fewer than thirty individuals
in the wild. Low sperm counts and damaged sperm characterize the remaining
males. Genetic studies show that this subspecies has the lowest genetic variation
of any of the extant cougar populations.
It can be argued that the current mass extinction is far less calamitous than either the end-Paleozoic or end-Mesozoic events because a lower percentage of families and genera are going extinct now than in the past. The severity of a given extinction event is commonly tabulated as the percentage of existing taxonomic units, be they families, genera, or species, that go extinct. Using this measure, it has been argued that the extinctions that have occurred since the onset of the Ice Age have been trivial compared with the great extinctions of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras because the percentage of taxa that have gone extinct is but a tiny fraction of the total diversity of the Earth. What is being overlooked, however, is the fact that the absolute not relative number of species (or other category) that have already gone extinct in the last million years may be substantial. For instance, biologists Stors Olson and Helen James have published data suggesting that as many as a thousand species of birds have disappeared from the Earth in the last two to five millennia.
54
This represents perhaps 20% of the total bird biota on the planet. These
are species that have left a fossil record, and thus species we know about.
How many more have gone extinct without leaving a trace?
Extinction is the ultimate fate of every species. Just as an individual is
born, lives out a time on Earth, and then dies, a species comes into existence
through a speciation process, exists for a given span of years (usually counted
in the millions), and then eventually becomes extinct. Thus, extinctions
of species happen all the time, not just during mass extinction events. University
of Chicago paleontologist David Raup calls this concept background
extinction.
The fossil record can be used to tabulate the rate of such random extinctions
taking place throughout time, and that rate turns out to be remarkably low.
Raup has calculated that the background extinction rate during the last 500
million years has been about one species every four to five years. In contrast,
Norman Myers has estimated that four species per day have been going extinct
in Brazil alone over the past thirty-five years. Biologist Paul Ehrlich has
suggested that by the end of the twentieth century, extinction rates were
measurable in species per hour.
If attaining a reliable estimate of global species diversity has caused problems,
estimates of current extinction rates have been no less controversial. While
many different people disagree strongly on the number of species on Earth,
and on the rate at which these species are currently declining in number,
on one issue there is no disagreement: the vast majority of species currently
living on Earth are found in the tropics, mainly in rainforests.
Tropical rainforests are characterized by a high canopy, often 30-40 meters
above the ground with emergent trees towering to 50 meters, and two or three
separate understories of vegetation. They are complex, layered communities
with enormously varied and changing environments and microclimates.
Tropical rainforests today are found in three principal regions. The most
extensive is the American, or Neotropical, rainforest region, centered in
the Amazon Basin but extending up the Caribbean slope of Central America
to southern Mexico. The Neotropical rainforest comprises about half the global
areal total, and about one-sixth of the area of all broad-leaved forests
in the world. The second large block occurs in the eastern tropics and is
centered in the Malay Peninsula. The third is in central Africa.
Norman Myers estimates that between 76,000 and 92,000 square kilometers of
tropical forest are lost each year to logging and field clearing, and that
an additional 100,000 kilometers are grossly disrupted. This means that about
1% of the
55
worlds tropical forests are disappearing each year, a rate that will lead
to the complete disappearance of all tropical forests in one century, if
current practices continue. Biologist E. O. Wilson, in The Diversity
of Life,
estimated the rate of tropical forest loss in 1989 to be 1.8% per year. The
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations officially
placed the deforestation rate at 0.5% per year in the late 1980s.
Daniel Simberloff of Florida State University analyzed all available information
regarding the rate of forest destruction data mainly derived from satellite
imagery and remote sensing. He found that the tropical forests of Asia are
already virtually gone. There are currently about 92,000 recognized plant
species (and an unknown number of plant species waiting to be described by
science) in the New World tropical rainforests, and 704 species of birds.
Simberloff has calculated that between 1950 and 2000, almost 14,000 plant
species (15% of the total) and 86 bird species (12% of the total) became
extinct in this region. If the tropical forests of the New World become restricted
to current and planned reserves and national parks, Simberloff predicts that
the extinction of over 60,000 plant species (66%) and 487 bird species (69%)
will occur between 2050 and 2100 A.D. Simberloff concludes that the imminent
catastrophe in tropical forests is commensurate with all the great mass extinctions
except for that at the end of the Permian.
Since 1600, a minimum of 113 species of birds and 83 species of mammals
are known to have gone extinct. But these animals are large vertebrates,
which through time have had a far lower background extinction rate than 5
per year. About three-quarters of these extinctions took place on oceanic
islands. Historical records also suggest that, since 1600, extinction rates
for these two groups have increased by a factor of 4, to produce the current
extinction rates of around 0.5% of extant birds per century and 1% of mammals
per century. Extinction rates in other groups of organisms have only begun
to be tracked, but they are significantly higher than the historical average.
In the United States, there were twice as many species of fish (350) classified
as endangered in the 1990s than there were a decade earlier.
The major factor driving species to extinction in North America (and elsewhere
in the world) appears to be changes in habitat, such as those that occur
through climate change, desertification, or deforestation. Habitat perturbation
often causes rapid extinction of species: the drying of a freshwater lake
or the final
56
submergence of an eroding island obviously causes the immediate extinction
of many species that once dwelled there. Others will die off later in time.
The number of individuals in any population of organisms is always fluctuating.
There may be long-term trends toward increase or decrease, or even toward
constancy, but these longer-term trends are themselves made up of shorter-term
fluctuations. The fluctuations themselves have traditionally been thought
to be related to environmental factors: changes in food supply, increased
or decreased predation or competition; physical environmental changes such
as long-term temperature change or habitat change. To understand these changes,
ecologists have developed a series of equations that describe how birth and
death rates the ultimate determinants of population size are affected
by the external environment.
Just how important unpredictable fluctuations are to populations was perhaps
first appreciated by Robert May. In the 1970s, May showed that population
fluctuations in many species of animals and plants are not necessarily random,
but instead may be an aspect of chaos, the relatively newly described phenomenon
in which apparent randomness isnt random after all. Although governed by
precise mathematical rules, the behavior of a chaotic system is virtually
impossible to predict. It may be that some populations of organisms show
wild fluctuations that are caused not by external conditions, such as climate
change, but by deeply rooted and complex dynamics within the ecosystems in
which they reside. May also showed that the geographic distribution of organisms
may be related to factors other than the external environment. May and his
colleagues showed that population fluctuations within a patchy (or irregular)
distribution may not be related simply to the favorability of each patch,
but might be far more complex.
All of these findings have profound implications for conservation biology
and for the understanding of mass extinctions. In their 1996 book, The
Sixth Extinction, Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin point out that
the world of nature is not in equilibrium; it is not a coordinated machine striving for balance. It is a more interesting place than that. There is no denying that adaptation to local physical conditions and such external forces as climatic events helps shape the world we see. But it is also apparent that much of the pattern we recognize both in time and space emerges from nature herself. This is a thrilling insight, even if it means that the work of conservation management is made more difficult. It was long believed that population numbers could be controlled by managing external conditions (as far as possible). This must now be recognized as no longer the feasible option it was imagined to be.
57
Birds are relatively large and highly conspicuous members of the planets
biota, and thus are among the best-known groups in terms of both their current
diversity and their history of recent extinctions. Because of this, they
play a prominent role in our study and understanding of biodiversity loss.
Birds also have the potential to leave a fossil record of themselves, so
that diversity levels and losses in the past can be measured.
In 1997, David Steadman, curator of birds at the Florida Museum of Natural
History, summarized losses of bird species since 1600 on both continents
and islands. Steadman posited that humans have caused extinctions of birds
in four main ways: direct predation (hunting, gathering eggs, or removing
nestlings for captive breeding and pets), introduction of non-native species
deleterious to bird survival, the spread of disease, and habitat degradation
or loss. Of the approximately 10,000 species of birds on Earth today, about
one-fourth have restricted breeding ranges (designated as 50,000 square kilometers
or less). These are the species most susceptible to extinction.
Little is known about the prehistoric human impact on birds in most continental
regions, but North America is one exception. Soon after humans arrived in
North America, about 11,000-13,000 years ago, between twenty and forty species
of birds went extinct. All of these birds may have been tied into ecosystems
dependent on the large mammals that also went extinct at that time. It is
likely, then, that the birds extinctions were only indirectly tied to human
causes. From 11,000 years ago until 500 years ago, only two additional bird
species went extinct in North America. Since the arrival of Europeans approximately
500 years ago, an additional five to seven birds species have gone extinct,
with five of these extinctions occurring in the last 200 years (the great
auk, Labrador duck, passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, and ivory-billed
woodpecker). Eight more species (the California condor, whooping crane, red-cockaded
woodpecker, black-headed vireo, golden-cheeked warbler, and Kirtlands warbler)
are so close to extinction that only expensive, concerted captive breeding
efforts (such as that taking place for the condor) will save them.
The rates of avian extinction in tropical continental regions outside of
North America have been little studied. The paleontology of birds is far
better known for many islands. The relatively small land areas of most islands
result in smaller local populations of all organisms and, as a result, greater
sensitivity to extinction. Of the 108 species of birds known to have gone
extinct worldwide since 1600, 97% came from islands. Even more extinctions
occurred in prehistoric times. Steadman estimated that at least 2,000 bird
species, or about 20% of the total diversity of birds
58
on Earth, went extinct on islands after human, but before European, contact.
In each case the extinctions postdated the first human contact with each
island.
Predicting the future of birds is no easy feat. It may be that the most susceptible
and delicate species have already gone, or will soon go, extinct. Perhaps
the losses we have seen so recently will be the major losses. Yet many bird
experts are not so sanguine, and see the ongoing cutting of the worlds forests
and their replacement with agricultural fields, an entirely different type
of habitat as a factor ensuring the continued loss of bird species.
One of the great dangers facing those who attempt to prophesy is that estimates,
coming from the best of intentions, may become more catastrophic than the
data warrant. Extinction is an emotional issue for many of us, even (or especially)
scientists, and emotion can color judgment and distort objectivity. There
is a very real possibility that estimates of current extinction rates are
inflated. Few studies are able to pinpoint how real the threat of elevated
extinction rates really is, or how prolonged it will be. There is a tendency
by some working in this field to cry doom when a much more muted response
may be justified.
It is clear that the planet is in a period of elevated extinction rates.
But just how elevated, compared with the period prior to the population run-up
of our own species, is the most pressing question, and one that is very difficult
to answer. There is a possibility that most of the consequential extinction
(i.e., among the megamammals) has already occurred, and that little further
reduction in the Earths biota will accumulate over the next few centuries
or millennia. Thus it may be that the estimation of losses through mass extinction
is wildly overstated.
Following are several reasons why the current mass extinction may be less severe than many estimates predict:
1. Most species are resilient more resilient than previously thought
For all of the extinctions currently thought to be under way, actual case histories of extinctions are rather few. Those species that have gone extinct, ranging from the dodo to the passenger pigeon, may be species that for any number of reasons were extremely susceptible to extinction to begin with. Extinction requires the
59
death of every living individual of a given species. All species are the result of a long period of evolution. They do not just go away; something must eventually kill them all off, and that cause must be sufficient to end a history in most cases counted in millions of years.
2. Conservation efforts will be more successful than previously thought
Worldwide conservation efforts have brought to light the plight of many endangered species. Virtually every country on Earth now practices some form of conservation, be it by preserving large national parks or by protecting individual species or given habitats. These efforts have occurred only in the last two to three decades on a worldwide basis. Yet they have already registered a number of remarkable successes, notably in the restoration of whale and large bird species. Bans on dangerous chemicals such as DDT have vastly aided this process. These efforts alone may be sufficient to reverse the course of the oncoming and ongoing mass extinction.
3. Extinction rates have been overestimated
As we have seen, one of the most maddening aspects of biodiversity studies is our very poor knowledge of the most basic baseline figure, the actual number of species on Earth, and the corollary to that figure, the reduction of species numbers among various taxonomic groups and specific habitats. In very few other avenues of science are the error ranges quite so great: an order of magnitude separates the high and low figures. It may be that there are a very large number of species on Earth, and that a relatively low percentage of them have recently undergone extinction, or will do so in the near future.
Several factors could adversely affect the biological diversity of the Earth and serve to amplify the current rate of extinction. If we accept that the current levels of extinction are related to the activities of humankind most importantly, the conversion of previously undisturbed habitat such as rainforest or native grassland into agricultural areas then anything causing an increase in such conversion should adversely affect the biodiversity baseline. Any reduction in the land currently available for agriculture would be likely to spur more conversion. This could happen in several ways:
60
1. Sudden climate change
Several types of climate change could reduce the current area of farmland
and hence create pressure for further habitat conversion. Global
warming due to the greenhouse effect could cause the tropical regions to
increase
in size. This in turn would cause an expansion of the desert
areas at higher latitudes, producing an adverse effect on the grain belts
located there.
If grain regions migrate to higher latitudes in turn, they
will suffer shorter and harsher growing seasons, and thus reduced yields.
A second and opposite effect would be a return to a new glacial interval.
The current warm period is but an interglacial interval in a
long pattern of glacial cycles that has been operating for more than 2
million years.
If past patterns are any guide, some thousands of years from
now ice sheets will again begin to grow and cover vast regions of the Earth
in some of the
most productive agricultural regions.
2. Sea level change
Disruption of agriculture could also come from a rise in sea level. Even small rises in global sea level will result in significant land reductions in agricultural regions, and such small-scale rises will come about if current global warming patterns continue. River deltas, for example, are among the richest of all agricultural regions, and the first to be inundated by any rise in sea level. New evidence gathered from a study of Antarctic glaciers in 2001 indicates that the rate of sea level rise may be three or four times faster than the worst-case scenario of the late 1980s and early 1990s. There may be a 20-foot sea level rise in the next two centuries.
3. Greater than expected human population increases
As we will see in greater detail in a subsequent chapter, the number of
humans on Earth greatly affects the rest of its biota, and surely
extinction rates as well. If the human population reaches some of the more
extreme estimates
over the next few centuries over 50 billion people, for
instance there will certainly be greatly elevated extinction rates.
The Earth currently has more species than at any time during previous geologic
epochs. This general pattern of increase in diversity over
time may not continue, however. How it might change is described in the
next chapter.
61
vii | ||
Biological Futures Niles Eldredge |
ix | |
PREFACE | xiii | |
INTRODUCTION | The Chronic Argonauts | 1 |
ONE | The Deep Past: A Tale of Two Extinctions |
13 |
TWO | The Near Past: The Beginning of the End of the Age of Megamammals | 37 |
THREE | Into the Present | 47 |
FOUR | Reuniting Gondwanaland |
63 |
FIVE | The Near Future: A New World |
79 |
SIX | The First Ten Million Years: The Recovery Fauna |
103 |
SEVEN | After the Recovery: A New Age? |
119 |
EIGHT | The Future Evolution of Humans |
139 |
NINE | Scenarios of Human Extinction: Will There Be an After Man? |
155 |
TEN | Deep Time, Far Future |
169 |
BIBLIOGRAPHY |
|
177 |
INDEX | 183 |
Main | Site library | Forum | Guestbook |