| 
   
   
  
  
Biodiversity and Conservation 
  
by Dr Barbara Corker 
  
    What is Biodiversity? 
    Biodiversity is a modern term
    which simply means " the variety of life on earth". This variety can be measured
    on several different levels.
    Genetic - variation
    between individuals of the same species. This includes genetic variation between
    individuals in a single population , as well as variations between different populations
    of the same species. Genetic differences can now be measured using increasingly
    sophisticated techniques. These differences are the raw material of evolution. 
    Species - species
    diversity is the variety of species in a given region or area. This can either be
    determined by counting the number of different species present, or by determining
    taxonomic diversity. Taxonomic diversity is more precise and considers the relationship of
    species to each other. It can be measured by counting the number of different taxa (the
    main categories of classification) present. For example, a pond containing three species
    of snails and two fish, is more diverse than a pond containing five species of snails,
    even though they both contain the same number of species. High species biodiversity is not
    always necessarily a good thing. For example, a habitat may have high species biodiversity
    because many common and widespread species are invading it at the expense of species
    restricted to that habitat.  
    Ecosystem - Communities of plants and animals, together with the physical
    characteristics of their environment (e.g. geology, soil and climate) interlink together
    as an ecological system, or 'ecosystem'. Ecosystem diversity is more difficult to measure
    because there are rarely clear boundaries between different ecosystems and they grade into
    one another. However, if consistent criteria are chosen to define the limits of an
    ecosystem, then their number and distribution can also be measured.   | 
   
 
 
  
    How many species are there?  | 
   
  
     Estimates of global species diversity vary enormously because it is
    so difficult to guess how many species there may be in less well explored habitats such as
    untouched rain forest. Rain forest areas which have been sampled have shown such amazing
    biodiversity (nineteen trees sampled in Panama were found to contain 1,200 different
    beetle species alone!) that the mind boggles over how many species there might remain to
    be discovered in unexplored rain forest areas and microhabitats.Global species estimates range from 2 million to 100 million
    species. Ten million is probably nearer the mark. Only 1.4 million species have been
    named. Of these, approximately 250,000 are plants and 750,000 are insects. New species are
    continually being discovered every year. The number of species present in little-known
    ecosystems such as the soil beneath our feet and the deep sea can only be guessed at. It
    has been estimated that the deep sea floor may contain as many as a million undescribed
    new species. To put it simply, we really have absolutely no idea how many species there
    are!  | 
   
 
 
  
    Losses of Biodiversity  | 
   
  
    
      
          | 
        Extinction is a fact of life. Species have
        been evolving and dying out ever since the origin of life. One only has to look at the
        fossil record to appreciate this. (It has been estimated that surviving species constitute
        about 1% of the species that have ever lived.)  However, species are now becoming extinct at an alarming rate, almost entirely as
        a direct result of human activities. Previous mass extinctions evident in the geological
        record are thought to have been brought about mainly by massive climatic or environmental
        shifts. Mass extinctions as a direct consequence of the activities of a single species are
        unprecedented in geological history.    | 
       
     
    The loss of species in tropical ecosystems such as the rain
    forests, is extremely well-publicised and of great concern. However, equally worrying is
    the loss of habitat and species closer to home
    in Britain. This is arguably on a comparable scale, given the much smaller area involved. 
    Predictions and estimates of future species losses abound. One such
    estimate calculates that a quarter of all species on earth are likely to be extinct, or on
    the way to extinction within 30 years. Another predicts that within 100 years, three
    quarters of all species will either be extinct, or in populations so small that they can
    be described as "the living dead".  
    It must be emphasised that these are only
    predictions. Most predictions are based on computer models and as such, need to be taken
    with a very generous pinch of salt. For a start, we really have no idea how many species
    there are on which to base our initial premise. There are also so many variables involved
    that it is almost impossible to predict what will happen with any degree of accuracy. Some
    species actually benefit from human activities, while many others are adversely affected.
    Nevertheless, it is indisputable that if the human population continues to soar, then the
    ever increasing competition with wildlife for space and resources will ensure that
    habitats and their constituent species will lose out.  
    It is difficult to appreciate the scale of human population
    increases over the last two centuries. Despite the horrendous combined mortality rates of
    two World Wars, Hitler, Stalin, major flu pandemics and Aids, there has been no dampening
    effect on rising population levels. In 1950, the world population was 2.4 billion. Just
    over 50 years later, the world population has almost tripled, reaching 6.5 billion.  
    In the UK alone, the population increases by the equivalent
    of a new city every year. Corresponding demands for a higher standard of living for all,
    further exacerbates the problem. It has been estimated that if everyone in the world lived
    at the UK standard of living (and why should people elsewhere be denied this right) then
    we would either need another three worlds to supply the necessary resources or
    alternatively, would need to reduce the world population to 2 billion.  
    The only possible conclusion is that unless human populations are
    substantially reduced, it is inevitable that biodiversity will suffer further major
    losses. 
    Some species are more vulnerable to extinction than others.
    These include:  
    
      
          | 
        
          - Species at the top of food chains, such as large
            carnivores. 
 
            Large carnivores usually require fairly extensive territories in order to provide them
            with sufficient prey. As human populations increasingly encroach on wild areas and as
            habitats shrink in extent, the number of carnivores which can be accommodated in the area
            also decreases.  
             
            These animals may also pose a threat to people, as populations expand into wilder areas
            inhabited by large carnivores. Protective measures, including elimination of offending
            animals in the area, further reduces numbers. 
         
         | 
       
     
    
      - Endemic local species (species found only in one
        geographical area) with a very limited distribution.
 
        These are very vulnerable to local habitat disturbance or human development. 
     
    
      - Species with chronically small populations.
 
        If populations become too small, then simply finding a mate, or interbreeding,
        can become serious problems.  
     
    
      - Migratory species
 
        Species which need suitable habitats to feed and rest in widely spaced locations (which
        are often traditional and 'wired' into behaviour patterns) are very vulnerable to loss of
        these 'way stations'.  
     
    
      - Species with exceptionally complex life
        cycles
 
        If completion of a particular lifecycle requires several different elements to be in place
        at very specific times, then the species is vulnerable if there is disruption of any
        single element in the cycle. 
     
    
      - Specialist species with very narrow
        requirements such as a single specific food source, e.g. a particular plant species.
 
     
    Loss of an individual species can have various different
    effects on the remaining species in an ecosystem. These effects depend upon the how
    important the species is in the ecosystem. Some species can be removed without apparent
    effect, while removal of others may have enormous effects on the remaining species.
    Species such as these are termed "keystone" species.   | 
   
 
 
  
    Why Conserve Biodiversity?  | 
   
  
    Ecological ReasonsIndividual species and ecosystems have
    evolved over millions of years into a complex interdependence. This can be viewed as being
    akin to a vast jigsaw puzzle of inter-locking pieces. If you remove enough of the key
    pieces on which the framework is based then the whole picture may be in danger of
    collapsing. We have no idea how many key 'pieces' we can afford to lose before this might
    happen, nor even in many cases, which are the key pieces. The ecological arguments for
    conserving biodiversity are therefore based on the premise that we need to preserve
    biodiversity in order to maintain our own life support systems.  
    
      
          | 
        Two linked issues which are currently of great
        ecological concern include world-wide deforestation and global climate change.  Forests not only harbour untold numbers of
        different species, but also play a critical role in regulating climate. The destruction of
        forest, particularly by burning, results in great increases in the amount of carbon in the
        atmosphere. This happens for two reasons. Firstly, there is a great reduction in the
        amount of carbon dioxide taken in by plants for photosynthesis and secondly, burning releases huge quantities of carbon dioxide
        into the atmosphere. (The 1997 fires in Indonesias rain forests are said to have
        added as much carbon to the atmosphere as all the coal, oil and gasoline burned that year
        in western Europe.) This is significant because carbon dioxide is one of the main
        greenhouse gases implicated in the current global warming trend.  
        (Climate
        Change Information)  | 
       
     
     | 
   
 
 
  
    | Average global temperatures have been showing a steadily increasing trend.
    Snow and ice cover have decreased, deep ocean temperatures have increased and global sea
    levels have risen by 100 - 200 mm over the last century. If current trends continue,
    scientists predict that the earth could be on average 1oC
    warmer by 2025 and 3oC warmer by 2100. These changes, while small, could have
    drastic effects. As an example, average temperatures in the last Ice Age were only 5oC
    colder than current temperatures. Rising sea levels which could drown many of our major cities,
    extreme weather conditions resulting in drought, flooding and hurricanes, together with
    changes in the distribution of disease-bearing organisms are all predicted effects of
    climate change.
    Forests also affect rainfall patterns through
    transpiration losses and protect the watershed of vast areas. Deforestation therefore
    results in local changes in the amount and distribution of rainfall. It often also results
    in erosion and loss of soil and often to flooding. Devastating flooding in many regions of
    China over the past few years has been largely attributed to deforestation. 
    These are only some of the ecological effects of
    deforestation. The effects described translate directly into economic effects on human
    populations.
    Economic Reasons
    Environmental disasters such as floods, forest fires
    and hurricanes indirectly or directly caused by human activities, all have dire economic
    consequences for the regions afflicted. Clean-up bills can run into the billions, not to
    mention the toll of human misery involved. Susceptible regions are often also in the
    less-developed and poorer nations to begin with. Erosion and desertification, often as a
    result of deforestation, reduce the ability of people to grow crops and to feed
    themselves. This leads to economic dependence on other nations.
    Non-sustainable extraction of resources (e.g.
    hardwood timber) will eventually lead to the collapse of the industry involved, with all
    the attendant economic losses. It should be noted that even if 'sustainable' methods are
    used, for example when harvested forest areas are replanted, these areas are in no way an
    ecological substitute for the established habitats which they have replaced. 
     Large-scale h abitat and
    biodiversity losses mean that species with potentially great economic importance may
    become extinct before they are even discovered. The vast, largely untapped resource of
    medicines and useful chemicals contained in wild species may disappear forever. The wealth
    of species contained in tropical rain forests may harbour untold numbers of chemically or
    medically useful species. Many marine species defend themselves chemically and this also
    represents a rich potential source of new economically important medicines. Additionally,
    the wild relatives of our cultivated crop plants provide an invaluable reservoir of
    genetic material to aid in the production of new varieties of crops. If all these are
    lost, then our crop plants also become more vulnerable to extinction.
    There is an ecological caveat here of course.
    Whenever a wild species is proved to be economically or socially useful, this
    automatically translates into further loss of natural habitat. This arises either through
    large-scale cultivation of the species concerned or its industrial production/ harvesting.
    Both require space, inevitably provided at the expense of natural habitats.  
    Perhaps the rain forests and the seas should be allowed to keep
    their secrets. 
    Ethical Reasons
    Do we have the right to decide which species
    should survive and which should die out? 
    Do we have the right to cause a mass extinction?  
    Most people would instinctively answer 'No!'. However, we have to
    realise that most biodiversity losses are now arising as a result of natural competition
    between humans and all other species for limited space and resources.  
    If we want the luxury of ethics, we need to reduce our populations. 
    Aesthetic Reasons
      
    Most people would agree that areas of vegetation,
    with all their attendant life forms, are inherently more attractive than burnt, scarred
    landscapes, or acres of concrete and buildings. Who wouldn't prefer to see butterflies
    dancing above coloured flowers, rather than an industrial complex belching smoke? 
    Human well-being is inextricably linked to the natural
    world. In the western world, huge numbers of people confined to large urban areas derive
    great pleasure from visiting the countryside. The ability to do so is regarded not so much
    as a need, but as a right. National governments must therefore juggle the conflicting
    requirements for more housing, industry and higher standards of living with demands for
    countryside for recreational purposes.    | 
   
 
 
Continue 
  
  
  
Copyright 2003 Dr Barbara
Corker 
  
  
  
  |