The Population Confrontation

The article that Schreer gave me this week taught me three things about human population and how it relates to the natural environment. This includes freshwater availability, food security, and carbon dioxide emissions. As a population within a country grows, it is shown that over time freshwater availability drops dramatically. This is most likely due to a combination of human consumption and also water pollution. This is also the main reason why developing countries, the ones with rapid population growth, experience an extreme shortage of food and declining population sizes for many animals. These kind of things occur because of a lack of means to obtain food at a sustainable level. Eventually people will resort to hunting and eventually hurt animals they aren't supposed to. And as expected, the CO2 levels of countries rise along with population, who need to drive and stuff.

These issues relate to APES when considering the effect of human interaction with aquaculture and the carbon cycle. As people continue to dumb crap into freshwater reserves, we ultimately screw ourselves over. Increased waste leads to less drinkable water and less food when you consider that the animals who drink from those sources will also die. Extra carbon emissions mess up our atmosphere and create too much carbon waste in the atmosphere. This throws the carbon cycle way out of balance and according to Dr. Seuss also chokes the birds flying by. Now that's a shame.

A question I have is about countries with smaller populations. I know places like Switzerland on Norway are all super eco-friendly, but is that naturally or because of conservation efforts? They have it easier than places like India I'd imagine.

Whale would you look at what you've done with the place

Three things I learned in the blog this week was how large land mammals were vital to the nutrient cycle, how whales affect how the ocean reacts to climate change, and that the amount of phosphorus moved to plants is about 23% of what it was. Apparently creatures like giant sloths were a big reason why nutrients were moved around so much many years ago. Their feces and decaying bodies helped bring to life the ecosystems we have now. Unfortunately, modern day equivalents like whales have been dying off, so nutrients aren't being passed around so much. This is especially true with things like phosphorus, which get pushed from the bottom to the to then on land by many aquatic mammals. When they die, plants go with them. And that also means us for anyone wondering.

Two ways this relates to APES is by looking at the human activity in the oceans and back at the nutrient cycles. As people continue to whale or remain inconsiderate with their oil and fuel spillages, we continue to kill of whales, which as we have learned is pretty awful for everyone. Their absence disrupts the nutrient cycle of phosphorus, but also just reduces general biodiversity. Without whales, I'd imagine that the krill population would explode to a fairly unnatural level. The imbalance all this could cause is scary to think about.

A question I have is how connected are whales? We learned of a few examples in the article, but I bet they play a much bigger role in the world than you'd be led to believe. Can we link whale deaths to some economic issue? Maybe we'd care then.

Rather have Bees than B's

Today I learned how size can affect data collected on species, how important pollinators really are to people, and how pesticides can pose a threat to certain insects. In regards to size, butterflies and bees are in major trouble. In all seriousness, it turns out smaller animals are more likely to be overlooked when conducting biodiversity studies. This is an issue when you look at what these tiny yet necessary creatures do. The blog says in the next decade we will lose over 20,000 species of plants, which could cause massive unbalance in food webs across the globe. One method of destruction that is particularly prolific in these examples is pesticides. Agricultural areas in particular can have a massive amount of deadly runoff in the events of rain or storms, which can potentially annihilate an entire population of pollinators.

Two ways this relates back to class is our study of biodiversity and the food web. Biodiversity is the measure of diversity of ecosystems,species and in this case; genes. When any amount of, say, butterflies are killed, the genes possessed by those individuals are gone forever and can't return without some form mutation or introduction of another species. Also, the food web that includes those butterflies and all the flowers they pollinate would be thrown out of whack and eventually collapse. We learned of this and how human activities can cause this to happen.

I wonder what insects are safe from pesticides? Does the mosquito spray we use at home affect all other insects? We imagine this all happening at farms, but perhaps our stuff at home is doing just as much damage.

Mo' Timber Money, Mo' Timber Probelms

The reading provided this week had many interesting points I could say I was aware of, but had specifics I wasn't. Food security is one I doubt many people think about. Rarely do our own food sources at home become insecure, but the Irish potato famine is an example of how biodiversity is necessary for our food supply to be healthy. Economic issues are always ones that surprise me when brought up with the environment. apparently while large amounts of harvest initially is the most immediate way to generate revenue, there are ecologically friendlier ways to make money with wildlife while maintaining biodiversity. Like that sweet cow example Mr. Schreer shared with us! Water purification is the last aspect of life i learned is affected by biodiversity. According to the article, many microorganisms are destroyed due to habitat loss, resulting in the water sources having nothing to filter certain compounds out.

Two ways this info relates to APES is economic and through food webs. Already I mentioned the potential loss of revenue that comes with a loss of biodiversity. Another point of interest is the conservation costs that are accumulating. The money needed for things like sanctuaries or bounties on invasion species is far into the billions range. The damage to our biodiversity is just as great now as the damage to our wallets. Another point of interest is the connection between biodiversity and the food webs we learned about. When a certain species goes missing from a web, it ultimately allows species above to dwindle and below to flourish. Very rarely does it work out where everything else survives, there is always collapse. The more diverse an ecosystem is, the more stable the web remains.

A question I have is about invasive species. Is there money in hunting these things? This is not an ethics or philosophical question but more about cold hard cash. Can a man make his living traveling abroad and killing all the animals and plants that are doing more harm than good? Maybe that's a good solution to our 2nd amendment infestation.

I'd Rather Work Alone than be Called a Cheetah

Three things I learned from the article this week were the necessary number of a species needed to repopulate, the importance of genetic diversity, and the bottleneck issue involving cheetahs. As stated by the author, it takes more than two of a kind to produce a sizable population. This is because a lack of diversity that comes from only two organisms leaves a group open to threats of disease, disasters, or natural selection. Genetic diversity is attained when there is enough variation within a species that at least some are able to survive and reproduce in the event of some misfortune. Cheetah in particular face this issue with having 99% similar DNA between two individuals., This means if any of them catch a fatal disease, about 99% in total will also.

This relates to APES with regard to our recent discussion of the bottleneck effect and biodiversity. The bottleneck effect, as we learned, is usually caused by human intervention in the form of poaching, farming, or habitat destruction. These activities combine to not only affect individual species, but entire ecosystems. Biodiversity is extremely important when considering how a food web remains in balance. In class we learned the effect and saw examples of how a collapse can affect animals, plants, and humans.

Do species naturally become more diverse over time? I wonder this especially with humans, They say one day all people will look nearly the same, which makes for a good TIME magazine cover, but is it true? And if it is, does that go for genetics as well? Will all our DNA become so similar one day that we just create a bottleneck effect accidentally? I guess this is really more than one question, but its all kinda one idea.

"Yeah, our office has to do biodiversity training today."

The economic benefits of biodiversity, importance of large carnivores, and how crucial bees are to humans are just a few of he things I learned from the blog this week. Bees are necessary for the survival of over 130,000 species, which accounts for 1/3 of all the food eat. The problem then comes when environmental pollution and pesticides come into the frame and cause a steady decline in bee population. As we all saw in the 2007 blockbuster Bee Movie, this decline can lead to massive problems. The importance of large carnivores is their ability to keep herbivores in check. When we kill all the wolves in a forest, nothing is stopping the rabbits from eating everything, leading to a collapse in the food web. The final point I found interesting was the economic value of biodiversity. While the article pointed out that it's strange and somewhat wrong to put a price on nature, it was estimated that spending around $25 Billion on reducing emissions could save humans an average of $3.2 Trillion.

The politics of carbon emission reduction and studying inter-species interactions relate to what we cover in APES. Convincing any government to invest the aforementioned $25 Billion in the environment is a stretch. Facts seem to always get ignored, and no one can ever think further than a week in government. Interactions between species such as bees and producers is a topic we cover in class as well. Observing things like energy transfer, reproduction, and consumption help us to see how the degradation of one species can potentially irreversibly harm another. 

One question I have after reading this is what carnivores have we replaced? If people hunt enough deer annually in Texas, for example, do we really need coyotes anymore? Does there exist some third level species that we don't need to exist anymore? 

Well guess what Tree; you're fired!

Three things I learned from the article by Ted Schuur include the effect climate change has on lightning, precipitation, and moisture in soil. From the reading, it is stated that increasing temperatures in North America due to climate change is increasing lightning strikes during storms and reducing precipitation and moisture levels on the ground. All these factors combine to rapidly increase the number of forest fires occurring the the northern part of North America.

The article relates to Environmental Science through the studies of the carbon cycle and animal habitats. As more organic material burns, more carbon is released into the atmosphere, further heating the earth and surrounding climates. Habitat loss comes into play when you consider how many animals will need to relocate to accommodate for their homes being burned down. This will definitely interfere with different food webs in different areas and create serious problems regarding survival of certain species.

A question I have after reading this is what point will the forest fires affect  populated areas? A fire in Alaskan wilderness generally doesn't get as much attention as one in Central Park. Which factor needs to change for a large group of people to be directly affected?

How about we ask Mr. Owl.