Mass extinction of animals

[danmand]

Between 1970 and 2005, 27% of vertebrates have disappeared:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...ine-news_rss20


Moved from Political forum at the request of Papa.

 

[Moraff]

link didn't work for me.

Wonder how that rate compares to previous 30-year blocks?

 

[hunter001]

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13915-global-biodiversity-slumps-27-in-35-years.html

 

[danmand]

link didn't work for me.

Wonder how that rate compares to previous 30-year blocks?

Well, it can't have been that high for very many blocks of 35 years.

 

[basketcase]

Considering the rate at which new species and subspecies develop, I wonder what the net result would be.

Nature is pretty resiliant. No matter how bad we mess up the planet, there will be species surviving. We just may not be one of them.

 

[danmand]

Considering the rate at which new species and subspecies develop, I wonder what the net result would be.

Nature is pretty resiliant. No matter how bad we mess up the planet, there will be species surviving. We just may not be one of them.

I think you are wrong on that point. This study deals only in Vertebrates,
which are generally and relatively high on the food chain.

 

[Aardvark154]

Between 1970 and 2005, 27% of vertebrates have disappeared:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...ine-news_rss20


Moved from Political forum at the request of Papa.

As already mentioned the link is bad. However, I'd have to think that most of these are lower vertebrates not higher vertebrates such as birds or mammals.

 

[HafDun]

Considering the rate at which new species and subspecies develop, I wonder what the net result would be.

Nature is pretty resiliant. No matter how bad we mess up the planet, there will be species surviving. We just may not be one of them.

I think you misunderstood. The study suggests that there are 27% less vertebres on the planet. That is the net result.
And I don't think humans are factored in because we are probably the only vertebra on the planet that is growing in numbers.

 

[HafDun]

As already mentioned the link is bad. However, I'd have to think that most of these are lower vertebrates not higher vertebrates such as birds or mammals.

The biggest segment is fish which are definately declining due to over-harvesting, pollution and deteriorating habitats...but it only stands to reason that birds and land based mammels are also declining due to urbanization, deforestation, global warming, pollution and loss of habitat.
We humans are by far the most numerous and prolific mammal on the planet and we do a lousy job of sharing.

 

[C Dick]

And I don't think humans are factored in because we are probably the only vertebra on the planet that is growing in numbers.

Not so, there are some other species that are growing even faster, and are immensely successful, from an evolutionary standpoint. The world is quite different now for animals, and different traits are needed to succeed.

The high-growth, successful animals of the last 50 years? Cows, pigs and at number one: chickens.

Keys for animal success in the past: well-defined niche in ecosystem, adaptability, rapid breeding, resistance to disease, etc.

Keys for animal success now: Tastiness.