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.

[edit]Overexploitation
Main article:  Overexploitation

There is a whole history of overexploitation in the form of overhunting. The overkill hypothesis explains

why the megafaunal extinctions occurred within a relatively short period of time. This can be traced
with human migration.[83] About 25% of world fisheries are now overexploited to the point where their
current biomass is less than the level that maximizes their sustainable yield. [84]
Joe Walston, director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Asian programs, called the illegal wildlife
trade the “single largest threat” to biodiversity in Asia. [85] The international trade of endangered species is
second only to drug trafficking.[86]

[edit]Hybridization, genetic pollution/erosion and food security

The Yecoro wheat (right) cultivar is sensitive to salinity, plants resulting from a hybrid cross with cultivar W4910 (left) show
greater tolerance to high salinity

See also:  Food Security and  Genetic erosion

In agriculture and animal husbandry, the green revolution popularized the use of

conventional hybridization to increase yield. Often hybridized breeds originated in developed countries
and were further hybridized with local varieties in the developing world to create high yield strains
resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and industry have been pushing hybridization.
Formerly huge gene pools of various wild and indigenous breeds have collapsed causing
widespread genetic erosion and genetic pollution. This has resulted in loss of genetic diversity and
biodiversity as a whole.[87]

(GM organisms) have genetic material altered by genetic engineering procedures such as recombinant

DNA technology. GM crops have become a common source for genetic pollution, not only of wild varieties
but also of domesticated varieties derived from classical hybridization. [88][89][90][91][92]

Genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution may be destroying unique genotypes, thereby creating a
hidden crisis which could result in a severe threat to our food security. Diverse genetic material could
cease to exist which would impact our ability to further hybridize food crops and livestock against more
resistant diseases and climatic changes.[87] A Sampling of fungi collected during summer 2008 in Northern
Saskatchewan mixed woods, near LaRonge is an example regarding the species diversity of fungi. In this photo, there are

also leaflichens and mosses.

[edit]Genetic pollution
Main article:  Genetic pollution

Endemic species can be threatened with extinction[79] through the process of genetic pollution i.e.

uncontrolled hybridization, introgression and genetic swamping which leads to homogenization or
replacement of local genotypes as a result of either a numerical and/or fitness advantage of introduced
plant or animal.[80]Nonnative species can hybridize and introgress either through purposeful introduction
by humans or through habitat modification, mixing previously isolated species. These phenomena can be
especially detrimental for rare species coming into contact with more abundant ones. The abundant
species can interbreed with the rare species, swamping its gene pool and creating hybrids, destroying
native stock. This problem is not always apparent from morphological (outward appearance) observations
alone. Some degree of gene flowis a normal adaptation process, and not
all gene and genotype constellations can be preserved. However, hybridization with or without
introgression may, nevertheless, threaten a rare species' existence. [81][82]

What is biodiversity?
   

[edit]Climate Change
Main article:  Effect of Climate Change on Plant Biodiversity

The recent phenomenon of global warming is also considered to be a major threat to global biodiversity.
[citation needed]
 For example coral reefs -which are biodiversity hotspots- will be lost in 20 to 40 years if global
warming continues at the current trend.[93]

[edit]The Holocene extinction

Rates of decline in biodiversity in this sixth mass extinction match or exceed rates of loss in the five
previous mass extinction events recorded in the fossil record.[94][95][96][97][98] Loss of biodiversity results in the
loss of natural capital that supplies ecosystem goods and services. The economic value of 17 ecosystem
services for the entire biosphere (calculated in 1997) has an estimated average value of US$ 33 trillion
(1012) per year![99]
A schematic image illustrating the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem services, human well-being, and poverty.
[100]
 The illustration shows where conservation action, strategies and plans can influence the drivers of the current
biodiversity crisis at local, regional, to global scales.

Loss of biodiversity  
   
The loss of biological diversity may take many forms but at its most fundamental and irreversible it
involves the extinction of species. Over geological time, all species have a finite span of existence.
Species extinction is therefore a natural process which occurs without the intervention of man. However, it
is beyond question that extinctions caused directly or indirectly by man are occurring at a rate which far
exceeds any reasonable estimates of background extinction rates, and which, to the extent that it is
correlated with habitat peturbation, must be increasing.  Unfortunately, quantifying rates of species
extinction, both at present and historically, is difficult and predicting future rates with precision is
impossible. Documenting definite species extinctions is only realistic under a relatively limited set of
circumstances, where a described species is readily visible and has a well-defined range which can be
surveyed repeatedly. Unsurprisingly, most documented extinctions are of species that are easy to record
(e.g. land snails, birds) and inhabit sites which can be relatively easily inventoried (e.g. oceanic islands).
The large number of extinct species on oceanic islands is not solely an artefact of recording, because
island species are generally more prone to extinction as a result of human actions.  Rather than being
derived from observed extinctions, therefore, quoted global extinction rates are derived from
extrapolations of measured and predicted rates of habitat loss, and estimates of species richness in
different habitats. These two estimates are interpreted in the light of a principle derived from island
biogeography which states that the size of an area and of its species complement tend to have a
predictable relationship; fewer species are able to persist in a number of small habitat fragments than in
the original unfragmented habitat, and this can result in the extinction of species.  Even on best available
present knowledge, these estimates involve large degrees of uncertainty, and predictions of current and
future extinction rates should be interpreted with very considerable caution. Pursuit of increased accuracy
in the estimation of global extinction rates, however, whilst of great concern, is not a crucial activity; it is
more important to recognise in general terms the extent to which populations and species which are not
monitored are likely to be subject to fragmentation and extinction.  Loss of biodiversity in the form of crop
varieties and livestock breeds is of near zero significance in terms of overall global diversity, but genetic
erosion in these populations is of particular human concern in so far as it has implications for food supply
and the sustainability of locally-adapted agricultural practices. For domesticated populations, loss of wild
relatives of crop or timber plants is of special concern for the same reason. These genetic resources may
not only underlie the productivity of local agricultural systems but also, when incorporated in breeding
programmes, provide the foundation of traits (disease resistance, nutritional value, hardiness, etc.) of
global importance in intensive systems and which will assume even greater importance in the context of
future climate change. Erosion of diversity in crop gene pools is difficult to demonstrate quantitatively, but
tends to be indirectly assessed in terms of the increasing proportion of world cropland planted to high
yielding, but genetically uniform, varieties.  

The causes of loss of biological diversity  

   
Species may be exterminated by man through a series of effects and agencies. These may be divided
into two broad categories: direct (hunting, collection and persecution), and indirect (habitat destruction
and modification). Overhunting is perhaps the most obvious direct cause of extinction in animals, as it has
affected several large and well-known species. In terms of overall loss of biodiversity, however, it is
undoubtedly far less important than the indirect causes of habitat modification and loss. Nevertheless, as
it self-evidently selectively affects species which are or have been considered a harvestable resource, it
has important implications for the management of natural resources.  Genetic diversity, as represented by
genetic differences between discrete populations within wild species, is liable to reduction as a result of
the same factors affecting species. The genetic diversity represented by populations of crop plants or
livestock is liable to reduction as a result of mass production; the desired economies of scale demand
high levels of uniformity. Virtually any form of sustained human activity results in some modification of the
natural environment. This modification will affect the relative abundance of species and in extreme cases
may lead to extinction. This may result from the habitat being made unsuitable for the species (for
example, clear-felling of forests or severe pollution of rivers), or through the habitat becoming fragmented.
The latter has the effect of dividing previously contiguous populations of species into small sub-
populations. If these are sufficiently small, then chance processes lead to raised probabilities of extinction
within a relatively short time. A major, though at present largely unpredictable, change in natural
environments is likely to occur within the next century as a result of large-scale changes in global climate
and weather patterns. There is a high probability that these will cause greatly elevated extinction rates,
although their exact effects are at present unknown.

Threats to Biodiversity

Although it is clear that biodiversity conservation is vital to human survival, living

resources are increasingly threatened around the world. Some of the most direct
threats and illustrative examples include:

 habitat destruction (burning or felling of old-growth forests)

 overexploitation (overhunting of elephants and rhinos)
 pollution (industrial emissions that cause acid rain)
 global climate change (the greenhouse effect and destruction of the ozone
layer)
 invasion by introduced species (displacement of native songbirds in the U.S.
by European starlings)

These direct threats are often driven by underlying social conditions, including
increased per-capita consumption, poverty, rapid population growth, and unsound
economic and social policies.

economic and social policies.