Posts

Comments

"I feel like Cardinale's message of reversing this mass loss of biodiversity comes across pretty clear - and thankfully done in language that's a whole lot easier to understand. A key point that sticks out to me is in Consensus Statement Five, where he reports that the destruction of biodiversity in one particular trophic level is worse than a generalized loss over many different levels. It really makes you think about the plants and animals we've seen go extinct over the years, because surely their departure means we've contributed to the more dangerous weakening of biodiversity in one level. We've taken out huge chunks of lots of trophic levels, so maybe it's time we stop?"
--( posted on Oct 1, 2013, commenting on the post Cardinale/Biodiversity )
 
"I’m fairly sure protection agencies have been established in light of experiments such as this one, (ie. recreational fishers are only allowed to catch certain quantities of different fish species under the law) so we can hopefully be a bit more optimistic in believing that Silliman’s findings haven’t fallen on deaf ears. A lot more can be done to better control the balance in a top-down ecosystem viewing, but a lot of the changes, and therefore the management, deals with the one figure you mentioned was left out of the chart: us. However you want to look at it, human beings have altered quite a number of ecosystems to benefit our own species – not saying that other species haven’t, but we’re kind of the top of the food chain so we carry more of the responsibility – and so we’ve probably inadvertently set a few chains of ecological disfunction into motion. Consequently, we now have to deal with the repercussions of our actions, and ecosystems will change as a result of that. /end morbid rant"
--( posted on Sep 26, 2013, commenting on the post Bottom-Up? Think Again. )
 
"I'm fairly sure protection agencies have been established in light of experiments such as this one, (ie. recreational fishers are only allowed to catch certain quantities of different fish species under the law) so we can hopefully be a bit more optimistic in believing that Silliman's findings haven't fallen on deaf ears. A lot more can be done to better control the balance in a top-down ecosystem viewing, but a lot of the changes, and therefore the management, deals with the one figure you mentioned was left out of the chart: us. However you want to look at it, human beings have altered quite a number of ecosystems to benefit our own species - not saying that other species haven't, but we're kind of the top of the food chain so we carry more of the responsibility - and so we've probably inadvertently set a few chains of ecological disfunction into motion. Consequently, we now have to deal with the repercussions of our actions, and ecosystems will change as a result of that. /end morbid rant"
--( posted on Sep 26, 2013, commenting on the post Bottom-Up? Think Again. )