Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!A team of scientists — including T. Jonathan Davies of UCSB’s National Center for Ecological Analysis — has released a study indicating the evolutionary future of terrestrial mammal species and how the impacts of human behavior might influence global animal diversity. The study, which also featured contributions from scientists at the Imperial College London, the London Institute of Zoology, the Technical University of Munich and the University of Georgia at Athens, was published in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
T. Jonathan Davies
The study could influence future conservation efforts, namely by trying to protect animals that are not endangered at the moment but are likely to become this way in the future. “Think of it as a healthcare system with some species on life support and other, healthier species needing a vaccination to keep them thriving,” Davies was quoted as saying in an August 20 press release from UCSB.
Scientists participating in the study looked at both external factors — how species’ habitats have changed, how much of them have been lost, where the species lives, and whether it lives in a place where other species are endangered — as well as biological factors — including the animal’s size, at what age it reaches sexual maturity, and the size of its litters. Davies noted that the most threatened species is primates, who are slow reproducers living in specific areas. Species like rats, rabbits and foxes, Davies said, are hardier and less likely to become extinct.
An unknown, however, is how climate change could factor into these species’ futures. “It’s very difficult to predict which species will survive when we don’t know what the future climates will be,” Davies said.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
“It’s very difficult to predict which species will survive when we don’t know what the future climates will be,”
Well by all means, I think it's appropriate for society to pay you millions to continue to guess...and be wrong over and over again. Get a real job, dude.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 2
sa1 (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sa1, Maybe you stayed up past your bedtime. No need to be so nasty - especially when your comment is fraught with assumptions that are incorrect and unfair at the least. "Difficult to predict" does not mean "guess," nor does it seem likely that "society" is "paying millions" to Mr. Davies. Finally, the hyperbole in claiming that these studies are "wrong over and over again" speaks for itself.
Or maybe you're joking!
This is important research - thanks for reporting it, Indy.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
vgsquare (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The biggest cause of enviromental destruction is poverty. Starving people don't worry about the enviroment. Solve that problem and the enviroment will take care of itself as it has for millions of years.
At the turn of the century, Yellowstone Park managers thought the elk were going to become extinct so they trapped and killed all the wolves and banned hunting. The elk heards grew so big they ate all the grass and trees the beavers depended on. The beavers left so no dams were built, the meadows dried up and the trout and otters disapeared...so they shot thousands of elk in the 1920's. Unfortunately by then the park ecology was changed forever.
The lawyers, politicians, academics and the media have colluded to keep the public in a constant state of fear.
Think about it, how many times do you hear of new "studies" that contradict old "studies" and require more funding and laws and research to solve the next great fear fostered on societies?
What happens when "they" actually solve problems? Funding dries up and the media has to find a new demon for the lawyers to sue, the politicians to make laws and the academics to study and come up with a grand solution...
How many millions were spent on "saving" the Condors? Yet just recently the Indy ran a story about how the Condors were doomed anyway due to all the lead poisoning in carcasses left by hunters.
Our do nothing absent State Rep hero Pedro wasted plenty of time and money creating an unenforceable law though. Bet he thinks that will get him some votes.
How about sea otters? We protected them and now the urchin and abalone are gone. That was food for someone, who eats sea otters?
How about the price of tortillas in Mexico? With all the corn grown that now goes to Gasahol, I wonder who came up with that solution.
The basic point is there's no money in solving problems, there's tons of money in studying them.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 2 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 2
sa1 (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You know now that I think about it, one of the popular, and strongly supported academic philosophies of the 20th century was Eugenics.
Maybe we can throw some money at that one again too...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
sa1 (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment