Mountaineer April 6, 2011 April 6, 2011 I forgot the thread title and only read the first, second, and third posts one after the other. I then laughed out loud.
OUsnakebyte April 7, 2011 April 7, 2011 "With 75% of the world's reefs situated near human settlements -- whose populations are expected to double over the coming century -- the situation can only deteriorate if no action is taken, which poses some uncomfortable questions, Mora thinks. 'Human overpopulation is a very sensitive topic across endeavors from science to religion and politics. Unfortunately, we find again and again that our global population cannot be sustainably supported with the deterioration of the world's natural resources...' Mora said." Yup, treat the problem, not the symptoms. But... it's more that just a "touchy" subject, I agree. "'In coral reefs we found the complete opposite. Ecosystems work much better if they have more biodiversity. Every single species has a unique contribution to how well an ecosystem functions.'" Exactly. Competitive exclusion principle - and this has been documented several times. Loss of Diadema urchins (compounding a century or more of overfishing) in the Caribbean -> algal reefs. Loss of sea otters on the west coast from hunting -> increased urchin populations -> loss of kelp beds The examples are numerous. Mike
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now