Biodiversity Is The Variation of Life Forms Within A Given

Biodiversity is the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or for the
entire Earth. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological

systems. The biodiversity found on Earth today consists of many millions of distinct
biological species, which is the product of nearly 3.5 billion years of evolution.[1][2]
2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity.
International Year of Biodiversity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The International Year of Biodiversity (IYB) is a year-long celebration of

biological diversity and its value for life on Earth, taking place around the world in
2010. Coinciding with the date of the 2010 Biodiversity Target, the Year was declared
by the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2006.
The International Year of Biodiversity will help raise awareness of the importance of
biodiversity all over the world. Saving biodiversity requires an effort from everyone.
Through activities and events in many countries, the global community will work
together to ensure a sustainable future for us all.
[edit] Slogan
Biodiversity is life
Biodiversity is our life
[edit] Main messages

Humans are part of nature’s rich diversity and have the power to protect or destroy it.
Biodiversity, the variety of life on Earth, is essential to sustaining the living networks
and systems that provide us all with health, wealth, food, fuel and the vital services
our lives depend on.
Human activity is causing the diversity of life on Earth to be lost at a greatly

accelerated rate. These losses are irreversible, impoverish us all and damage the life
support systems we rely on everyday. But we can prevent them.
2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. Let’s reflect on our achievements to

safeguard biodiversity and focus on the urgency of our challenge for the future. Now
is the time to act.
1
[edit] Main goals
The celebrations of the International Year of Biodiversity are a unique opportunity to
raise public awareness about the vital role of biodiversity sustaining life on Earth,
supporting ecosystem services and of its importance to human wellbeing and poverty
reduction.
The main goals of the International Year of Biodiversity are to:
• Enhance public awareness of the importance of conserving biodiversity and of

the underlying threats to biodiversity
• Raise awareness of the accomplishments to save biodiversity that have already
been realized by communities and governments
• Promote innovative solutions to reduce the threats to biodiversity
• Encourage individuals, organizations and governments to take immediate
steps to halt biodiversity loss
• Start dialogue between stakeholders for the steps to be taken in the post-2010
period.
Every person in the world is invited to participate, to act and to share experiences with
others.
[edit] Background
The United Nations General Assembly declared 2010 as the International Year of
Biodiversity (resolution 61/203). This year coincides with the 2010 Biodiversity
Target adopted by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and by Heads
of State and government at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg in 2002.
The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, based in Montreal,

Canada, is coordinating the International Year of Biodiversity.
Established at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international treaty for the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the multiple benefits of
biodiversity. The CBD has near-universal participation, with 191 Parties.
[edit] Celebrations around the world

At the international level International organizations will celebrate the year through a
number of events that highlight what is being done.
By Governments
Governments are the main coordinators of the celebrations. While governments are
making plans, here are some ideas of what to do:
2
• Extensive website and information materials distributed widely;
• Coordinated series of celebrations at national, regional and local levels;
• Extensive support to events created by civil society organizations and others;
• National support to promote “2010 Success Stories”, including recognition
through prizes and certificates of exemplary actions by citizens in support for
biodiversity;
• Exhibition on “2010 Success Stories” at the CEPA fair, at COP-10;
• Release of National Reports and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action
Plans (NBSAPs);
• Extensive mobilization of Natural History Museums, including support for the
organization of travelling exhibitions;
• Sponsor and publicize activities organized by biodiversity-related scientific
societies and research centres;
• Partnerships with broadcasters, including sponsorship of film festivals;
• Support for local biodiversity monitoring programmes;
• Holding of youth events, including symposia, competitions, etc.;
• Integration of biodiversity issues into the Education system.
By NGOs
• Adapt and adopt the International Year of Biodiversity messages and then
diffuse them in your networks.
• Highlight and promote your own 2010 success stories.
• Provide support and resources to national events including on:
o the International Day for Biodiversity 22 May.
o the World Environment Day, 5 June, and other events.
• Build links between biodiversity and other environmental and development
themes.
• Organise events at key international meetings.
• Become involved in the Convention on Biological Diversity process.
By anyone who wishes to participate

As part of the International Year of Biodiversity, people around the world are invited
to submit ideas of biodiversity-friendly practices, which:
• have a positive impact on biodiversity.

• promote the sustainable use of biodiversity.
• promote innovative solutions to biodiversity-related problems.
• motivate individual action to protect biodiversity.
• can be adapted and imitated by others.
• raise people’s awareness of biodiversity.
• show the relationship between biodiversity and other themes.
[edit] Biodiversity-friendly practices in everyday life

Everyone can help biodiversity and the environment by living in a sustainable
manner. How are we affecting our surrounding environment? How do our actions
affect more distant ecosystems and other people? To consume less, waste less, reuse
3
and recycle are only the first steps to help biodiversity. Simple everyday activities
make a difference.
[edit] What can I do?

Learn about biodiversity and environmental issues in your area and in your country.
You need to know a bit about what biodiversity is before you can act. You can
participate in the International Year of Biodiversity at the local level by joining
environmental NGOs and volunteering in environmental actions. Saving biodiversity
starts in the community. Find out about the celebrations in your country and
participate. If there are no celebrations in your area, you can organize biodiversity-
related activities, conferences and events yourself. Your biggest contribution though
is in your daily actions. Thoughtful consumption that takes into account the impact of
your actions on the ecosystems of our planet is the way you can conserve and
sustainably use the biodiveristy of our planet.
[edit] Etymology
The term was used first by wildlife scientist and conservationist Raymond F.
Dasmann in a lay book[3] advocating nature conservation. The term was not widely
adopted for more than a decade, when in the 1980s it and "biodiversity" came into
common usage in science and environmental policy. Use of the term by Thomas
Lovejoy in the Foreword to the book[4] credited with launching the field of
conservation biology introduced the term along with "conservation biology" to the
scientific community. Until then the term "natural diversity" was used in conservation
science circles, including by The Science Division of The Nature Conservancy in an
important 1975 study, "The Preservation of Natural Diversity." By the early 1980s
TNC's Science program and its head Robert E. Jenkins, Lovejoy, and other leading
conservation scientists at the time in America advocated the use of "biological
diversity" to embrace the object of biological conservation.
The term's contracted form biodiversity may have been coined by W.G. Rosen in
1985 while planning the National Forum on Biological Diversity organized by the
National Research Council (NRC) which was to be held in 1986, and first appeared in
a publication in 1988 when entomologist E. O. Wilson used it as the title of the
proceedings[5] of that forum.[6]
Since this period both terms and the concept have achieved widespread use among
biologists, environmentalists, political leaders, and concerned citizens worldwide. The
term is sometimes used to equate to a concern for the natural environment and nature
conservation. This use has coincided with the expansion of concern over extinction
observed in the last decades of the 20th century.
A similar concept in use in the United States, besides natural diversity, is the term
"natural heritage." It pre-dates both terms though it is a less scientific term and more
easily comprehended in some ways by the wider audience interested in conservation.
"Natural Heritage" was used when Jimmy Carter set up the Georgia Heritage Trust
4
while he was governor of Georgia; Carter's trust dealt with both natural and cultural
heritage. It would appear that Carter picked the term up from Lyndon Johnson, who
used it in a 1966 Message to Congress. "Natural Heritage" was picked up by the
Science Division of the US Nature Conservancy when, under Jenkins, it launched in
1974 the network of State Natural Heritage Programs. When this network was
extended outside the USA, the term "Conservation Data Center" was suggested by
Guillermo Mann and came to be preferred.
[edit] Definitions
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 leaf lichens and mosses.
"Biological diversity" or "biodiversity" can have many interpretations and it is most

commonly used to replace the more clearly defined and long established terms,
species diversity and species richness. Biologists most often define biodiversity as the
"totality of genes, species, and ecosystems of a region". An advantage of this
definition is that it seems to describe most circumstances and present a unified view
of the traditional three levels at which biological variety has been identified:
• genetic diversity
Genetic diversity
Genetic diversity is a level of biodiversity that refers to the total number of genetic
characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species. It is distinguished from genetic
variability, which describes the tendency of genetic characteristics to vary.
The academic field of population genetics includes several hypotheses and theories
regarding genetic diversity. The neutral theory of evolution proposes that diversity is
the result of the accumulation of neutral substitutions. Diversifying selection is the
hypothesis that two subpopulations of a species live in different environments that
select for different alleles at a particular locus. This may occur, for instance, if a
species has a large range relative to the mobility of individuals within it. Frequency-
dependent selection is the hypothesis that as alleles become more common, they
become less fit. This is often invoked in host-pathogen interactions, where a high
frequency of a defensive allele among the host means that it is more likely that a
pathogen will spread if it is able to overcome that allele.
[edit] Importance of genetic diversity
5
There are many different ways to measure genetic diversity. The modern causes for
the loss of animal genetic diversity have also been studied and identified.[1][2] A 2007
study conducted by the National Science Foundation found that genetic diversity and
biodiversity are dependent upon each other -- that diversity within a species is
necessary to maintain diversity among species, and vice versa. According to the lead
researcher in the study, Dr. Richard Lankau, "If any one type is removed from the
system, the cycle can break down, and the community becomes dominated by a single
species."[3]
[edit] Survival and adaptation

Genetic diversity plays a very important role in survival and adaptability of a species
because when a species’s environment changes, slight gene variations are necessary to
produce changes in the organisms' anatomy that enables it to adapt and survive. A
species that has a large degree of genetic diversity among its population will have
more variations from which to choose the most fit alleles. Increase in genetic diversity
is also essential for an organism to evolve. Species that have very little genetic
variation are at a great risk. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy
reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring often deal with similar
problems to those of inbreeding.[4] The vulnerability of a population to certain types of
diseases can also increase with reduction in genetic diversity.
[edit] Agricultural relevance
When humans initially started farming, they used selective breeding to pass on
desirable traits of the crops while omitting the undesirable ones. Selective breeding
leads to monocultures: entire farms of nearly genetically identical plants. Little to no
genetic diversity makes crops extremely susceptible to widespread disease. Bacteria
morph and change constantly. When a disease causing bacterium changes to attack a
specific genetic variation, it can easily wipe out vast quantities of the species. If the
genetic variation that the bacterium is best at attacking happens to be that which
humans have selectively bred to use for harvest, the entire crop will be wiped out.[5]
A very similar occurrence is the cause of the infamous Potato Famine in Ireland.
Since new potato plants do not come as a result of reproduction but rather from pieces
of the parent plant, no genetic diversity is developed, and the entire crop is essentially
a clone of one potato, it is especially susceptible to an epidemic. In the 1840s, much
of Ireland’s population depended on potatoes for food. They planted namely the
“lumper” variety of potato, which was susceptible to a rot-causing plasmodiophorid
called Phytophthora infestans.[6] This plasmodiophorid destroyed the vast majority of
the potato crop, and left tens of thousands of people to starve to death.
[edit] Coping with poor genetic diversity
6
The natural world has several ways of preserving or increasing genetic diversity.
Among oceanic plankton, viruses aid in the genetic shifting process. Ocean viruses,
which infect the plankton, carry genes of other organisms in addition their own. When
a virus containing the genes of one cell infects another, the genetic makeup of the
latter changes. This constant shift of genetic make-up helps to maintain a healthy
population of plankton despite complex and unpredictable environmental changes.[7]
Cheetahs are a threatened species. Extremely low genetic diversity and resulting poor
sperm quality has made breeding and survivorship difficult for cheetahs –- only about
5% of cheetahs survive to adulthood.[8] About 10,000 years ago, all but the jubatus
species of cheetahs died out. The species encountered a population bottleneck and
close family relatives were forced to mate with each other, or inbreed.[9] However, it
has been recently discovered that female cheetahs can mate with more than one male
per litter of cubs. They undergo induced ovulation, which means that a new egg is
produced every time a female mates. By mating with multiple males, the mother
increases the genetic diversity within a single litter of cubs.[10]
• species diversity
Species diversity
Species diversity is an index that incorporates the number of species in an area and
also their relative abundance. It is generally a much more useful value than species
richness.
The most common index of species diversity is a family of equations called Simpson's
Diversity Index[1].
Here is one such example
D = (n / N)2
Where n is the total number of organisms of a particular species and N is the total
number of organisms of all species. D is the value of diversity. It can range between 0
and 1, where 0 is infinite diversity, and 1 is the least diverse an ecosystem can
possibly be (i.e. only one species present).
Humans have a huge effect on species diversity; the main reasons are:
- Destruction, Modification, and/or Fragmentation of Habitat
- Introduction of Exotic Species
- Overharvest
- Global Climate Change
7
• ecosystem diversity
Ecosystem diversity
Ecosystem diversity refers to the diversity of a place at the level of ecosystems. It is

contrasted with biodiversity, which refers to variation in species rather than
ecosystems.
This multilevel conception is consistent with the early use of "biological diversity" in
Washington. D.C. and international conservation organizations in the late 1960s
through 1970's, by Raymond F. Dasmann who apparently coined the term and
Thomas E. Lovejoy who later introduced it to the wider conservation and science
communities. An explicit definition consistent with this interpretation was first given
in a paper by Bruce A. Wilcox commissioned by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) for the 1982 World National
Parks Conference in Bali [7] The definition Wilcox gave is "Biological diversity is the
variety of life forms...at all levels of biological systems (i.e., molecular, organismic,
population, species and ecosystem)..." Subsequently, the 1992 United Nations Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro defined "biological diversity" as "the variability among
living organisms from all sources, including, 'inter alia', terrestrial, marine, and other
aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes
diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems". This is, in fact, the
closest thing to a single legally accepted definition of biodiversity, since it is the
definition adopted by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
The current textbook definition of "biodiversity" is "variation of life at all levels of

biological organization".[8]
For geneticists, biodiversity is the diversity of genes and organisms. They study
processes such as mutations, gene exchanges, and genome dynamics that occur at the
DNA level and generate evolution. Consistent with this, along with the above
definition the Wilcox paper stated "genes are the ultimate source of biological
organization at all levels of biological systems..."
[edit] Measurement
Main article: Measurement of biodiversity
Measurement of biodiversity
8
Main article: Biodiversity
Polar bears on the sea ice of the Arctic Ocean, near the north pole.
A variety of objective measures have been created in order to empirically measure

biodiversity. Each measure of biodiversity relates to a particular use of the data. For
practical conservationists, measurements should include a quantification of values that
are commonly-shared among locally affected organisms, including humans. For
others, a more economically defensible definition should allow the ensuring of
continued possibilities for both adaptation and future use by humans, assuring
environmental sustainability.
As a consequence, biologists argue that this measure is likely to be associated with the
variety of genes. Since it cannot always be said which genes are more likely to prove
beneficial, the best choice for conservation is to assure the persistence of as many
genes as possible. For ecologists, this latter approach is sometimes considered too
restrictive, as it prohibits ecological succession.
Biodiversity is usually plotted as taxonomic richness of a geographic area, with some

reference to a temporal scale. Whittaker[1] described three common metrics used to
measure species-level biodiversity, encompassing attention to species richness or
species evenness:
• Species richness - the least sophisticated of the indices available.

• Simpson index
• Shannon-Wiener index
Recently, another new index has been invented called the Mean Species Abundance
Index (MSA); this index calculates the trend in population size of a cross section of
the species. It does this in line with the CBD 2010 indicator for species abundance.[2]
There are three other indices which are used by ecologists:
• Alpha diversity refers to diversity within a particular area, community or

ecosystem, and is measured by counting the number of taxa within the
ecosystem (usually species)
• Beta diversity is species diversity between ecosystems; this involves
comparing the number of taxa that are unique to each of the ecosystems.
• Gamma diversity is a measurement of the overall diversity for different
ecosystems within a region.
A variety of objective measures have been created in order to empirically measure

biodiversity. Each measure of biodiversity relates to a particular use of the data. For
practical conservationists, measurements should include a quantification of values that
are commonly-shared among locally affected organisms, including humans. For
others, a more economically defensible definition should allow the ensuring of
9
continued possibilities for both adaptation and future use by humans, assuring
environmental sustainability.
[edit] Distribution
A conifer forest in the Swiss Alps (National Park).
Selection bias continues to bedevil modern estimates of biodiversity. In 1768 Rev.

Gilbert White succinctly observed of his Selborne, Hampshire "all nature is so full,
that that district produces the most variety which is the most examined."[9]
Nevertheless, biodiversity is not distributed evenly on Earth. It is consistently richer

in the tropics and in other localized regions such as the Cape Floristic Province. As
one approaches polar regions one generally finds fewer species. Flora and fauna
diversity depends on climate, altitude, soils and the presence of other species. In the
year 2006 large numbers of the Earth's species were formally classified as rare or
endangered or threatened species; moreover, many scientists have estimated that there
are millions more species actually endangered which have not yet been formally
recognized. About 40 percent of the 40,177 species assessed using the IUCN Red List
criteria, are now listed as threatened species with extinction - a total of 16,119
species.[10]
Even though biodiversity declines from the equator to the poles in terrestrial
ecoregions, whether this is so in aquatic ecosystems is still a hypothesis to be tested,
especially in marine ecosystems where causes of this phenomenon are unclear.[11] In
addition, particularly in marine ecosystems, there are several well stated cases where
diversity in higher latitudes actually increases. Therefore, the lack of information on
biodiversity of Tropics and Polar Regions prevents scientific conclusions on the
distribution of the world’s aquatic biodiversity.
A biodiversity hotspot is a region with a high level of endemic species. These

biodiversity hotspots were first identified by Dr. Norman Myers in two articles in the
scientific journal The Environmentalist.[12][13] Dense human habitation tends to occur
near hotspots. Most hotspots are located in the tropics and most of them are forests.
Brazil's Atlantic Forest is considered a hotspot of biodiversity and contains roughly

20,000 plant species, 1350 vertebrates, and millions of insects, about half of which
occur nowhere else in the world. The island of Madagascar including the unique
Madagascar dry deciduous forests and lowland rainforests possess a very high ratio of
species endemism and biodiversity, since the island separated from mainland Africa
65 million years ago, most of the species and ecosystems have evolved independently
producing unique species different from those in other parts of Africa.
Many regions of high biodiversity (as well as high endemism) arise from very
specialized habitats which require unusual adaptation mechanisms. For example the
peat bogs of Northern Europe.
10
[edit] Evolution
Apparent marine fossil diversity during the Phanerozoic Eon
Biodiversity found on Earth today is the result of 4 billion years of evolution. The
origin of life has not been definitely established by science, however some evidence
suggests that life may already have been well-established a few hundred million years
after the formation of the Earth. Until approximately 600 million years ago, all life
consisted of archaea, bacteria, protozoans and similar single-celled organisms.
The history of biodiversity during the Phanerozoic (the last 540 million years), starts
with rapid growth during the Cambrian explosion—a period during which nearly
every phylum of multicellular organisms first appeared. Over the next 400 million
years or so, global diversity showed little overall trend, but was marked by periodic,
massive losses of diversity classified as mass extinction events.
The apparent biodiversity shown in the fossil record suggests that the last few million
years include the period of greatest biodiversity in the Earth's history. However, not
all scientists support this view, since there is considerable uncertainty as to how
strongly the fossil record is biased by the greater availability and preservation of
recent geologic sections. Some (e.g. Alroy et al. 2001) argue that, corrected for
sampling artifacts, modern biodiversity is not much different from biodiversity 300
million years ago.[14] Estimates of the present global macroscopic species diversity
vary from 2 million to 100 million species, with a best estimate of somewhere near
13–14 million, the vast majority of them arthropods.[15]
Most biologists agree however that the period since the emergence of humans is part
of a new mass extinction, the Holocene extinction event, caused primarily by the
impact humans are having on the environment. It has been argued that the present rate
of extinction is sufficient to eliminate most species on the planet Earth within 100
years.[16]
New species are regularly discovered (on average between 5–10,000 new species each
year, most of them insects) and many, though discovered, are not yet classified
(estimates are that nearly 90% of all arthropods are not yet classified).[15] Most of the
terrestrial diversity is found in tropical forests.
[edit] Human benefits
Summer field in Belgium (Hamois).
Biodiversity also supports a number of natural ecosystem processes and services [17].
Some ecosystem services that benefit society are air quality [18], climate (both global
CO2 sequestration and local), water purification pollination, and prevention of
erosion.[18].
11
Since the stone age, species loss has been accelerated above the geological rate by
human activity. The rate of species extinction is difficult to estimate, but it has been
estimated that species are now being lost at a rate approximately 100 times as fast as
is typical in the geological record, or perhaps as high as 10 000 times as fast.[19] To
feed such a large population, more land is being transformed from wilderness with
wildlife into agricultural, mining, lumbering, and urban areas for humans.
Non-material benefits that are obtained from ecosystems include spiritual and
aesthetic values , knowledge systems and the value of education.
[edit] Agriculture
The economic value of the reservoir of genetic traits present in wild varieties and
traditionally grown landraces is extremely important in improving crop
performance[citation needed]. Important crops, such as the potato and coffee, are often
derived from only a few genetic strains[citation needed]. Improvements in crop plants over
the last 250 years have been largely due to harnessing the genetic diversity present in
wild and domestic crop plants[citation needed]. Interbreeding crops strains with different
beneficial traits has resulted in more than doubling crop production in the last 50
years as a result of the Green Revolution[citation needed].
Crop diversity is also necessary to help the system recover when the dominant crop
type is attacked by a disease:
• The Irish potato blight of 1846, which was a major factor in the deaths of a
million people and migration of another million, was the result of planting
only two potato varieties, both of which were vulnerable.
• When rice grassy stunt virus struck rice fields from Indonesia to India in the
1970s. 6273 varieties were tested for resistance.[20] One was found to be
resistant, an Indian variety, known to science only since 1966.[20] This variety
formed a hybrid with other varieties and is now widely grown.[20]
• Coffee rust attacked coffee plantations in Sri Lanka, Brazil, and Central
America in 1970. A resistant variety was found in Ethiopia.[21] Although the
diseases are themselves a form of biodiversity.
Amazon Rainforest in Brazil
Monoculture, the lack of biodiversity, was a contributing factor to several agricultural

disasters in history, the European wine industry collapse in the late 1800s, and the US
Southern Corn Leaf Blight epidemic of 1970.[22] See also: Agricultural biodiversity
Higher biodiversity also controls the spread of certain diseases as pathogens will need
to adapt to infect different species[citation needed].
Biodiversity provides food for humans[citation needed]. Although about 80 percent of our
food supply comes from just 20 kinds of plants[citation needed], humans use at least 40,000
species of plants and animals a day[citation needed]. Many people around the world depend
on these species for their food, shelter, and clothing[citation needed]. There is untapped
12
potential for increasing the range of food products suitable for human consumption,
provided that the high present extinction rate can be stopped.[16]
[edit] Human health
The diverse forest canopy on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, yielded this display of
different fruit
The relevance of biodiversity to human health is becoming a major international

political issue, as scientific evidence builds on the global health implications of
biodiversity loss.[23][24][25] This issue is closely linked with the issue of climate
change[26], as many of the anticipated health risks of climate change are associated
with changes in biodiversity (e.g. changes in populations and distribution of disease
vectors, scarcity of fresh water, impacts on agricultural biodiversity and food
resources etc). Some of the health issues influenced by biodiversity include dietary
health and nutrition security, infectious diseases, medical science and medicinal
resources, social and psychological health[27], and spiritual well-being. Biodiversity is
also known to have an important role in reducing disaster risk, and in post-disaster
relief and recovery efforts.[28][29]
One of the key health issues associated with biodiversity is that of drug discovery and
the availability of medicinal resources [30]. A significant proportion of drugs are
derived, directly or indirectly, from biological sources; Chivian and Bernstein report
that at least 50% of the pharmaceutical compounds on the market in the US are
derived from natural compounds found in plants, animals, and microorganisms, while
about 80% of the world population depends on medicines from nature (used in either
modern or traditional medical practice) for primary healthcare.[24] Moreover, only a
tiny proportion of the total diversity of wild species has been investigated for potential
sources of new drugs. Through the field of bionics, considerable technological
advancement has occurred which would not have without a rich biodiversity. It has
been argued, based on evidence from market analysis and biodiversity science, that
the decline in output from the pharmaceutical sector since the mid-1980s can be
attributed to a move away from natural product exploration ("bioprospecting") in
favour of R&D programmes based on genomics and synthetic chemistry, neither of
which have yielded the expected product outputs; meanwhile, there is evidence that
natural product chemistry can provide the basis for innovation which can yield
significant economic and health benefits.[31][32] Marine ecosystems are of particular
interest in this regard,[33] however unregulated and inappropriate bioprospecting can
be considered a form of over-exploitation which has the potential to degrade
ecosystems and increase biodiversity loss, as well as impacting on the rights of the
communities and states from which the resources are taken.[34][35][36]
[edit] Business and Industry
A wide range of industrial materials are derived directly from biological resources.
These include building materials, fibers, dyes, resirubber and oil. There is enormous
potential for further research into sustainably utilizing materials from a wider
diversity of organisms. In addition, biodivesity and the ecosystem goods and services
13
it provides are considered to be fundamental to healthy economic systems. The degree
to which biodiversity supports business varies between regions and between economic
sectors, however the importance of biodiversity to issues of resource security (water
quantity and quality, timber, paper and fibre, food and medicinal resources etc) are
increasingly recognized as universal.[37][38][39] As a result, the loss of biodiversity is
increasingly recognized as a significant risk factor in business development and a
threat to long term economic sustainability. A number of case studies recently
compiled by the World Resources Institute demonstrate some of these risks as
identified by specific industries.[40]
Eagle Creek, Oregon hiking
[edit] Other ecological services
See also: Ecological effects of biodiversity
Ecological effects of biodiversity

The diversity of species and genes in ecological communities affects the functioning
of these communities. These ecological effects of biodiversity in turn affect both
climate change through enhanced greenhouse gases, aerosols and loss of land cover,
and biological diversity, causing a rapid loss of ecosystems and extinctions of species
and local populations. The current rate of extinction is sometimes considered a mass
extinction, with current species extinction rates on the order of 100 to 1000 times as
high as in the past.[1]
The two main areas where the effect of biodiversity on ecosystem function have been
studied are the relationship between diversity and productivity, and the relationship
between diversity and community stability. More biologically diverse communities
appear to be more productive (in terms of biomass production) than are less diverse
communities, and they appear to be more stable in the face of perturbations.
Also animals that inhabit an area may alter the surviving conditions by factors
assimilated by climate.
[edit] Definitions of diversity, productivity, and

stability
In order to understand the effects that changes in biodiversity will have on ecosystem
functioning, it is important to define some terms. Biodiversity is not easily defined,
but may be thought of as the number and/or evenness of genes, species, and
ecosystems in a region. This definition includes genetic diversity, or the diversity of
14
genes within a species, species diversity, or the diversity of species within a habitat or
region, and ecosystem diversity, or the diversity of habitats within a region.
Two things commonly measured in relation to changes in diversity are productivity

and stability. Productivity is a measure of ecosystem function. It is generally
measured by taking the total aboveground biomass of all plants in an area. Many
assume that it can be used as a general indicator of ecosystem function and that total
resource use and other indicators of ecosystem function are correlated with
productivity.
Stability is much more difficult to define, but can be generally thought of in two
ways. General stability of a population is a measure that assumes stability is higher if
there is less of a chance of extinction. This kind of stability is generally measured by
measuring the variability of aggregate community properties, like total biomass, over
time [2] The other definition of stability is a measure of resilience and resistance,
where an ecosystem that returns quickly to an equilibrium after a perturbation or
resists invasion is thought of as more stable than one that doesn't.[3]
[edit] Productivity and stability as indicators of

ecosystem health
The importance of stability in community ecology is clear. An unstable ecosystem
will be more likely to lose species. Thus, if there is indeed a link between diversity
and stability, it is likely that losses of diversity could feedback on themselves, causing
even more losses of species. Productivity, on the other hand, has a less clear
importance in community ecology. In managed areas like cropland, and in areas
where animals are grown or caught, increasing productivity increases the economic
success of the area and implies that the area has become more efficient, leading to
possible long term resource sustainability.[4] It is more difficult to find the importance
of productivity in natural ecosystems. This will be discussed in more detail later.
[edit] Does biodiversity have value?

Beyond the value biodiversity has in regulating and stabilizing ecosystem processes,
there are direct economic consequences of losing diversity in certain ecosystems and
in the world as a whole. Losing species means losing potential foods, medicines,
industrial products, and tourism, all of which have a direct economic effect on peoples
lives.[5] For more information, see the economic role of biodiversity.
[edit] Effects of diversity on community productivity

[edit] How species diversity may influence productivity
• Complementarity Plant species coexistence is thought to be the result of

niche partitioning, or differences in resource requirements among species. By
complementarity, a more diverse plant community should be able to use
resources more completely, and thus be more productive.[4][6] Also called niche
differentiation, this mechanism is a central principle in the functional group
15
approach, which breaks species diversity down into functional components. [7]
[8]
• Facilitation Facilitation is a mechanism whereby certain species help or allow

other species to grow by modifying the environment in a way that is favorable
to a co-occurring species.[9] Plants can interact through an intermediary like
nitrogen, water, temperature, space, or interactions with weeds or herbivores
among others. Some examples of facilitation include large desert perennials
acting as nurse plants, aiding the establishment of young neighbors of other
species by alleviating water and temperature stress,[10] and nutrient enrichment
by nitrogen-fixers such as legumes.
• The Sampling Effect The sampling effect of diversity can be thought of as
having a greater chance of including a species of greatest inherent productivity
in a plot that is more diverse. This provides for a composition effect on
productivity, rather than diversity being a direct cause. However, the sampling
effect may in fact be a compilation of different effects. The sampling effect
can be separated into the greater likelihood of selecting a species that is 1)
adapted well to particular site conditions, or 2) of a greater inherent
productivity. Additionally, one can add to the sampling effect a greater
likelihood of including 3) a pair of species that highly complement each other,
or 4) a certain species with a large facilitative effect on other members of the
community.
[edit] Review of data
Field experiments to test the degree to which diversity affects community productivity
have found many things, but many long term studies in grassland ecosystems have
found that diversity does indeed enhance the productivity of ecosystems. [11][12][13]
Evidence of the relationship has also been found in grassland microcosms. However,
these different studies have come to different conclusions as to whether the cause was
due more to diversity or to species composition. Recent mathematical models have
highlighted the importance of ecological context in unraveling this problem. Some
models have indicated the importance of disturbance rates and spatial heterogeneity of
the environment,[14] others have indicated that the time since disturbance and the
habitat's carrying capacity can cause differing relationships.[15] Each ecological
context should yield not only a different relationship, but a different contribution to
the relationship due to diversity and to composition.
[edit] Implications for ecology/future research
In order to correctly identify the consequences of diversity on productivity and other

ecosystem processes, many things must happen. First, it is imperative that scientists
stop looking for a single relationship. It is obvious now from the models, the data, and
the theory that there is no one overarching effect of diversity on productivity.
Scientists must try to quantify the differences between composition effect and
diversity effects, as many experiments never quantify the final realized species
diversity (instead only counting numbers of species of seeds planted) and confound a
sampling effect for facilitators (a compositional factor) with diversity effects.
Relative amounts of overyielding (or how much more a species grows when grown
with other species than it does in monoculture) should be used rather than absolute
16
amounts as relative overyielding can give clues as to the mechanism by which
diversity is influencing productivity, however if experimental protocols are
incomplete, one may be able to indicate the existence of a complementary or
facilitative effect in the experiment, but not be able to recognize its cause.
Experimenters should know what the goal of their experiment is, that is, whether it is
meant to inform natural or managed ecosystems, as the sampling effect may only be a
real effect of diversity in natural ecosystems (managed ecosystems are composed to
maximize complementarity and facilitation regardless of species number). By
knowing this, they should be able to choose spatial and temporal scales that are
appropriate for their experiment. Lastly, to resolve the diversity-function debate, it is
advisable that experiments be done with large amounts of spatial and resource
heterogeneity and environmental fluctuation over time, as these types of experiments
should be able to demonstrate the diversity-function relationship more easily.[4]
[edit] Effects of diversity on community stability

[edit] How species diversity may influence community stability
• Averaging Effect If all species have differential responses to changes in the

ecosystem over time, then the averaging of these responses will cause a more
temporally stable ecosystem if more species are in the ecosystem.[2]. This
effect is a statistical effect due to summing random variables.
• Negative Covariance Effect If some species do better when other species are
not doing well, then when there are more species in the ecosystem, their
overall variance will be lower than if there were fewer species in the system.
This lower variance indicates higher stability. [16] This effect is a consequence
of competition as highly competitive species will negatively covary.
• Insurance Effect If an ecosystem contains more species then it will have a
greater likelihood of having redundant stabilizing species, and it will have a
greater number of species that respond differently to perturbations. This will
enhance an ecosystem's ability to buffer perturbations.[17]
• Resistance to Invasion Diverse communities may use resources more
completely than simple communities because of a diversity effect for
complementarity. Thus invaders may have reduced success in diverse
ecosystems, or there may be a reduced likelihood that an invading species will
introduce a new property or process to a diverse ecosystem.[8][18][19]
• Resistance to Disease A decreased number of competing plant species may
allow the abundances of other species to increase, facilitating the spread of
diseases of those species. [18][19][20]
[edit] Review of temporal stability data
Models have predicted that empirical relationships between temporal variation of

community productivity and species diversity are indeed real, and that they almost
have to be. Some temporal stability data can be almost completely explained by the
averaging effect by constructing null models to test the data against.[2][11] Competition,
which causes negative covariances, only serves to strengthen these relationships.
[edit] Review of resistance/resilience stability data
17
This area is more contentious than the area of temporal stability, mostly because some
have tried generalizing the findings of the temporal stability models and theory to
stability in general. While the relationship between temporal variations in productivity
and diversity has a mathematical cause, which will allow the relationship to be seen
much more often than not, it is not the case with resistance/resilience stability. Some
experimenters have seen a correlation between diversity and reduced invasibility,
though many have also seen the opposite. [21] The correlation between diversity and
disease is also tenuous, though theory and data do seem to support it.[20]
[edit] Implications for ecology/future research
In order to more fully understand the effects of diversity on the temporal stability of
ecosystems it is necessary to recognize that they are bound to occur. By constructing
null models to test the data against (as in Doak et al. 1998[2]) it becomes possible to
find situations and ecological contexts where ecosystems become more or less stable
than they should be. Finding these contexts would allow for mechanistic studies into
why these ecosystems are more stable, which may allow for applications in
conservation management.
More importantly more complete experiments into whether diverse ecosystems

actually resist invasion and disease better than their less diverse equivalents as
invasion and disease are two important factors that lead to species extinctions in the
present day.
[edit] Theory and preliminary effects from examining

food webs
One major problem with both the diversity-productivity and diversity-stability debates
discussed up to this point is that both focus on interactions at just a single trophic
level. That is, they are concerned with only one level of the food web, namely plants.
Other research, unconcerned with the effects of diversity, has demonstrated strong
top-down forcing of ecosystems (see keystone species). There is very little actual data
available regarding the effects of different food webs, but theory helps us in this area.
First, if a food web in an ecosystem has a lot of weak interactions between different
species, then it should have more stable populations and the community as a whole
should be more stable.[3] If upper levels of the web are more diverse, then there will be
less biomass in the lower levels and if lower levels are more diverse they will better
be able to resist consumption and be more stable in the face of consumption. Also,
top-down forcing should be reduced in less diverse ecosystems because of the bias for
species in higher trophic levels to go extinct first.[22] Lastly, it has recently been shown
that consumers can dramatically change the biodiversity-productivity-stability
relationships that are implied by plants alone.[23] Thus, it will be important in the
future to incorporate food web theory into the future study of the effects of
biodiversity. In addition this complexity will need to be addressed when designing
biodiversity management plans.
[edit] Conclusions
18
It is imperative that we come to a realization that there is no single overarching effect
of diversity on either productivity or stability. The realized effects will depend heavily
on environmental context and the time scale over which the effects are studied.
However, it has become obvious that biodiversity is indeed important for both
managed and natural ecosystems, though the relative contributions of diversity and
composition remain unclear. It is therefore necessary for legislators to understand the
basic science in order to maintain diversity at its current levels. If current human
growth and resource management patterns do not change, it is likely that we will lose
many important species, and the ecosystems of the world may never recover.
Biodiversity provides many ecosystem services that are often not readily visible. It
plays a part in regulating the chemistry of our atmosphere and water supply.
Biodiversity is directly involved in water purification, recycling nutrients and
providing fertile soils. Experiments with controlled environments have shown that
humans cannot easily build ecosystems to support human needs; for example insect
pollination cannot be mimicked by human-made construction, and that activity alone
represents tens of billions of dollars in ecosystem services per annum to humankind.
The stability of ecosystems is also related to biodiversity, with higher biodiversity

producing greater stability over time, reducing the chance that ecosystem services will
be disrupted as a result of disturbances such as extreme weather events or human
exploitation.
[edit] Leisure, cultural and aesthetic value
Many people derive value from biodiversity through leisure activities such as hiking,
birdwatching or natural history study. Biodiversity has inspired musicians, painters,
sculptors, writers and other artists. Many cultural groups view themselves as an
integral part of the natural world and show respect for other living organisms.
Popular activities such as gardening, caring for aquariums and collecting butterflies
are all strongly dependent on biodiversity. The number of species involved in such
pursuits is in the tens of thousands, though the great majority do not enter mainstream
commercialism.
The relationships between the original natural areas of these often 'exotic' animals and
plants and commercial collectors, suppliers, breeders, propagators and those who
promote their understanding and enjoyment are complex and poorly understood. It
seems clear, however, that the general public responds well to exposure to rare and
unusual organisms—they recognize their inherent value at some level. A family
outing to the botanical garden or zoo is as much an aesthetic or cultural experience as
it is an educational one.
Philosophically it could be argued that biodiversity has intrinsic aesthetic and spiritual
value to mankind in and of itself. This idea can be used as a counterweight to the
notion that tropical forests and other ecological realms are only worthy of
conservation because they may contain medicines or useful products.
19
An interesting point is that evolved DNA embodies knowledge,[41] and therefore
destroying a species resembles burning a book, with the caveat that the book is of
uncertain depth and importance and may in fact be best used as fuel.
[edit] Number of species

Main article: Undiscovered species
Undiscovered and discovered species
Species
(Redirected from Undiscovered species)

For other uses, see Species (disambiguation).
The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks. A genus
contains one or more species. Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.
In biology, a species is:
• a taxonomic rank (the basic rank of biological classification) or

• a unit at that rank (in which case the plural is "species". This is sometimes
abbreviated: "spec." or "sp." singular, or "spp." plural).
There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is (or should be). A common
definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing
fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which
interbreeding does not (normally) happen. Other definitions may focus on similarity
of DNA or morphology. Some species are further subdivided into subspecies, and
here also there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used.
[edit] Biologists' working definition

A usable definition of the word "species" and reliable methods of identifying
particular species is essential for stating and testing biological theories and for
measuring biodiversity. Traditionally, multiple examples of a proposed species must
be studied for unifying characters before it can be regarded as a species. It is generally
difficult to give precise taxonomic rankings to extinct species known only from
fossils.
Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the

traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms. In that case, a species is
defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although
properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely-
related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[1] However, the exact definition
of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is
20
called the species problem.[3] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise
definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the
particularities of the species concerned.[3]
[edit] Common names and species
The commonly used names for plant and animal taxa sometimes correspond to
species: for example, "lion", "walrus", and "Camphor tree" – each refers to a species.
In other cases common names do not: for example, "deer" refers to a family of 34
species, including Eld's Deer, Red Deer and Elk (Wapiti). The last two species were
once considered a single species, illustrating how species boundaries may change with
increased scientific knowledge.
Because of the difficulties with both defining and tallying the total numbers of
different species in the world, it is estimated that there are anywhere between 2 and
100 million different species.[4]
[edit] Placement within genera
Ideally, a species is given a formal, scientific name, although in practice there are
very many unnamed species (which have only been described, not named). When a
species is named, it is placed within a genus. From a scientific point of view this can
be regarded as a hypothesis that the species is more closely related to other species
within its genus (if any) than to species of other genera. A genus is commonly
included in a hierarchy, with as the best-known taxonomic ranks: life, domain,
kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This assignment to a genus
is not immutable; later a different (or the same) taxonomist may assign it to a different
genus, in which case the name will also change.
In biological nomenclature, the name for a species is a two-part name (a binomial

name), treated as Latin, although roots from any language can be used as well as
names of locales or individuals. The generic name is listed first (with its leading letter
capitalized), followed by a second term, the specific name (or specific epithet). For
example, the species commonly known as the Longleaf Pine is Pinus palustris; gray
wolves belong to the species Canis lupus, coyotes to Canis latrans, golden jackals to
Canis aureus, etc., and all of those belong to the genus Canis (which also contains
many other species). The name of the species is the whole binomial, not just the
second term (which may be called specific name for animals).
This binomial naming convention, later formalized in the biological codes of

nomenclature, was first used by Leonhart Fuchs and introduced as the standard by
Carolus Linnaeus in his 1753, Species Plantarum (followed by his, 1758 Systema
Naturae, 10th edition). At that time, the chief biological theory was that species
represented independent acts of creation by God and were therefore considered
objectively real and immutable, so the hypothesis of common descent did not apply.
[edit] Abbreviated names
Books and articles sometimes intentionally do not identify species fully and use the
abbreviation "sp." in the singular or "spp." in the plural in place of the specific
21
epithet: for example, Canis sp. This commonly occurs in the following types of
situations:
• The authors are confident that some individuals belong to a particular genus
but are not sure to which exact species they belong. This is particularly
common in paleontology.
• The authors use "spp." as a short way of saying that something applies to
many species within a genus, but do not wish to say that it applies to all
species within that genus. If scientists mean that something applies to all
species within a genus, they use the genus name without the specific epithet.
In books and articles, genus and species names are usually printed in italics. If using
"sp." and "spp.", these should not be italicized.
[edit] Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying

particular species
Main article: Species problem
The Greenish Warbler demonstrates the concept of a ring species.
It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all
naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define
"species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.
Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or

potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from
other such groups".[5]
Various parts of this definition serve to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:
• Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating
partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
• Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but
do not normally do so in the wild, for various reasons.
• Animals whose offspring are normally sterile.
The typical textbook definition above works well for most multi-celled organisms, but
there are several types of situations in which it breaks down:
• By definition it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. So it does

not work for asexually reproducing single-celled organisms and for the
relatively few parthenogenetic multi-celled organisms. The term "phylotype"
is often applied to such organisms.
• Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar
groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding.
22
• There is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may
succeed under natural conditions, or even in the degree to which some
organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed.
• In ring species, members of adjacent populations interbreed successfully but
members of some non-adjacent populations do not.
• In a few cases it may be physically impossible for animals that are members of
the same species to mate. However, these are cases in which human
intervention has caused gross morphological changes, and are therefore
excluded by the biological species concept.
Horizontal gene transfer makes it even more difficult to define the word "species".
There is strong evidence of horizontal gene transfer between very dissimilar groups of
prokaryotes, and possibly between dissimilar groups of single-celled eukaryotes; and
Williamson[6] argues that there is evidence for it in some crustaceans and
echinoderms. All definitions of the word "species" assume that an organism gets all
its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal
gene transfer makes that assumption false.
[edit] Definitions of species

See also: Species problem
The question of how best to define "species" is one that has occupied biologists for
centuries, and the debate itself has become known as the species problem. Darwin
wrote in chapter II of On the Origin of Species:
No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows
vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term
includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.[7]
But later, in The Descent of Man, when addressing "The question whether mankind
consists of one or several species", Darwin revised his opinion to say:
it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some

definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must
not include an element which cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of
creation.[8]
The modern theory of evolution depends on a fundamental redefinition of "species".

Prior to Darwin, naturalists viewed species as ideal or general types, which could be
exemplified by an ideal specimen bearing all the traits general to the species. Darwin's
theories shifted attention from uniformity to variation and from the general to the
particular. According to intellectual historian Louis Menand,
Once our attention is redirected to the individual, we need another way of

making generalizations. We are no longer interested in the conformity of an
individual to an ideal type; we are now interested in the relation of an
individual to the other individuals with which it interacts. To generalize about
groups of interacting individuals, we need to drop the language of types and
23
essences, which is prescriptive (telling us what finches should be), and adopt
the language of statistics and probability, which is predictive (telling us what
the average finch, under specified conditions, is likely to do). Relations will be
more important than categories; functions, which are variable, will be more
important than purposes; transitions will be more important than boundaries;
sequences will be more important than hierarchies.
This shift results in a new approach to "species"; Darwin
concluded that species are what they appear to be: ideas, which are
provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals. "I look at
the term species", he wrote, "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of
convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not
essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and
more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere
individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake." [9]
Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high

level of genetic similarity. This may reflect an adaptation to the same niche, and the
transfer of genetic material from one individual to others, through a variety of
possible means. The exact level of similarity used in such a definition is arbitrary, but
this is the most common definition used for organisms that reproduce asexually
(asexual reproduction), such as some plants and microorganisms.
This lack of any clear species concept in microbiology has led to some authors
arguing that the term "species" is not useful when studying bacterial evolution.
Instead they see genes as moving freely between even distantly-related bacteria, with
the entire bacterial domain being a single gene pool. Nevertheless, a kind of rule of
thumb has been established, saying that species of Bacteria or Archaea with 16S
rRNA gene sequences more similar than 97% to each other need to be checked by
DNA-DNA Hybridization if they belong to the same species or not.[10] This concept
has been updated recently, saying that the border of 97% was too low and can be
raised to 98.7%.[11]
In the study of sexually reproducing organisms, where genetic material is shared

through the process of reproduction, the ability of two organisms to interbreed and
produce fertile offspring of both genders is generally accepted as a simple indicator
that the organisms share enough genes to be considered members of the same species.
Thus a "species" is a group of interbreeding organisms.
This definition can be extended to say that a species is a group of organisms that
could potentially interbreed – fish could still be classed as the same species even if
they live in different lakes, as long as they could still interbreed were they ever to
come into contact with each other. On the other hand, there are many examples of
series of three or more distinct populations, where individuals of the population in the
middle can interbreed with the populations to either side, but individuals of the
populations on either side cannot interbreed. Thus, one could argue that these
populations constitute a single species, or two distinct species. This is not a paradox;
it is evidence that species are defined by gene frequencies, and thus have fuzzy
boundaries.
24
Consequently, any single, universal definition of "species" is necessarily arbitrary.
Instead, biologists have proposed a range of definitions; which definition a biologists
uses is a pragmatic choice, depending on the particularities of that biologist's research.
Typological species
A group of organisms in which individuals are members of the species if they
sufficiently conform to certain fixed properties. The clusters of variations or
phenotypes within specimens (i.e. longer and shorter tails) would differentiate
the species. This method was used as a "classical" method of determining
species, such as with Linnaeus early in evolutionary theory. However, we now
know that different phenotypes do not always constitute different species (e.g.:
a 4-winged Drosophila born to a 2-winged mother is not a different species).
Species named in this manner are called morphospecies[12]
Morphological species
A population or group of populations that differs morphologically from other
populations. For example, we can distinguish between a chicken and a duck
because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species
have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded
history. This species concept is much criticised because more recent genetic
data reveal that genetically distinct populations may look very similar and,
contrarily, large morphological differences sometimes exist between very
closely-related populations. Nonetheless, most species known have been
described solely from morphology.
Biological / Isolation species
A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. This is generally a
useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher
taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but more problematic for organisms that
do not reproduce sexually. The results of breeding experiments done in
artificial conditions may or may not reflect what would happen if the same
organisms encountered each other in the wild, making it difficult to gauge
whether or not the results of such experiments are meaningful in reference to
natural populations.
Biological / reproductive species
Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring
of both genders. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make
infertile hybrids of at least one gender, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male
cattalo are not considered to be the same species.
Recognition species
based on shared reproductive systems, including mating behavior. The
Recognition concept of species has been introduced by Hugh E. H. Paterson.
Mate-recognition species
A group of organisms that are known to recognize one another as potential
mates. Like the isolation species concept above, it applies only to organisms
that reproduce sexually. Unlike the isolation species concept, it focuses
specifically on pre-mating reproductive isolation.
Evolutionary / Darwinian species
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its
integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some
point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the
main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will
25
lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or
ecological) is maintained.
Phylogenetic (Cladistic)[verification needed]
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its
integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some
point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another:
when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are
regarded as separate species. This differs from evolutionary species in that the
parent species goes extinct taxonomically when a new species evolve, the
mother and daughter populations now forming two new species. Subspecies as
such are not recognized under this approach; either a population is a
phylogenetic species or it is not taxonomically distinguishable.
Ecological species
A set of organisms adapted to a particular set of resources, called a niche, in
the environment. According to this concept, populations form the discrete
phenetic clusters that we recognize as species because the ecological and
evolutionary processes controlling how resources are divided up tend to
produce those clusters.
Genetic species
based on similarity of DNA of individuals or populations. Techniques to
compare similarity of DNA include DNA-DNA hybridization, and genetic
fingerprinting (or DNA barcoding).
Phenetic species
based on phenotypes.[verification needed]
Microspecies
Species that reproduce without meiosis or fertilization so that each generation
is genetically identical to the previous generation. See also apomixis.
Cohesion species
Most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic
cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms. This is an expansion of the
mate-recognition species concept to allow for post-mating isolation
mechanisms; no matter whether populations can hybridize successfully, they
are still distinct cohesion species if the amount of hybridization is insufficient
to completely mix their respective gene pools.
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)
An evolutionarily significant unit is a population of organisms that is
considered distinct for purposes of conservation. Often referred to as a species
or a wildlife species, an ESU also has several possible definitions, which
coincide with definitions of species.
In practice, these definitions often coincide, and the differences between them are
more a matter of emphasis than of outright contradiction. Nevertheless, no species
concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without
resorting to judgment. Given the complexity of life, some have argued that such an
objective definition is in all likelihood impossible, and biologists should settle for the
most practical definition.
For most vertebrates, this is the biological species concept (BSC), and to a lesser
extent (or for different purposes) the phylogenetic species concept (PSC). Many BSC
subspecies are considered species under the PSC; the difference between the BSC and
26
the PSC can be summed up insofar as that the BSC defines a species as a consequence
of manifest evolutionary history, while the PSC defines a species as a consequence of
manifest evolutionary potential. Thus, a PSC species is "made" as soon as an
evolutionary lineage has started to separate, while a BSC species starts to exist only
when the lineage separation is complete. Accordingly, there can be considerable
conflict between alternative classifications based upon the PSC versus BSC, as they
differ completely in their treatment of taxa that would be considered subspecies under
the latter model (e.g., the numerous subspecies of honey bees).
[edit] Numbers of species
Undiscovered and discovered species
Bearing in mind the aforementioned problems with categorising species, the

following numbers are only a soft guide. They break down as follows:[13]
Total number of species (estimated): 7–100 millions (identified and unidentified),

including:
• 5–10 million bacteria[14];

• 74,000–120,000 fungi[15];
Of the identified eukaryote species we have:
• 1.6 million, including:

o 297,326 plants, including:
 15,000 mosses,
 13,025 Ferns and horsetails,
 980 gymnosperms,
 258,650 angiosperms,
 199,350 dicotyledons,
 59,300 monocotyledons,
 9,671 Red and green algae,
o 28,849 fungi & other non-animals, including:
 10,000 lichens,
 16,000 mushrooms,
 2,849 brown algae,
o 1,250,000 animals, including:
 1,203,375 invertebrates:
 950,000 insects,
 81,000 mollusks,
 40,000 crustaceans,
 2,175 corals,
 130,200 others;
 59,811 vertebrates:
 29,300 fish,
 6,199 amphibians,
 8,240 reptiles,
27
 9,956 birds,
 5,416 mammals.
At present, organisations such as the Global Taxonomy Initiative, the European

Distributed Institute of Taxonomy and the Census of Marine Life[16] (the latter only
for marine organisms) are trying to improve taxonomy and implement previously
undiscovered species to the taxonomy system. Due to the fact that we know but a
portion of the organisms in the biosphere, we do not have a complete understanding
of the workings of our environment. To make matters worse, despite the discovery of
new species, according to professor James Mallet, we are wiping out these species at
an unprecedented rate. [17]This means that even before a new species has had the
chance of being studied and classified, it may already be extinct.
[edit] Importance in biological classification

The idea of species has a long history. It is one of the most important levels of
classification, for several reasons:
• It often corresponds to what lay people treat as the different basic kinds of
organism – dogs are one species, cats another.
• It is the standard binomial nomenclature (or trinomial nomenclature) by which
scientists typically refer to organisms.
• It is the highest taxonomic level which mostly cannot be made more or less
inclusionary.
After years of use, the concept remains central to biology and a host of related fields,
and yet also remains at times ill-defined.
[edit] Implications of assignment of species status

The naming of a particular species should be regarded as a hypothesis about the
evolutionary relationships and distinguishability of that group of organisms. As
further information comes to hand, the hypothesis may be confirmed or refuted.
Sometimes, especially in the past when communication was more difficult,
taxonomists working in isolation have given two distinct names to individual
organisms later identified as the same species. When two named species are
discovered to be of the same species, the older species name is usually retained, and
the newer species name dropped, a process called synonymization, or colloquially, as
lumping. Dividing a taxon into multiple, often new, taxons is called splitting.
Taxonomists are often referred to as "lumpers" or "splitters" by their colleagues,
depending on their personal approach to recognizing differences or commonalities
between organisms (see lumpers and splitters).
Traditionally, researchers relied on observations of anatomical differences, and on

observations of whether different populations were able to interbreed successfully, to
distinguish species; both anatomy and breeding behavior are still important to
assigning species status. As a result of the revolutionary (and still ongoing) advance in
microbiological research techniques, including DNA analysis, in the last few decades,
a great deal of additional knowledge about the differences and similarities between
28
species has become available. Many populations which were formerly regarded as
separate species are now considered to be a single taxon, and many formerly grouped
populations have been split. Any taxonomic level (species, genus, family, etc.) can be
synonymized or split, and at higher taxonomic levels, these revisions have been still
more profound.
From a taxonomical point of view, groups within a species can be defined as being of
a taxon hierarchically lower than a species. In zoology only the subspecies is used,
while in botany the variety, subvariety, and form are used as well. In conservation
biology, the concept of evolutionary significant units (ESU) is used, which may be
define either species or smaller distinct population segments.
[edit] The isolation species concept in more detail
A mule is the infertile offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.
In general, for large, complex, organisms that reproduce sexually (such as mammals
and birds), one of several variations on the isolation or biological species concept is
employed. Often, the distinction between different species, even quite closely related
ones, is simple. Horses (Equus caballus) and donkeys (Equus asinus) are easily told
apart even without study or training, and yet are so closely related that they can
interbreed after a fashion. Because the result, a mule or hinny, is not fertile, they are
clearly separate species.
But many cases are more difficult to decide. This is where the isolation species
concept diverges from the evolutionary species concept. Both agree that a species is a
lineage that maintains its integrity over time, that is diagnosably different from other
lineages (else we could not recognise it), is reproductively isolated (else the lineage
would merge into others, given the chance to do so), and has a working intra-species
recognition system (without which it could not continue). In practice, both also agree
that a species must have its own independent evolutionary history—otherwise the
characteristics just mentioned would not apply. The species concepts differ in that the
evolutionary species concept does not make predictions about the future of the
population: it simply records that which is already known. In contrast, the isolation
species concept refuses to assign the rank of species to populations that, in the best
judgement of the researcher, would recombine with other populations if given the
chance to do so.
[edit] The isolation question
There are, essentially, two questions to resolve. First, is the proposed species
consistently and reliably distinguishable from other species? Second, is it likely to
remain so in the future? To take the second question first, there are several broad
geographic possibilities.
• The proposed species are sympatric—they occupy the same habitat.

Observation of many species over the years has failed to establish even a
single instance of two diagnostically different populations that exist in
29
sympatry and have then merged to form one united population. Without
reproductive isolation, population differences cannot develop, and given
reproductive isolation, gene flow between the populations cannot merge the
differences. This is not to say that cross breeding does not take place at all,
simply that it has become negligible. Generally, the hybrid individuals are less
capable of successful breeding than pure-bred individuals of either species.
• The proposed species are allopatric—they occupy different geographical

areas. Obviously, it is not possible to observe reproductive isolation in
allopatric groups directly. Often it is not possible to achieve certainty by
experimental means either: even if the two proposed species interbreed in
captivity, this does not demonstrate that they would freely interbreed in the
wild, nor does it always provide much information about the evolutionary
fitness of hybrid individuals. A certain amount can be inferred from other
experimental methods: for example, do the members of population A respond
appropriately to playback of the recorded mating calls of population B?
Sometimes, experiments can provide firm answers. For example, there are
seven pairs of apparently almost identical marine snapping shrimp (Alpheus)
populations on either side of the Isthmus of Panama, which did not exist until
about 3 million years ago. Until then, it is assumed, they were members of the
same seven species. But when males and females from opposite sides of the
isthmus are placed together, they fight instead of mating. Even if the isthmus
were to sink under the waves again, the populations would remain genetically
isolated: therefore they are now different species. In many cases, however,
neither observation nor experiment can produce certain answers, and the
determination of species rank must be made on a 'best guess' basis from a
general knowledge of other related organisms.
• The proposed species are parapatric—they have breeding ranges that abut but
do not overlap. This is fairly rare, particularly in temperate regions. The
dividing line is often a sudden change in habitat (an ecotone) like the edge of a
forest or the snow line on a mountain, but can sometimes be remarkably
trivial. The parapatry itself indicates that the two populations occupy such
similar ecological roles that they cannot coexist in the same area. Because they
do not crossbreed, it is safe to assume that there is a mechanism, often
behavioral, that is preventing gene flow between the populations, and that
therefore they should be classified as separate species.
• There is a hybrid zone where the two populations mix. Typically, the hybrid
zone will include representatives of one or both of the 'pure' populations, plus
first-generation and back-crossing hybrids. The strength of the barrier to
genetic transmission between the two pure groups can be assessed by the
width of the hybrid zone relative to the typical dispersal distance of the
organisms in question. The dispersal distance of oaks, for example, is the
distance that a bird or squirrel can be expected to carry an acorn; the dispersal
distance of Numbats is about 15 kilometres, as this is as far as young Numbats
will normally travel in search of vacant territory to occupy after leaving the
nest. The narrower the hybrid zone relative to the dispersal distance, the less
gene flow there is between the population groups, and the more likely it is that
they will continue on separate evolutionary paths. Nevertheless, it can be very
30
difficult to predict the future course of a hybrid zone; the decision to define the
two hybridizing populations as either the same species or as separate species is
difficult and potentially controversial.
• The variation in the population is clinal; at either extreme of the population's

geographic distribution, typical individuals are clearly different, but the
transition between them is seamless and gradual. For example, the Koalas of
northern Australia are clearly smaller and lighter in colour than those of the
south, but there is no particular dividing line: the further south an individual
Koala is found, the larger and darker it is likely to be; Koalas in intermediate
regions are intermediate in weight and colour. In contrast, over the same
geographic range, black-backed (northern) and white-backed (southern)
Australian Magpies do not blend from one type to another: northern
populations have black backs, southern populations white backs, and there is
an extensive hybrid zone where both 'pure' types are common, as are
crossbreeds. The variation in Koalas is clinal (a smooth transition from north
to south, with populations in any given small area having a uniform
appearance), but the variation in magpies is not clinal. In both cases, there is
some uncertainty regarding correct classification, but the consensus view is
that species rank is not justified in either. The gene flow between northern and
southern magpie populations is judged to be sufficiently restricted to justify
terming them subspecies (not full species); but the seamless way that local
Koala populations blend one into another shows that there is substantial gene
flow between north and south. As a result, experts tend to reject even
subspecies rank in this case.
[edit] The difference question
Obviously when defining a species, the geographic circumstances become meaningful

only if the population groups in question are clearly different: if they are not
consistently and reliably distinguishable from one another, then we have no grounds
for believing that they might be different species. The key question in this context, is
"how different is different?" and the answer is usually "it all depends".
In theory, it would be possible to recognise even the tiniest of differences as sufficient

to delineate a separate species, provided only that the difference is clear and
consistent (and that other criteria are met). There is no universal rule to state the
smallest allowable difference between two species, but in general, very trivial
differences are ignored on the twin grounds of simple practicality, and genetic
similarity: if two population groups are so close that the distinction between them
rests on an obscure and microscopic difference in morphology, or a single base
substitution in a DNA sequence, then a demonstration of restricted gene flow between
the populations will probably be difficult in any case.
More typically, one or other of the following requirements must be met:
• It is possible to reliably measure a quantitative difference between the two

groups that does not overlap. A population has, for example, thicker fur,
rougher bark, longer ears, or larger seeds than another population, and
although this characteristic may vary within each population, the two do not
31
grade into one another, and given a reasonably large sample size, there is a
definite discontinuity between them. Note that this applies to populations, not
individual organisms, and that a small number of exceptional individuals
within a population may 'break the rule' without invalidating it. The less a
quantitative difference varies within a population and the more it varies
between populations, the better the case for making a distinction.
Nevertheless, borderline situations can only be resolved by making a 'best-
guess' judgement.
• It is possible to distinguish a qualitative difference between the populations; a

feature that does not vary continuously but is either entirely present or entirely
absent. This might be a distinctively shaped seed pod, an extra primary
feather, a particular courting behaviour, or a clearly differentDNA sequence.
Sometimes it is not possible to isolate a single difference between species, and several
factors must be taken in combination. This is often the case with plants in particular.
In eucalypts, for example, Corymbia ficifolia cannot be reliably distinguished from its
close relative Corymbia calophylla by any single measure (and sometimes individual
trees cannot be definitely assigned to either species), but populations of Corymbia can
be clearly told apart by comparing the colour of flowers, bark, and buds, number of
flowers for a given size of tree, and the shape of the leaves and fruit.
When using a combination of characteristics to distinguish between populations, it is

necessary to use a reasonably small number of factors (if more than a handful are
needed, the genetic difference between the populations is likely to be insignificant and
is unlikely to endure into the future), and to choose factors that are functionally
independent (height and weight, for example, should usually be considered as one
factor, not two).
[edit] Historical development of the species concept
Linnaeus believed in the fixity of species.
In the earliest works of science, a species was simply an individual organism that
represented a group of similar or nearly identical organisms. No other relationships
beyond that group were implied. Aristotle used the words genus and species to mean
generic and specific categories. Aristotle and other pre-Darwinian scientists took the
species to be distinct and unchanging, with an "essence", like the chemical elements.
When early observers began to develop systems of organization for living things, they
began to place formerly isolated species into a context. Many of these early
delineation schemes would now be considered whimsical and these included
consanguinity based on color (all plants with yellow flowers) or behavior (snakes,
scorpions and certain biting ants).
In the 18th century Carolus Linnaeus classified organisms according to differences in

the form of reproductive apparatus. Although his system of classification sorts
organisms according to degrees of similarity, it made no claims about the relationship
between similar species. At that time, it was still widely believed that there was no
32
organic connection between species, no matter how similar they appeared. This
approach also suggested a type of idealism: the notion that each species existed as an
"ideal form". Although there are always differences (although sometimes minute)
between individual organisms, Linnaeus considered such variation problematic. He
strove to identify individual organisms that were exemplary of the species, and
considered other non-exemplary organisms to be deviant and imperfect.
By the 19th century most naturalists understood that species could change form over
time, and that the history of the planet provided enough time for major changes. Jean-
Baptiste Lamarck, in his 1809 Zoological Philosophy, offered one of the first logical
arguments against creationism. The new emphasis was on determining how a species
could change over time. Lamarck suggested that an organism could pass on an
acquired trait to its offspring, i.e., the giraffe's long neck was attributed to generations
of giraffes stretching to reach the leaves of higher treetops (this well-known and
simplistic example, however, does not do justice to the breadth and subtlety of
Lamarck's ideas). With the acceptance of the natural selection idea of Charles Darwin
in the 1860s, however, Lamarck's view of goal-oriented evolution, also known as a
teleological process, was eclipsed. Recent interest in inheritance of acquired
characteristics centers around epigenetic processes, e.g. methylation, that do not affect
DNA sequences, but instead alter expression in an inheritable manner. Thus, neo-
lamarckism, as it is sometimes termed, is not a challenge to the theory of evolution by
natural selection.
Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace provided what scientists now consider as the
most powerful and compelling theory of evolution. Darwin argued that it was
populations that evolved, not individuals. His argument relied on a radical shift in
perspective from that of Linnaeus: rather than defining species in ideal terms (and
searching for an ideal representative and rejecting deviations), Darwin considered
variation among individuals to be natural. He further argued that variation, far from
being problematic, actually provides the explanation for the existence of distinct
species.
Darwin's work drew on Thomas Malthus' insight that the rate of growth of a
biological population will always outpace the rate of growth of the resources in the
environment, such as the food supply. As a result, Darwin argued, not all the members
of a population will be able to survive and reproduce. Those that did will, on average,
be the ones possessing variations—however slight—that make them slightly better
adapted to the environment. If these variable traits are heritable, then the offspring of
the survivors will also possess them. Thus, over many generations, adaptive variations
will accumulate in the population, while counter-adaptive traits will tend to be
eliminated.
It should be emphasized that whether a variation is adaptive or non-adaptive depends

on the environment: different environments favor different traits. Since the
environment effectively selects which organisms live to reproduce, it is the
environment (the "fight for existence") that selects the traits to be passed on. This is
the theory of evolution by natural selection. In this model, the length of a giraffe's
neck would be explained by positing that proto-giraffes with longer necks would have
had a significant reproductive advantage to those with shorter necks. Over many
generations, the entire population would be a species of long-necked animals.
33
In 1859, when Darwin published his theory of natural selection, the mechanism
behind the inheritance of individual traits was unknown. Although Darwin made some
speculations on how traits are inherited (pangenesis), his theory relies only on the fact
that inheritable traits exist, and are variable (which makes his accomplishment even
more remarkable.) Although Gregor Mendel's paper on genetics was published in
1866, its significance was not recognized. It was not until 1900 that his work was
rediscovered by Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns and Erich von Tschermak, who realised
that the "inheritable traits" in Darwin's theory are genes.
The theory of the evolution of species through natural selection has two important
implications for discussions of species—consequences that fundamentally challenge
the assumptions behind Linnaeus' taxonomy. First, it suggests that species are not just
similar, they may actually be related. Some students of Darwin argue that all species
are descended from a common ancestor. Second, it supposes that "species" are not
homogeneous, fixed, permanent things; members of a species are all different, and
over time species change. This suggests that species do not have any clear boundaries
but are rather momentary statistical effects of constantly changing gene-frequencies.
One may still use Linnaeus' taxonomy to identify individual plants and animals, but
one can no longer think of species as independent and immutable.
The rise of a new species from a parental line is called speciation. There is no clear
line demarcating the ancestral species from the descendant species.
Although the current scientific understanding of species suggests that there is no

rigorous and comprehensive way to distinguish between different species in all cases,
biologists continue to seek concrete ways to operationalize the idea. One of the most
popular biological definitions of species is in terms of reproductive isolation; if two
creatures cannot reproduce to produce fertile offspring of both genders, then they are
in different species. This definition captures a number of intuitive species boundaries,
but it remains imperfect. It has nothing to say about species that reproduce asexually,
for example, and it is very difficult to apply to extinct species. Moreover, boundaries
between species are often fuzzy: there are examples where members of one
population can produce fertile offspring of both genders with a second population,
and members of the second population can produce fertile offspring of both genders
with members of a third population, but members of the first and third population
cannot produce fertile offspring, or can only produce fertile offspring of the
homozygous gender. Consequently, some people reject this definition of a species.
Richard Dawkins defines two organisms as conspecific if and only if they have the
same number of chromosomes and, for each chromosome, both organisms have the
same number of nucleotides (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 118). However, most if not
all taxonomists would strongly disagree[citation needed]. For example, in many amphibians,
most notably in New Zealand's Leiopelma frogs, the genome consists of "core"
chromosomes which are mostly invariable and accessory chromosomes, of which
exist a number of possible combinations. Even though the chromosome numbers are
highly variable between populations, these can interbreed successfully and form a
single evolutionary unit. In plants, polyploidy is extremely commonplace with few
restrictions on interbreeding; as individuals with an odd number of chromosome sets
are usually sterile, depending on the actual number of chromosome sets present, this
results in the odd situation where some individuals of the same evolutionary unit can
34
interbreed with certain others and some cannot, with all populations being eventually
linked as to form a common gene pool.
The classification of species has been profoundly affected by technological advances

that have allowed researchers to determine relatedness based on molecular markers,
starting with the comparatively crude blood plasma precipitation assays in the mid-
20th century to Charles Sibley's ground-breaking DNA-DNA hybridization studies in
the 1970s leading to DNA sequencing techniques. The results of these techniques
caused revolutionary changes in the higher taxonomic categories (such as phyla and
classes), resulting in the reordering of many branches of the phylogenetic tree (see
also: molecular phylogeny). For taxonomic categories below genera, the results have
been mixed so far; the pace of evolutionary change on the molecular level is rather
slow, yielding clear differences only after considerable periods of reproductive
separation. DNA-DNA hybridization results have led to misleading conclusions, the
Pomarine Skua – Great Skua phenomenon being a famous example. Turtles have been
determined to evolve with just one-eighth of the speed of other reptiles on the
molecular level, and the rate of molecular evolution in albatrosses is half of what is
found in the rather closely related storm-petrels. The hybridization technique is now
obsolete and is replaced by more reliable computational approaches for sequence
comparison. Molecular taxonomy is not directly based on the evolutionary processes,
but rather on the overall change brought upon by these processes. The processes that
lead to the generation and maintenance of variation such as mutation, crossover and
selection are not uniform (see also molecular clock). DNA is only extremely rarely a
direct target of natural selection rather than changes in the DNA sequence enduring
over generations being a result of the latter; for example, silent transition-transversion
combinations would alter the melting point of the DNA sequence, but not the
sequence of the encoded proteins and thus are a possible example where, for example
in microorganisms, a mutation confers a change in fitness all by itself.
According to the Global Taxonomy Initiative[42] and the European Distributed

Institute of Taxonomy, the total number of species for some phyla may be much
higher as what we know currently:
• 10–30 million insects;[43] (of some 0,9 we know today [44])

• 5–10 million bacteria;[45]
• 1.5 million fungi;[46] (of some 0,4 million we know today [44])
• ~1 million mites[47]
Due to the fact that we know but a portion of the organisms in the biosphere, we do
not have a complete understanding of the workings of our environment. To make
matters worse, according to professor James Mallet, we are wiping out these species
against an unprecedented rate.[48] This means that even before a new species has had
the chance of being studied and classified, it may already be extinct.
[edit] Threats
35
Loss of old growth forest in the United States; 1620, 1850, 1920, and 1992 maps:
From William B. Greeley's, The Relation of Geography to Timber Supply, Economic
Geography, 1925, vol. 1, p. 1–11. Source of "Today" map: compiled by George
Draffan from roadless area map in The Big Outside: A Descriptive Inventory of the
Big Wilderness Areas of the United States, by Dave Foreman and Howie Wolke
(Harmony Books, 1992). These maps represent only virgin forest lost. Some regrowth
has occurred but not to the age, size or extent of 1620 due to population increases and
food cultivation.
During the last century, erosion of biodiversity has been increasingly observed.
Studies show that 30% of all natural species will be extinct by 2050.[49] Of these,
about one eighth of the known plant species are threatened with extinction.[50] Some
estimates put the loss at up to 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory)
and subject to discussion.[51] This figure indicates unsustainable ecological practices,
because only a small number of species come into being each year. Almost all
scientists acknowledge [50] that the rate of species loss is greater now than at any time
in human history, with extinctions occurring at rates hundreds of times higher than
background extinction rates.
The factors that threaten biodiversity have been variously categorized. Jared Diamond
describes an "Evil Quartet" of habitat destruction, overkill, introduced species, and
secondary extensions. Edward O. Wilson prefers the acronym HIPPO, standing for
Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Pollution, Human OverPopulation, and
Overharvesting.[52][53] The most authoritative classification in use today is that of
IUCN’s Classification of Direct Threats[54] adopted by most major international
conservation organizations such as the US Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife
Fund, Conservation International, and Birdlife International.
[edit] Destruction of habitat
Main article: Habitat destruction
Habitat destruction
The Chaco thorn forest is being felled at a rate considered among the highest in the
world to give way to soybean cultivation.
Habitat destruction is the process in which natural habitat is rendered functionally

unable to support the species present. In this process, the organisms which previously
used the site are displaced or destroyed, reducing biodiversity. Habitat destruction by
human activity mainly for the purpose of harvesting natural resources for industry
production and urbanization. Clearing habitats for agriculture is the principal cause of
habitat destruction. Other important causes of habitat destruction include mining,
logging, trawling and urban sprawl. Habitat destruction is currently ranked as the
most important cause of species extinction worldwide.[1] It is a process of
36
environmental change important in evolution and conservation biology. Additional
causes include habitat fragmentation, geological processes, climate change, invasive
species, ecosystem nutrient change and human activities mentioned below.
The terms "loss of habitat" and "habitat reduction" are also used in a wider sense
including loss of habitat from other factors, such as water and noise pollution.
[edit] Impacts on organisms

In the simplest terms, when a habitat is destroyed, the plants, animals, and other
organisms that occupied the habitat have a reduced carrying capacity so that
populations decline and extinction becomes more likely.[2] The perhaps greatest threat
to organisms and biodiversity is the process of habitat loss.[3] Temple (1986) found
that 82% of endangered bird species were significantly threatened by habitat loss.
Endemic organisms that obtains limited ranges are most affected by habitat
destruction, mainly because these organisms are not found anywhere else within the
world and thus, have less chance of recovering. This is also contributed by that many
endemic organisms obtains very specific requirements for their survival that perhaps
can only be found within a certain ecosystem, resulting in their extinction. Habitat
destruction can also decrease the range of certain organism populations. This can
result in the reduction of genetic diversity and perhaps the production of infertile
youths, as these organisms would have a higher possibility of mating with related
organisms within their population, or different species.
[edit] Geography
Satellite photograph of deforestation in Bolivia. Originally dry tropical forest, the land
is being cleared for soybean cultivation.[4]
Biodiversity hotspots are chiefly tropical regions that feature high concentrations of
endemic species and, when all hotspots are combined, may contain over half of the
world’s terrestrial species.[5] These hotspots are suffering from habitat loss and
destruction. Most of the natural habitat on islands and in areas of high human
population density has already been destroyed (WRI, 2003). Islands suffering extreme
habitat destruction include New Zealand, Madagascar, the Philippines, and Japan.[6]
South and east Asia—especially China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Japan—and
many areas in West Africa have extremely dense human populations that allow little
room for natural habitat. Marine areas close to highly populated coastal cities also
face degradation of their coral reefs or other marine habitat. These areas include the
eastern coasts of Asia and Africa, northern coasts of South America, and the
Caribbean Sea and its associated islands.[6]
Regions of unsustainable agriculture or unstable governments, which may go hand-in-

hand, typically experience high rates of habitat destruction. Central America, Sub-
Saharan Africa, and the Amazonian tropical rainforest areas of South America are the
main regions with unsustainable agricultural practices or government
mismanagement.[6]
37
Areas of high agricultural output tend to have the highest extent of habitat destruction.
In the U.S., less than 25% of native vegetation remains in many parts of the East and
Midwest.[7] Only 15% of land area remains unmodified by human activities in all of
Europe.[6]
[edit] Ecosystems
Jungle burned for agriculture in southern Mexico
Tropical rainforests have received most of the attention concerning the destruction of
habitat. From the approximately 16 million square kilometers of tropical rainforest
habitat that originally existed worldwide, less than 9 million square kilometers remain
today.[6] The current rate of deforestation is 160,000 square kilometers per year, which
equates to a loss of approximately 1% of original forest habitat each year.[8]
Other forest ecosystems have suffered as much or more destruction as tropical

rainforests. Farming and logging have severely disturbed at least 94% of temperate
broadleaf forests; many old growth forest stands have lost more than 98% of their
previous area because of human activities.[6] Tropical deciduous dry forests are easier
to clear and burn and are more suitable for agriculture and cattle ranching than
tropical rainforests; consequently, less than 0.1% of dry forests in Central America's
Pacific Coast and less than 8% in Madagascar remain from their original extents.[8]
Farmers near newly cleared land within Taman Nasional Kerinci Seblat (Kerinci
Seblat National Park), Sumatra.
Plains and desert areas have been degraded to a lesser extent. Only 10-20% of the
world's drylands, which include temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands,
scrub and deciduous forests, have been somewhat degraded.[9] But included in that 10-
20% of land is the approximately 9 million square kilometers of seasonally dry-lands
that humans have converted to deserts through the process of desertification.[6] The
tallgrass prairies of North America, on the other hand, have less than 3% of natural
habitat remaining that has not been converted to farmland.[10]
Wetlands and marine areas have endured high levels of habitat destruction. More than
50% of wetlands in the U.S. have been destroyed in just the last 200 years.[7] Between
60% and 70% of European wetlands have been completely destroyed.[11] About one-
fifth (20%) of marine coastal areas have been highly modified by humans.[12] One-
fifth of coral reefs have also been destroyed, and another fifth has been severely
degraded by overfishing, pollution, and invasive species; 90% of the Philippines’
coral reefs alone have been destroyed.[13] Finally, over 35% mangrove ecosystems
worldwide have been destroyed.[13]
[edit] Human activity
38
Deforestation and roads in Amazonia, the Amazon Rainforest.
Habitat destruction caused by humans includes conversion of land to agriculture,

urban sprawl, infrastructure development, and other anthropogenic changes to the
characteristics of land. Habitat degradation, fragmentation, and pollution are aspects
of habitat destruction caused by humans that do not necessarily involve overt
destruction of habitat, yet result in habitat collapse. Desertification, deforestation, and
coral reef degradation are specific types of habitat destruction for those areas (deserts,
forests, coral reefs).
Geist and Lambin (2002) assessed 152 case studies of net losses of tropical forest
cover to determine any patterns in the proximate and underlying causes of tropical
deforestation. Their results, yielded as percentages of the case studies in which each
parameter was a significant factor, provide a quantitative prioritization of which
proximate and underlying causes were the most significant. The proximate causes
were clustered into broad categories of agricultural expansion (96%), infrastructure
expansion (72%), and wood extraction (67%). Therefore, according to this study,
forest conversion to agriculture is the main land use change responsible for tropical
deforestation. The specific categories reveal further insight into the specific causes of
tropical deforestation: transport extension (64%), commercial wood extraction (52%),
permanent cultivation (48%), cattle ranching (46%), shifting (slash and burn)
cultivation (41%), subsistence agriculture (40%), and fuel wood extraction for
domestic use (28%). One result is that shifting cultivation is not the primary cause of
deforestation in all world regions, while transport extension (including the
construction of new roads) is the largest single proximate factor responsible for
deforestation.[14]
[edit] Drivers
Nanjing Road in Shanghai
While the above-mentioned activities are the proximal or direct causes of habitat
destruction in that they actually destroy habitat, this still does not identify why
humans destroy habitat. The forces that cause humans to destroy habitat are known as
drivers of habitat destruction. Demographic, economic, sociopolitical, scientific and
technological, and cultural drivers all contribute to habitat destruction.[13]
Demographic drivers include the expanding human population; rate of population

increase over time; spatial distribution of people in a given area (urban versus rural),
ecosystem type, and country; and the combined effects of poverty, age, family
planning, gender, and education status of people in certain areas.[13] Most of the
exponential human population growth worldwide is occurring in or close to
biodiversity hotspots.[5] This may explain why human population density accounts for
87.9% of the variation in numbers of threatened species across 114 countries,
providing indisputable evidence that people play the largest role in decreasing
biodiversity.[15] The boom in human population and migration of people into such
species-rich regions are making conservation efforts not only more urgent but also
39
more likely to conflict with local human interests.[5] The high local population density
in such areas is directly correlated to the poverty status of the local people, most of
whom lack an education and family planning.[14]
From the Geist and Lambin (2002) study described in the previous section, the
underlying driving forces were prioritized as follows (with the percent of the 152
cases the factor played a significant role in): economic factors (81%), institutional or
policy factors (78%), technological factors (70%), cultural or socio-political factors
(66%), and demographic factors (61%). The main economic factors included
commercialization and growth of timber markets (68%), which are driven by national
and international demands; urban industrial growth (38%); low domestic costs for
land, labor, fuel, and timber (32%); and increases in product prices mainly for cash
crops (25%). Institutional and policy factors included formal pro-deforestation
policies on land development (40%), economic growth including colonization and
infrastructure improvement (34%), and subsidies for land-based activities (26%);
property rights and land-tenure insecurity (44%); and policy failures such as
corruption, lawlessness, or mismanagement (42%). The main technological factor was
the poor application of technology in the wood industry (45%), which leads to
wasteful logging practices. Within the broad category of cultural and sociopolitical
factors are public attitudes and values (63%), individual/household behavior (53%),
public unconcern toward forest environments (43%), missing basic values (36%), and
unconcern by individuals (32%). Demographic factors were the in-migration of
colonizing settlers into sparsely populated forest areas (38%) and growing population
density—a result of the first factor—in those areas (25%).
There are also feedbacks and interactions among the proximate and underlying causes
of deforestation that can amplify the process. Road construction has the largest
feedback effect, because it interacts with—and leads to—the establishment of new
settlements and more people, which causes a growth in wood (logging) and food
markets.[14] Growth in these markets, in turn, progresses the commercialization of
agriculture and logging industries. When these industries become commercialized,
they must become more efficient by utilizing larger or more modern machinery that
often are worse on the habitat than traditional farming and logging methods. Either
way, more land is cleared more rapidly for commercial markets. This common
feedback example manifests just how closely related the proximate and underlying
causes are to each other.
[edit] Impact on human population
The draining and development of coastal wetlands that previously protected the Gulf
Coast contributed to severe flooding in New Orleans, Louisiana in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina.[16]
Habitat destruction vastly increases an area's vulnerability to natural disasters like

flood and drought, crop failure, spread of disease, and water contamination.[13] On the
other hand, a healthy ecosystem with good management practices will reduce the
chance of these events happening, or will at least mitigate adverse impacts.
40
Agricultural land can actually suffer from the destruction of the surrounding
landscape. Over the past 50 years, the destruction of habitat surrounding agricultural
land has degraded approximately 40% of agricultural land worldwide via erosion,
salinization, compaction, nutrient depletion, pollution, and urbanization.[13] Humans
also lose direct uses of natural habitat when habitat is destroyed. Aesthetic uses such
as birdwatching, recreational uses like hunting and fishing, and ecotourism usually
rely upon virtually undisturbed habitat. Many people value the complexity of the
natural world and are disturbed by the loss of natural habitats and animal or plant
species worldwide.
Probably the most profound impact that habitat destruction has on people is the loss of
many valuable ecosystem services. Habitat destruction has altered nitrogen,
phosphorus, sulfur, and carbon cycles, which has increased the frequency and severity
of acid rain, algal blooms, and fish kills in rivers and oceans and contributed
tremendously to global climate change.[13] One ecosystem service whose significance
is becoming more realized is climate regulation. On a local scale, trees provide
windbreaks and shade; on a regional scale, plant transpiration recycles rainwater and
maintains constant annual rainfall; on a global scale, plants (especially trees from
tropical rainforests) from around the world counter the accumulation of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere by sequestering carbon dioxide through photosynthesis.[6]
Other ecosystem services that are diminished or lost altogether as a result of habitat
destruction include watershed management, nitrogen fixation, oxygen production,
pollination, waste treatment (i.e., the breaking down and immobilization of toxic
pollutants), and nutrient recycling of sewage or agricultural runoff.[6]
The loss of trees from the tropical rainforests alone represents a substantial
diminishing of the earth’s ability to produce oxygen and use up carbon dioxide. These
services are becoming even more important as increasing carbon dioxide levels is one
of the main contributors to global climate change.
The loss of biodiversity may not directly affect humans, but the indirect effects of
losing many species as well as the diversity of ecosystems in general are enormous.
When biodiversity is lost, the environment loses many species that provide valuable
and unique roles to the ecosystem. The environment and all its inhabitants rely on
biodiversity to recover from extreme environmental conditions. When too much
biodiversity is lost, a catastrophic event such as an earthquake, flood, or volcanic
eruption could cause an ecosystem to crash, and humans would obviously suffer from
that. Loss of biodiversity also means that humans are losing animals that could have
served as biological control agents and plants that could potentially provide higher-
yielding crop varieties, pharmaceutical drugs to cure existing or future diseases or
cancer, and new resistant crop varieties for agricultural species susceptible to
pesticide-resistant insects or virulent strains of fungi, viruses, and bacteria.[6]
The negative effects of habitat destruction usually impact rural populations more
directly than urban populations.[13] Across the globe, poor people suffer the most when
natural habitat is destroyed, because less natural habitat means less natural resources
per capita, yet wealthier people and countries simply have to pay more to continue to
receive more than their per capita share of natural resources.
41
Another way to view the negative effects of habitat destruction is to look at the
opportunity cost of keeping an area undisturbed. In other words, what are people
losing out on by taking away a given habitat? A country may increase its food supply
by converting forest land to row-crop agriculture, but the value of the same land may
be much larger when it can supply natural resources or services such as clean water,
timber, ecotourism, or flood regulation and drought control.[13]
[edit] Outlook
The rapid expansion of the global human population is increasing the world’s food
requirement substantially. Simple logic instructs that more people will require more
food. In fact, as the world’s population increases dramatically, agricultural output will
need to increase by at least 50%, over the next 30 years.,[17] which outcome is at best
problematic. In the past, continually moving to new land and soils provided a boost in
food production to appease the global food demand. That easy fix will no longer be
available, however, as more than 98% of all land suitable for agriculture is already in
use or degraded beyond repair.[18]
The impending global food crisis will be a major source of habitat destruction.
Commercial farmers are going to become desperate to produce more food from the
same amount of land, so they will use more fertilizers and less concern for the
environment to meet the market demand. Others will seek out new land or will
convert other land-uses to agriculture. Agricultural intensification will become
widespread at the cost of the environment and its inhabitants. Species will be pushed
out of their habitat either directly by habitat destruction or indirectly by
fragmentation, degradation, or pollution. Any efforts to protect the world’s remaining
natural habitat and biodiversity will compete directly with humans’ growing demand
for natural resources, especially new agricultural lands.[17]
[edit] Solutions
Chelonia mydas on a Hawaiian coral reef. Although the endangered species is

protected, habitat loss from human development is a major reason for the loss of
green turtle nesting beaches.
In most cases of tropical deforestation, three to four underlying causes are driving two
to three proximate causes.[14] This means that a universal policy for controlling
tropical deforestation would not be able to address the unique combination of
proximate and underlying causes of deforestation in each country.[14] Before any local,
national, or international deforestation policies are written and enforced,
governmental leaders must acquire a detailed understanding of the complex
combination of proximate causes and underlying driving forces of deforestation in a
given area or country.[14] This concept, along with many other results about tropical
deforestation from the Geist and Lambin study, can easily be applied habitat
destruction in general. Governmental leaders need to take action by addressing the
underlying driving forces, rather than merely regulating the proximate causes In a
42
broader sense, governmental bodies at a local, national, and international scale need to
emphasize the following:
1. Considering the many irreplaceable ecosystem services provided by natural

habitats,
2. Protecting remaining intact sections of natural habitat,
3. Educating the public about the importance of natural habitat and biodiversity,
4. Developing family planning programs in areas of rapid population growth,
5. Finding ways to increase agricultural output than simply increasing the total
land in production,
6. Preserving habitat corridors to minimize prior damage from fragmented
habitats.
Most of the species extinctions from 1000 AD to 2000 AD are due to human
activities, in particular destruction of plant and animal habitats. Raised rates of
extinction are being driven by human consumption of organic resources, especially
related to tropical forest destruction.[55] While most of the species that are becoming
extinct are not food species, their biomass is converted into human food when their
habitat is transformed into pasture, cropland, and orchards. It is estimated that more
than a third of the Earth's biomass[56] is tied up in only the few species that represent
humans, livestock and crops. Because an ecosystem decreases in stability as its
species are made extinct, these studies warn that the global ecosystem is destined for
collapse if it is further reduced in complexity. Factors contributing to loss of
biodiversity are: overpopulation, deforestation, pollution (air pollution, water
pollution, soil contamination) and global warming or climate change, driven by
human activity. These factors, while all stemming from overpopulation, produce a
cumulative impact upon biodiversity.
There are systematic relationships between the area of a habitat and the number of
species it can support, with greater sensitivity to reduction in habitat area for species
of larger body size and for those living at lower latitudes or in forests or oceans.[57]
Some characterize loss of biodiversity not as ecosystem degradation but by
conversion to trivial standardized ecosystems (e.g., monoculture following
deforestation). In some countries lack of property rights or access regulation to biotic
resources necessarily leads to biodiversity loss (degradation costs having to be
supported by the community).
A September 14, 2007 study conducted by the National Science Foundation found
that biodiversity and genetic diversity are dependent upon each other—that diversity
within a species is necessary to maintain diversity among species, and vice versa.
According to the lead researcher in the study, Dr. Richard Lankau, "If any one type is
removed from the system, the cycle can break down, and the community becomes
dominated by a single species."[58]
At present, the most threathened ecosystems are those found in fresh water. The
marking of fresh water ecosystems as the ecosystems most under threat was done by
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, and was confirmed again by the project
43
"Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment", organised by the biodiversity platform,
and the French Institut de recherche pour le développement (MNHNP).[59]
[edit] Exotic species
Main article: Introduced species
Introduced species

"Alien species" redirects here. For life on planets other than Earth, see extraterrestrial
life.
For a list of extraterrestrials in fiction, see List of alien species.
Sweet clover (Melilotus sp.), introduced and naturalized to the U.S. from Eurasia as a
forage and cover crop.
An introduced, alien, exotic, non-indigenous, or non-native species, or simply an

introduction, is a species living outside its native distributional range, which has
arrived there by human activity, either deliberate or accidental. Some introduced
species are damaging to the ecosystem they are introduced into, others negatively
affect agriculture and other human uses of natural resources, or impact on the health
of animals and humans. A list of introduced species is given in a separate article.
Introduced species and their effects on natural environments is a controversial subject
and one that has gained much scrutiny by scientists, governments, farmers and others.
[edit] Terminology
The terminology associated with introduced species is presently in flux for a variety
of reasons. Other terms that are used sometimes interchangeably (having the same or
similar meanings) with introduced are acclimatized, adventive, naturalized,
immigrant, and xenobiotic. Nonetheless, distinctions can and should be made between
some of these terms.
In the broadest and most widely used sense, an introduced species is synonymous
with non-native and therefore applies as well to most garden and farm organisms;
these adequately fit the basic definition given above. However, some sources add to
that basic definition: "...and are now reproducing in the wild",[1] which removes from
consideration as introduced all of those species raised or grown in gardens or farms
that do not survive without tending by people. With respect to plants, these latter are
in this case defined as either ornamental or cultivated plants.
The following definition from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
although perhaps lacking ecological sophistication, is more typical: introduced
species are .."[s]pecies that have become able to survive and reproduce outside the
habitats where they evolved or spread naturally".[2] However, introduction of a species
44
outside its native range is often all that is required to be qualified as an "introduced
species" such that one can distinguish between introduced species that may only occur
in cultivation, under domestication or captivity whereas other become established
outside their native range and reproduce without human assistance. Such species
might be termed "naturalized", "established", "wild non-native species", or "invasive".
The transition from introduction, to establishment and invasion has been described by
in the context of plants.[3] Introduced species are essentially "non-native" species.
Invasive species are those introduced species that spread-widely or quickly, and cause
harm, be that to the environment,[4] human health, other valued resources or the
economy. There have been calls from scientists to consider a species "invasive" only
in terms of their spread and reproduction rather than the harm they may cause.[5].
An invasive species is one that has been introduced and become a pest in its new
location, spreading (invading) by natural means. The term is used to imply both a
sense of urgency and actual or potential harm. For example, U.S. Executive Order
13112 (1999) defines "invasive species" as "an alien species whose introduction does
or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health".[6]
Although some argue that "invasive" is a loaded word and harm is difficult to define,
[1]
the fact of the matter is that organisms have and continue to be introduced to areas
where they are not native, sometimes with, usually without, much regard to the harm
that could result.
From a regulatory perspective, it is neither desirable nor practical to simply list as

undesirable or outright ban all non-native species (although the State of Hawaii has
adopted an approach that comes close to this). Regulations require a definitional
distinction between non-natives that are deemed especially onerous and all others.
Introduced pest species that are officially listed as invasive, best fit the definition of an
invasive species.
In Great Britain the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 prevents the introduction of
any animal not naturally occurring in the wild, and also any of a list of both animals
or plants which have been introduced previously and have proved to be invasive.
Table of terms related to "Introduced Species"

NON-NATIVE
NATIVE
INTRODUCED (broad definition)
Established in the wild
CULTIVATED INTRODUCED
INDIGENOUS (narrow definition)
and
or ENDEMIC
LIVESTOCK INVASIVE All others
(pest) not listed*
*Not listed in any "official" source as a pest species
[edit] Nature of introductions
45
By definition, a species is considered “introduced” when its transport into an area
outside of its native range is human mediated. Introductions by humans can be
described as either intentional or accidental. Intentional introductions have been
motivated by individuals or groups who believe that the newly introduced species will
be in some way beneficial to humans in its new location. Unintentional or accidental
introductions are most often a byproduct of human movements, and are thus unbound
to human motivations. Subsequent range expansion of introduced species may or may
not involve human activity.
[edit] Intentional introductions
Species that humans intentionally transport to new regions can subsequently become
successfully established in two ways. In the first case, organisms are purposely
released for establishment in the wild. It is sometimes difficult to predict whether a
species will become established upon release, and if not initially successful, humans
have made repeated introductions to improve the probability that the species will
survive and eventually reproduce in the wild. In these cases it is clear that the
introduction is directly facilitated by human desires.
In the second case, species intentionally transported into a new region may escape
from captive or cultivated populations and subsequently establish independent
breeding populations. Escaped organisms are included in this category because their
initial transport to a new region is human motivated.
Perhaps the most common motivation for introducing a species into a new place is
that of economic gain. Examples of species introduced for the purposes of benefiting
agriculture, aquaculture or other economic activities are widespread.[7] Eurasian carp
was first introduced to the United States as a potential food source. The apple snail
was released in Southeast Asia with the intent that it be used as a protein source, and
subsequently to places like Hawaiʻi to establish a food industry. In Alaska, foxes were
introduced to many islands to create new populations for the fur trade. The timber
industry promoted the introduction of Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) from California
to Australia and New Zealand as a commercial timber crop. These examples represent
only a small subsample of species that have been moved by humans for economic
interests.
Introductions have also been important in supporting recreation activities or otherwise

increasing human enjoyment. Numerous fish and game animals have been introduced
for the purposes of sport fishing and hunting. The introduced amphibian (Ambystoma
tigrinum) that threatens the endemic California salamander (Ambystoma
californiense) was introduced to California as a source of bait for fishermen.[8] Pet
animals have also been frequently transported into new areas by humans, and their
escapes have resulted in several successful introductions, such as those of feral cats
and parrots.
Many plants have been introduced with the intent of aesthetically improving public
recreation areas or private properties. The introduced Norway Maple for example
occupies a prominent status in many of Canada's parks.[9] The transport of ornamental
plants for landscaping use has and continues to be a source of many introductions.
46
Some of these species have escaped horticultural control and become invasive.
Notable examples include water hyacinth, salt cedar, and purple loosestrife.
In other cases, species have been translocated for reasons of “cultural nostalgia,”
which refers to instances in which humans who have migrated to new regions have
intentionally brought with them familiar organisms. Famous examples include the
introduction of starlings to North America by Englishman Eugene Schieffelin, a lover
of the works of Shakespeare, who, it is rumoured, wanted to introduce all of the birds
mentioned in Shakespeare's plays into the United States. He deliberately released
eighty starlings into Central Park in New York City in 1890, and another forty in
1891. Yet another prominent example is the introduction of the European rabbit to
Australia by one Thomas Austin, a British landowner who had the rabbits released on
his estate in Victoria because he missed hunting them. A more recent example is the
introduction of the wall lizard to North America by a Cincinnati boy, George Rau, in
the 1950s after a family vacation to Italy.[10]
Intentional introductions have also been undertaken with the aim of ameliorating
environmental problems. A number of fast spreading plants such as Garlic Mustard
and kudzu have been introduced as a means of erosion control. Other species have
been introduced as biological control agents to control invasive species and involves
the purposeful introduction of a natural enemy of the target species with the intention
of reducing its numbers or controlling its spread.
A special case of introduction is the reintroduction of a species that has become

locally endangered or extinct, done in the interests of conservation. Examples of
successful reintroductions include wolves to Yellowstone National Park in the U.S.,
and the Red kite to parts of England and Scotland. Introductions or translocations of
species have also been proposed in the interest of genetic conservation, which
advocates the introduction of new individuals into genetically depauperate
populations of endangered or threatened species.[11]
The above examples highlight the intent of humans to introduce species as a means of
incurring some benefit. While these benefits have in some cases been realized,
introductions have also resulted in unforeseen costs, particularly when introduced
species take on characteristics of invasive species.
Non-native species can become such a common part of an environment, culture, and
even diet that little thought is given to their geographic origin. For example, soybeans,
kiwi fruit, wheat and all livestock except the llama and the turkey are non-native
species to North America. Collectively, non-native crops and livestock comprise 98%
of US food.[12] These and other benefits from non-natives are so vast that, according to
the Congressional Research Service, they probably exceed the costs.[13]
[edit] Accidental introductions
Unintentional introductions occur when species are transported by human vectors. For
example, three species of rat (the Black, Norway and Polynesian) have spread to most
of the world as hitchhikers on ships. There are also numerous examples of marine
organisms being transported in ballast water, one being the zebra mussel. Over 200
species have been introduced to the San Francisco Bay in this manner making it the
47
most heavily invaded estuary in the world.[14] Increasing rates of human travel are
providing accelerating opportunities for species to be accidentally transported into
areas in which they are not considered native.
[edit] Introduced plants and algae
Many non-native plants have been introduced into new territories, initially as either
ornamental plants or for erosion control, stock feed, or forestry. Whether an exotic
will become invasive is seldom understood in the beginning, and many non-native
ornamentals languish in the trade for years before suddenly naturalizing and
becoming invasive.
Peaches, for example, originated in Persia, and have been carried to much of the
populated world. Tomatoes are native to the Andes. Squash (pumpkins), maize, and
tobacco are native to the Americas, but were introduced to the Old World. Many
introduced species require continued human intervention to survive in the new
environment. Others may become feral, but do not seriously compete with natives, but
simply increase the biodiversity of the area.
Dandelions are also introduced species to North America.
A very troublesome marine species in southern Europe is the seaweed Caulerpa

taxifolia. Caulerpa was first observed in the Mediterranean Sea in 1984, off the coast
of Monaco. By 1997, it had covered some 50 km². It has a strong potential to
overgrow natural biotopes, and represents a major risk for sublittoral ecosystems. The
origin of the alga in the Mediterranean was thought to be either as a migration through
the Suez Canal from the Red Sea, or as an accidental introduction from an aquarium.
Japanese knotweed grows profusely in many nations. Human beings introduced it into
many places in the 19th century. It is a source of resveratrol, a dietary supplement.
[edit] Introduced animals
Male Lophura nycthemera (Silver Pheasant), a native of East Asia that has been
introduced into parts of Europe for ornamental reasons.
One example of introducing an exotic animal was carried out by a lover of the works
of Shakespeare, who wanted to introduce all of the birds mentioned in Shakespeare's
plays into the United States. He deliberately released eighty starlings into Central
Park in New York City in 1890, and another forty in 1891. The starling had been
introduced previously into Ohio and had failed to survive.
Other examples of introduced animals include the gypsy moth in eastern North
America, the zebra mussel and alewife in the Great Lakes, the Canada Goose and
Gray Squirrel in Europe, the Muskrat in Europe and Asia, the Cane Toad and Red fox
in Australia, Nutria in North America, Eurasia, and Africa, and the Common Brushtail
Possum in New Zealand.
48
[edit] Invasive exotic diseases
History is rife with the spread of exotic diseases, such as the introduction of smallpox
into the Americas, where it obliterated entire Native American civilizations before
they were ever even seen by Europeans.
Problematic exotic disease introductions in the past century or so include the chestnut
blight which has virtually extinguished the American chestnut, and Dutch elm
disease, which has severely damaged the American elm.
[edit] Most commonly introduced species

Some species, such as the Brown Rat, House Sparrow, Ring-necked Pheasant and
European Starling, have been introduced very widely. In addition there are some
agricultural and pet species that frequently become feral; these include rabbits, dogs,
goats, fish, pigs and cats.
[edit] Introduced species on islands

Perhaps the best place to study problems associated with introduced species is on
islands. Depending upon the isolation (how far an island is located from continental
biotas), native island biological communities may be poorly adapted to the threat
posed by exotic introductions. Often this can mean that no natural predator of an
introduced species is present, and the non-native spreads uncontrollably into open or
occupied niche.
An additional problem is that birds native to small islands may have become flightless
because of the absence of predators prior to introductions, and cannot readily escape
danger. The tendency of rails in particular to evolve flightless forms on islands has led
to the disproportionate number of extinctions in that family.
The field of island restoration has developed as a field of conservation biology and
ecological restoration, a great deal of which deals with the eradication of introduced
species.
[edit] New Zealand
Main article: Introduced species in New Zealand
In New Zealand the largest commercial crop is Pinus radiata, the Monterey Pine from
California, which grows better in New Zealand than in California. However, the pine
forests are also occupied by deer from North America and Europe and by possums
from Australia. All are exotic species and all have thrived in the New Zealand
environment. The pines are seen as beneficial while the deer and possums are
regarded as serious pests.
Common gorse, originally a hedge plant in Scotland, was introduced to New Zealand
for the same purpose. Like the radiata pine, it has shown a favour to its new climate
and is regarded as a noxious plant which threatens to obliterate native plants in much
49
of the country and is hence routinely eradicated, though it can also provide a nursery
environment for native plants to reestablish themselves.
Rabbits, introduced as a food source by sailors in the 1800s, have become a severe
nuisance to farmers, notably in South Island. The myxomatosis virus was illegally
imported and illegally released but it had little lasting effect upon the rabbit
population other than to make it more resistant to the virus.
Rats, brought either by the first humans to arrive in New Zealand (the Maori) or by
Europeans have had a devastating effect upon native birdlife, particularly as many
New Zealand birds are flightless. Feral cats and dogs which were originally brought
as pets are also known to kill large numbers of birds. A recent (2006) study in South
Island has shown that even domestic cats with a ready supply of food from their
owners may kill hundreds of birds in a year, including natives.
Sparrows, which were brought to control insects upon the introduced grain crops,
have displaced native birds as have Rainbow Lorikeets and cockatoos (both from
Australia) which fly free around areas west of Auckland City such as the Waitakere
Ranges.
In much of the New Zealand the Australian black swan has effectively eliminated the
existence of the previously introduced mute swan.
Two notable varieties of spiders have also been introduced: the white tail spider and
the black widow spider. Both may have arrived inside shipments of fruit. Prior to this
the only spider (and the only poisonous animal) dangerous to humans was the native
katipo which is very similar to the black widow and which is known to successfully
interbreed with the more aggressive North American variety.
[edit] Genetic pollution

Main article: Genetic pollution
Purebred naturally evolved region specific wild species can be threatened with
extinction in a big way[15] 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[16]. Nonnative species can bring about a form
of extinction of native plants and animals by hybridization and introgression either
through purposeful introduction by humans or through habitat modification, bringing
previously isolated species into contact. These phenomena can be especially
detrimental for rare species coming into contact with more abundant ones where the
abundant ones can interbreed with them swamping the entire rarer gene pool creating
hybrids thus driving the entire original purebred native stock to complete extinction.
Attention has to be focused on the extent of this under appreciated problem that is not
always apparent from morphological (outward appearance) observations alone. Some
degree of gene flow may be a normal, evolutionarily constructive process, and all
constellations of genes and genotypes cannot be preserved however, hybridization
50
with or without introgression may, nevertheless, threaten a rare species' existence[17]
[18]
.
Further information: Comparison of biodiversity health by nation
The rich diversity of unique species across many parts of the world exist only because
they are separated by barriers, particularly large rivers, seas, oceans, mountains and
deserts from other species of other land masses, particularly the highly fecund, ultra-
competitive, generalist "super-species". These are barriers that couldn't have been
easily crossed by natural processes, except through continental drift. However,
humans have invented transportation with the ability to bring into contact species that
they've never met in their evolutionary history; also, this is done on a time scale of
days, unlike the centuries that historically have accompanied major animal
migrations. As these species that never met before come in contact with each other,
the rate at which species are extincting is increasing still. See below for an example.
The widespread introduction of exotic species by humans is a potent threat to

biodiversity. When exotic species are introduced to ecosystems and establish self-
sustaining populations, the endemic species in that ecosystem that have not evolved to
cope with the exotic species may not survive. The exotic organisms may be either
predators, parasites, or simply aggressive species that deprive indigenous species of
nutrients, water and light. These invasive species often have features, due to their
evolutionary background and new environment, that make them highly competitive;
able to become well-established and spread quickly, reducing the effective habitat of
endemic species.
Exotic species are introduced by human, either unwillingly or intentionally. Examples

on unwilling introduction are fore example ladybugs, ... These were bred to help in
combating pests in agriculture (for greenhouses). Other examples of unwilling
introduction are species that are unknowingly brought in by vessel or automotive.
These include eg certain bacteria, spiders, seeds of certain plants, ... Examples of
intentional introduction are the planting of exotic plants in gardens. It is clear that
with simple measures the preventing of the spread of exotic plants, yet as of present,
trying to reduce the inflow of exotic species has remained low on the political agenda.
Also, the intentional planting of species that are marked as "indiginous", yet are from
a non-indigenous strain can be considered exotic and create problems in the
ecosystem. For example in Belgium, Prunus spinosa (an indigenous species) that
originates from Eastern Europe has been introduced. This has created problems, as the
this tree species comes into leave much sooner than their West European counterparts,
bringing the Thecla betulae butterfly (which feed on the leaves) into trouble.
As a consequence of the above, if humans continue to combine species from different

ecoregions, there is the potential that the world's ecosystems will end up dominated
by relatively a few, aggressive, cosmopolitan "super-species".
At present, several countries have already imported so much exotic species, that the
own indigenous fauna/flora is greatly outnumbered. For example, in Belgium, only
5% of the indigenous trees remain.[60][61]
51
In 2004, an international team of scientists estimated that 10 percent of species would
become extinct by 2050 because of global warming.[62] “We need to limit climate
change or we wind up with a lot of species in trouble, possibly extinct,” said Dr. Lee
Hannah, a co-author of the paper and chief climate change biologist at the Center for
Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International.
[edit] Genetic pollution
Main article: Genetic pollution
Genetic pollution
Genetic pollution is undesirable gene flow into wild populations. The term is usually
associated with the gene flow from a genetically engineered (GE) organism (or
genetically modifed organism - GMO) to a non GE organism;[1][2] however,
conservation biologists and conservationists are using it to describe gene flow from a
domestic, feral, non-native or invasive species to a wild indigenous population.[3][4]
The use of this term is controversial.
[edit] Genetic engineering

The term genetic pollution was popularized by environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin in his
1998 book The Biotech Century.[5] While intentional crossbreeding between two
genetically distinct varieties is described as hybridization with the subsequent
introgression of genes, Rifkin used genetic pollution to describe the risks that might
occur due the unintentional process of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
dispersing their genes into the natural environment by breeding with wild plants or
animals.[1][6][7]
The usage of genetic pollution by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) is currently defined as:
“Uncontrolled spread of genetic information (frequently referring to

transgenes) into the genomes of organisms in which such genes are not
present in nature.”[8]
In a 10 years study of four different crops, none of the genetically modified plants
were found to be more invasive or more persistent than their conventional
counterparts.[9] An often cited example of genetic pollution is the reputed discovery of
transgenes from GE maize in landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico. The report from
Quist and Chapela, [10] has since been discredited on methodological grounds. [11] The
scientific journal that originally published the study concluded that "the evidence
available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper." [12] More
52
recent attempts to replicate the original studies have concluded that genetically
modified corn is absent from southern Mexico in 2003 and 2004. [13]
A 2004 study performed near an Oregon field trial for a genetically modified variety
of creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) revealed that the transgene and its
associate trait (resistance to the glyphosate herbicide) could be transmitted by wind
pollination to resident plants of different Agrostis species, up to 14 km from the test
field.[14] In 2007, the Scotts Company, producer of the genetically modified bentgrass,
agreed to pay a civil penalty of $500,000 to the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The USDA alleged that Scotts "failed to conduct a 2003 Oregon
field trial in a manner which ensured that neither glyphosate-tolerant creeping
bentgrass nor its offspring would persist in the environment".[15]
[edit] Invasive species

While in the field of agriculture, agroforestry and animal husbandry genetic pollution
is being used to describe the undesirable gene flow between GE species and wild
relatives;[1] conservationists are using the term to describe the undesirable gene flow
from domestic, feral, non-native and invasive species into wild indigenous species.[3][4]
For example, TRAFFIC is the international wildlife trade monitoring network which
works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation
of nature. They promote the awareness of the harmful effects of introduced invasive
species that may "hybridize with native species, causing genetic pollution".[16] The
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is the statutory adviser to the
Government of United Kingdom and international nature conservation. Its work
contributes to maintaining and enriching biological diversity and educating about the
harmful effects of the introduction of invasive/non-native species. In this context they
have advised that invasive species:
"will alter the genetic pool (a process called genetic pollution), which is an
irreversible change.”[17]
[edit] Controversial term

Whether genetic pollution or similar terms, such as “genetic deterioration”, “genetic
swamping”, “genetic takeover” and “genetic aggression”, are an appropriate scientific
description of the biology of invasive species is debated. Hymer and Simberloff argue
that these types of terms:
"...imply either that hybrids are less fit than the parentals, which need not be
the case, or that there is an inherent value in “pure” gene pools". [18]
They recommend that gene flow from invasive species be termed genetic mixing
since:
“ "Mixing" need not be value-laden, and we use it here to denote mixing of

gene pools whether or not associated with a decline in fitness". [18]
53
Even environmentalists such as Patrick Moore, an ex-member and cofounder of
Greenpeace, questions if the term genetic pollution is more political than scientific. In
an interview he comments:
"If you take a term used quite frequently these days, the term “genetic
pollution,” otherwise referred to as genetic contamination, it is a propaganda
term, not a technical or scientific term. Pollution and contamination are both
value judgments. By using the word “genetic” it gives the public the
impression that they are talking about something scientific or technical--as if
there were such a thing as genes that amount to pollution."[19]
Purebred naturally evolved region specific wild species can be threatened with
extinction[63] 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.[64] Nonnative species can bring about a form of extinction
of native plants and animals by hybridization and introgression either through
purposeful introduction by humans or through habitat modification, bringing
previously isolated species into contact. These phenomena can be especially
detrimental for rare species coming into contact with more abundant ones. The
abundant species can interbreed with the rarer, swamping the entire gene pool and
creating hybrids, thus driving the entire native stock to complete extinction. Attention
has to be focused on the extent of this under appreciated problem that is not always
apparent from morphological (outward appearance) observations alone. Some degree
of gene flow may be a normal, evolutionarily constructive, process, and all
constellations of genes and genotypes cannot be preserved. However, hybridization
with or without introgression may, nevertheless, threaten a rare species' existence.[65]
[66]
[edit] Hybridization and genetics
See also: Food Security
In agriculture and animal husbandry, the green revolution popularized the use of
conventional hybridization to increase yield by creating "high-yielding varieties".
Often the handful of hybridized breeds originated in developed countries and were
further hybridized with local varieties in the rest of the developing world to create
high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and
industry have been pushing hybridization which has resulted in several of the
indigenous breeds becoming extinct or threatened. Disuse because of unprofitability
and uncontrolled intentional and unintentional cross-pollination and crossbreeding
(genetic pollution), 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.[67]
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has

been altered using the genetic engineering techniques generally known as
recombinant DNA technology. Genetically Modified (GM) crops today have become
54
a common source for genetic pollution, not only of wild varieties but also of other
domesticated varieties derived from relatively natural hybridization.[68][69][70][71][72]
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.[67]
[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.[73]
[edit] Conserving biodiversity

Main article: Conservation biology
A schematic image illustrating the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem

services, human well-being, and poverty.[74] The illustration shows where
conservation action, strategies and plans can influence the drivers of the current
biodiversity crisis at local, regional, to global scales.
Conservation biology matured in the mid- 20th century as ecologists, naturalists, and
other scientists began to collectively research and address issues pertaining to global
declines in biodiversity.[75][76][77] The conservation ethic differs from the preservationist
ethic, historically lead by John Muir, who advocate for protected areas devoid of
human exploitation or interference for profit.[76] The conservation ethic advocates for
wise stewardship and management of natural resource production for the purpose of
protecting and sustaining biodiversity in species, ecosystems, the evolutionary
process, and human culture and society.[75][77][78][79] Conservation biologists are
concerned with the trends in biodiversity being reported in this era, which has been
labeled by science as the Holocene extinction period, also known as the sixth mass
extinction.[80] Rates of decline in biodiversity in this sixth mass extinction exceeds the
five previous extinction spasms recorded in the fossil record.[80][81][82][83][84] In response
to the extinction crisis, the research of conservation biologists is being organized into
strategic plans that include principles, guidelines, and tools for the purpose of
protecting biodiversity.[75][85][86] Conservation biology is a crisis orientated discipline
and it is multi-disciplinary, including ecological, social, education, and other scientific
disciplines outside of biology. Conservation biologists work in both the field and
office, in government, universities, non-profit organizations and in industry.[75][77] The
conservation of biological diversity is a global priority in strategic conservation plans
that are designed to engage public policy and concerns affecting local, regional and
global scales of communities, ecosystems, and cultures.[87] Conserving biodiversity
55
and action plans identify ways of sustaining human well-being and global economics,
including natural capital, market capital, and ecosystem services.[88][89]
[edit] Means
One of the strategies involves placing a monetary value on biodiversity through

biodiversity banking, of which one example is the Australian Native Vegetation
Management Framework. Other approaches are the creation of gene banks, as well as
the creation of gene banks that have the intention of growing the indigenous species
for reintroduction to the ecosystem (eg via tree nurseries, ...)[90] The eradication of
exotic species is also an important method to preserve the local biodiversity. Exotic
species that have become a pest can be identified using taxonomy (eg with DAISY,
barcode of life[91], ...) and can then be eradicated. This method however can only be
used against a large group of a certain exotic organism due to the econimic cost. Other
measures contributing to the preservation of biodiversity include: the reduction of
pesticide use and/or a switching to organic pesticides, ... These measures however, are
of less importance than the preserving of rural lands, reintroduction of indigenous
species and the removal of exotic species. Finally, if the continued preservation of
native organisms in an area can be guaranteed, efforts can be made in trying to
reintroduce eliminated native species back into the environment. This can be done by
first determining which species were indiginous to the area, and then reintroducing
them. This determination can be done using databases as the Encyclopedia_of_life,
Global Biodiversity Information Facility, ... Extermination is usually done with either
(ecological) pesticides, or natural predators.
[edit] Strategies
As noted above (Distribution), biodiversity is not as rich everywhere on the planet.

Regions as the tropics and subtropics are considerably much richer in biodiversity
than regions in temperate climates. In addition, in temperate climates, allot of
countries are located which are already vastly urbanised, and require -in addition-
great amounts of space for the growing of crops. As rehabilitating the biodiversity
within these countries would again require the clearing and redeveloping of spaces, it
has been proposed of some that efforts are best instead directed unto the tropics.
Arguments include economics, it would be far less costly and more efficient to
preserve the biodiversity in the tropics, especially as many countries in these areas are
only now beginning to urbanise.[92]
However, only directing the efforts into these areas would not be enough, as many
species still need to migrate at certain times of the year, requiring a connection to
other regions/countries. In the more urbanised countries in temperate climates, this
would mean that wildlife corridors need to be made. However, making wildlife
corridors would still be considerably cheaper and easier than clearing/preserving
entirely new areas.
[edit] Judicial status
56
Biodiversity is beginning to be evaluated and its evolution analysed (through
observations, inventories, conservation...) as well as being taken into account in
political and judicial decisions:
• The relationship between law and ecosystems is very ancient and has
consequences for biodiversity. It is related to property rights, both private and
public. It can define protection for threatened ecosystems, but also some rights
and duties (for example, fishing rights, hunting rights).
• Law regarding species is a more recent issue. It defines species that must be
protected because they may be threatened by extinction. The U.S. Endangered
Species Act is an example of an attempt to address the "law and species"
issue.
• Laws regarding gene pools are only about a century old[citation needed]. While the
genetic approach is not new (domestication, plant traditional selection
methods), progress made in the genetic field in the past 20 years have led to a
tightening of laws in this field. With the new technologies of genetic analysis
and genetic engineering, people are going through gene patenting, processes
patenting, and a totally new concept of genetic resources.[93] A very hot debate
today seeks to define whether the resource is the gene, the organism itself, or
its DNA.
The 1972 UNESCO World Heritage convention established that biological resources,
such as plants, were the common heritage of mankind. These rules probably inspired
the creation of great public banks of genetic resources, located outside the source-
countries.
New global agreements (e.g.Convention on Biological Diversity), now give

sovereign national rights over biological resources (not property). The idea of
static conservation of biodiversity is disappearing and being replaced by the idea of
dynamic conservation, through the notion of resource and innovation.
The new agreements commit countries to conserve biodiversity, develop resources

for sustainability and share the benefits resulting from their use. Under new rules, it
is expected that bioprospecting or collection of natural products has to be allowed by
the biodiversity-rich country, in exchange for a share of the benefits.
Sovereignty principles can rely upon what is better known as Access and Benefit
Sharing Agreements (ABAs). The Convention on Biodiversity spirit implies a prior
informed consent between the source country and the collector, to establish which
resource will be used and for what, and to settle on a fair agreement on benefit
sharing. Bioprospecting can become a type of biopiracy when those principles are not
respected.
Uniform approval for use of biodiversity as a legal standard has not been achieved,
however. At least one legal commentator has argued that biodiversity should not be
used as a legal standard, arguing that the multiple layers of scientific uncertainty
inherent in the concept of biodiversity will cause administrative waste and increase
litigation without promoting preservation goals. See Fred Bosselman, A Dozen
Biodiversity Puzzles, 12 N.Y.U. Environmental Law Journal 364 (2004)
57
[edit] Analytical limits
[edit] Taxonomic and size bias
Less than 1% of all species that have been described have been studied beyond simply
noting its existence.[94] Biodiversity researcher Sean Nee points out that the vast
majority of Earth's biodiversity is microbial, and that contemporary biodiversity
physics is "firmly fixated on the visible world" (Nee uses "visible" as a synonym for
macroscopic).[95] For example, microbial life is very much more metabolically and
environmentally diverse than multicellular life (see extremophile). Nee has stated:
"On the tree of life, based on analyses of small-subunit ribosomal RNA, visible life
consists of barely noticeable twigs.
The size bias is not restricted to consideration of microbes. Entomologist Nigel Stork
states that "to a first approximation, all multicellular species on Earth are insects".[96]
Even in insects, however, the extinction rate is high and indicative of the general trend
of the sixth greatest extinction period that human society is faced with.[97][98]
Moreover, there are species co-extinctions, such as plants and beetles, where the
extinction or decline in one is reciprocated in the other.[99]
[edit] Definition
1. Biodiversity is the variety of life: the different plants, animals and micro-
organisms, their genes and the ecosystems of which they are a part. It is home
to more than one million species of plants and animals, many of which are
found nowhere else in the world.[100]
2. “Biodiversity” is often defined as the variety of all forms of life, from genes to
species, through to the broad scale of ecosystems (for a list of variants on this
simple definition see Gaston 1996). "
58

Biodiversity Is The Variation of Life Forms Within A Given

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Biodiversity Is The Variation of Life Forms Within A Given

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Biodiversity is the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or for the

entire Earth. Biodiversity is often used as a measure of the health of biological

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity.

International Year of Biodiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

The International Year of Biodiversity (IYB) is a year-long celebration of

[edit] Main messages

Human activity is causing the diversity of life on Earth to be lost at a greatly

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. Let’s reflect on our achievements to

The main goals of the International Year of Biodiversity are to:

• Enhance public awareness of the importance of conserving biodiversity and of

The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, based in Montreal,

Established at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Convention on

[edit] Celebrations around the world

By anyone who wishes to participate

• have a positive impact on biodiversity.

[edit] Biodiversity-friendly practices in everyday life

[edit] What can I do?

A Sampling of fungi collected during summer 2008 in Northern Saskatchewan mixed

"Biological diversity" or "biodiversity" can have many interpretations and it is most

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Importance of genetic diversity

[edit] Survival and adaptation

[edit] Agricultural relevance

[edit] Coping with poor genetic diversity

Jump to: navigation, search

Here is one such example

Jump to: navigation, search

Ecosystem diversity refers to the diversity of a place at the level of ecosystems. It is

The current textbook definition of "biodiversity" is "variation of life at all levels of

A variety of objective measures have been created in order to empirically measure

Biodiversity is usually plotted as taxonomic richness of a geographic area, with some

• Species richness - the least sophisticated of the indices available.

There are three other indices which are used by ecologists:

• Alpha diversity refers to diversity within a particular area, community or

A variety of objective measures have been created in order to empirically measure

A conifer forest in the Swiss Alps (National Park).

Selection bias continues to bedevil modern estimates of biodiversity. In 1768 Rev.

Nevertheless, biodiversity is not distributed evenly on Earth. It is consistently richer

A biodiversity hotspot is a region with a high level of endemic species. These

Brazil's Atlantic Forest is considered a hotspot of biodiversity and contains roughly

Apparent marine fossil diversity during the Phanerozoic Eon

[edit] Human benefits

Summer field in Belgium (Hamois).

Amazon Rainforest in Brazil

Monoculture, the lack of biodiversity, was a contributing factor to several agricultural

[edit] Human health

The relevance of biodiversity to human health is becoming a major international

[edit] Business and Industry

Eagle Creek, Oregon hiking

[edit] Other ecological services

See also: Ecological effects of biodiversity

Ecological effects of biodiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Definitions of diversity, productivity, and

Two things commonly measured in relation to changes in diversity are productivity

[edit] Productivity and stability as indicators of

[edit] Does biodiversity have value?

[edit] Effects of diversity on community productivity

• Complementarity Plant species coexistence is thought to be the result of

• Facilitation Facilitation is a mechanism whereby certain species help or allow

[edit] Review of data

[edit] Implications for ecology/future research