Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Species Loss/Decline - News Updates and Discussion

Humberto

Justice is order
Thought there might be space for a thread to keep up to date with ongoing changes in biodiversity and species loss, its causes and the potential knock-on effects.

I'll post a couple of quotes from a 2019 report to start us off:


Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history – and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now likely, warns a landmark new report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the summary of which was approved at the 7th session of the IPBES Plenary, meeting last week (29 April – 4 May) in Paris.

“The overwhelming evidence of the IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture,” said IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson. “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”

“The Report also tells us that it is not too late to make a difference, but only if we start now at every level from local to global,” he said. “Through ‘transformative change’, nature can still be conserved, restored and used sustainably – this is also key to meeting most other global goals. By transformative change, we mean a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.”

“To better understand and, more importantly, to address the main causes of damage to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, we need to understand the history and global interconnection of complex demographic and economic indirect drivers of change, as well as the social values that underpin them,” said Prof. Brondízio. “Key indirect drivers include increased population and per capita consumption; technological innovation, which in some cases has lowered and in other cases increased the damage to nature; and, critically, issues of governance and accountability. A pattern that emerges is one of global interconnectivity and ‘telecoupling’ – with resource extraction and production often occurring in one part of the world to satisfy the needs of distant consumers in other regions.”
 
Apparently intensive farming has had some alarming impacts on European bird populations:

Compared with a generation ago, 550 million fewer birds fly over the continent, with their decline well documented. But until now the relative importance of various pressures on bird populations was not known.

A team of more than 50 researchers, analysing data collected by thousands of citizen scientists in 28 countries over nearly four decades, found that it is intensive agriculture, above all, that is behind the decline in the continent’s bird populations.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examined how 170 bird species had responded to four widespread manmade pressures, including agricultural intensification, forest cover change, urbanisation and the climate crisis.

Farmland species suffered the most precipitous decline, with numbers falling by 56.8% since research began, the study said. Numbers of urban dwelling birds were down 27.8%, and among woodland dwelling birds the fall was 17.7%.

And climate warming has had an impact too:

Northern, cold-preferring species of birds were also found to be under heavy pressure, with numbers down 39.7% as temperatures rise across Europe as a result of the climate crisis.

Only “the rapid implementation of transformative change in European societies, and especially in agricultural reform” could save the continent’s bird populations, the researchers said.

They added: “This paper contributes to the highest political and technical challenge faced by agricultural policy in Europe, struggling to balance high productivity from intensive agricultural practices with environmental protection, and the results are therefore crucial to policymakers, scientists, and the general public concerned with biodiversity and global change issues.”

 
It's a really good thread as you say RedRedRose

Humberto is it OK to post small things that we notice that feed into what's going on?

That's fine. I've just started reading a couple of things on the general subject very recently and was looking for some relevant thread to post a comment on and couldn't find one. Happy to defer to what others want to make of it and hopefully post my own contributions from time to time.
 
On intensive farming: it seems unsustainable, wasteful and inefficient a lot of the time. The farms/capitalists want to produce as much as they can to grow profits, but it comes with a considerable price.

The world may be facing the worst food crisis in decades, driven by the compounded effects of COVID-19, climate change and conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, exacerbating already skyrocketing food and energy prices and severe hunger.

Food systems are complex and currently unsustainable. Enough food is produced to feed the world, but 811 million people — more than 10 per cent of the world's population — still go to sleep hungry each night.

The global food system is one of the world’s largest sources of greenhouse gases. Globally, food production is linked to 70% of biodiversity loss on land. As the human population grows, these impacts will only increase.


And it appears to be causing a decline in populations of pollinator insects, which a fair percentage of food globally produced relies heavily on.

There are several threats that challenge the existence of the honey bee, most of which are the result of human activity. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a phenomenon that was first identified in 2006, describing the steady and annual decline in bee colonies around the world. These losses are caused by things such as agricultural land development, pesticide and fungicide usage, increasing regional temperatures, and the introduction of invasive species.

 
If we are going to talk about the divergence of intensive farming and the knock-on-effect for biodiversity, it seems right to mention algal blooms / eutrophication.

Primarily, intensive farming run-off is creating the conditions for algal blooms to choke water habitats of oxygen. This, taken into account with evasive species, pressure of rising water temperatures etc. etc. its a major hazard.


Links algal blooms directly to fertilisers and shows how algal blooms are now a common occurrence in the UK, US, China and other places.



Video tries to explain some of the science behind algal blooms and their danger to the habitat.
 
New report referenced in the Standard.
The paper, published on Tuesday, examines changes in population densities of more than 70,000 species of animals from across the world’s surface over time, making it the most comprehensive research of its kind to date.
They found that 48% of species on Earth are currently undergoing declines in their population sizes, whereas less than 3% of them are increasing in population size.

Incidentally, good overview on habitat destruction by fairplanet
  1. Habitat loss and fragmentation: The conversion of natural habitats into agricultural land, urban areas and infrastructure development leads to the destruction and fragmentation of habitats, which is the primary cause of biodiversity loss. As humans take over previously wild lands, we reduce the available space for native species to live, feed and reproduce, and also disrupt the connections between different ecosystems.
  2. Climate change: Global warming and the resulting changes in climate patterns have altered habitats, making it challenging for organisms to perform their natural functions or adapt to new conditions. Changes in temperatures or rain patterns, for example, make it different for certain plants to grow or survive, which also affects the species that depend on them.
  3. Overhunting: Overhunting of a species to meet high demand for meat or animal byproducts, for sport, or due to pest control is one of the main drivers of species extinction. Industrialised hunting does not take into account the effects of species deterioration on the rest of the ecosystem and quickly depletes populations. For example, the sharp commercialisation of otter fur in the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States and Russia nearly drove the species extinct, which catalysed the secondary effects of losing kelp forests and depleting fish populations.
  4. Overfishing: Industrialised fishing has led to the depletion of highly-demanded species like tuna, whales and salmon to meet the world’s demand. Unsustainable methods of fishing, like bottom trawling, have also destroyed sea-floor habitats, which are important nursery areas for many species. This has had the knock-off effect of changing marine ecosystem structures by increasing the populations of predators at the expense of their prey.
  5. Invasive species: As ecosystems have evolved to maintain a relative stability of species populations, non-native species introduced to new environments can outcompete native species for resources, prey on them, or transmit diseases. When invasive species are at higher levels of the food chain, they can deplete populations of the prey they feed on. Conversely, when invasive species are in the middle or bottom of the food chain, the native species that feed on them may spike in population as they have an abundance of food, which could have repercussions on the rest of the ecosystem.
  6. Pollution: Air, soil and water pollution can harm species by degrading their habitats, physically harming them, or increasing their vulnerability to diseases or predation. Some pollutants, such as pesticides and heavy metals, can be passed up the food chain, therefore contaminating many levels of the ecosystem.
  7. Disease: The spread of infectious diseases, often facilitated by human activities, can devastate wildlife populations. Organisms have developed natural defences against disease-inducing microbes native to their region. However, when human activity contaminates ecosystems with non-native microbes, indigenous species are not equipped to combat them.
  8. Genetic pollution: The release of genetically modified organisms or the hybridization of closely related species can lead to the loss of genetic diversity, which is crucial for species' adaptability and resilience.
  9. Ocean acidification: Increases in carbon dioxide levels are responsible for the acidification of oceans, which makes it difficult for marine organisms, like corals, plankton or shellfish, to maintain their protective coating. The result is a decline in these species’ populations, as well as those of species that rely on them for food and shelter.
  10. Ecosystem simplification: The conversion of complex, diverse ecosystems into simplified ones, such as monocultures or urban areas, reduces the number of niches available for species and decreases ecosystem resilience.
 
From a report released yesterday:

Nearly 400 species only just discovered in Asia’s Greater Mekong region could soon become extinct due to loss of habitat caused by human activity, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) warned in a report published Monday.
In total, scientists discovered 290 plants, 19 fish species, 24 amphibians, 46 reptiles and one mammal according to the WWF’s report, bringing the number of vascular plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals described in the Greater Mekong region since 1997 to nearly 4,000.

But while the discoveries underline the rich biodiversity of the region, which is home to more than 300 million people and encompasses Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, China, Cambodia and Vietnam, it also serves to highlight the rising threats posed to wildlife by human-driven habit encroachment.
The rich biodiversity of the Greater Mekong region faces tremendous pressures from economic development and human population growth, which drive deforestation, pollution and over-exploitation of natural resources, according to Truong Q. Nguyen from the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, who wrote the foreword to the WWF findings.

 
Article here raising a few interesting questions about apparent public misconceptions around honey bee populations:


"We've been hijacked by the Save the Bees motto, which has been interpreted as meaning honeybees.

"Well, guess what? The honeybee is in great fettle.

"The UN hive data for honeybees globally shows they're at an all-time high.
"It's probably because the narrative around saving bees came at the same time as issues around colony collapse disorder in the US, when whole hives died out," he said.

"The problem is the density of hives.

"Our work suggested about seven hives per square kilometre was about as much as London could tolerate.

"In some locations in London there are more than 50 hives per square kilometre and in one particular location there are 400 hives in a square kilometre, and they all need feeding."
But oil crops like rapeseed and soy, and fruits like strawberries and apples, are highly dependent on the labour of a whole range of insects - not just bees.

There are hundreds of other pollinating bee species and hundreds more wasps, flies, beetles, butterflies and moths which all need pollen and nectar.

A healthy ecosystem needs abundance and variety of pollinator species.

"There is absolutely concrete evidence you can see a halo around honeybee hives, not just in cities but also in wild landscapes, where you have a significant reduction in nectar and pollen and therefore a significant reduction in wild bees and solitary bees," he said.

And more here about well-meaning but damaging responses:

The rise in hobby beekeeping, now a trendy activity for hundreds of thousands of Americans, followed strong awareness campaigns to “save the bees.” But as a species, honey bees are least in need of saving. Media attention disproportionately covers them over native pollinators, and murky messaging has led many citizens—myself once included—to believe they are doing a good thing for the environment by putting on a beekeeper’s veil. Unfortunately, they are probably doing more harm than good.

“Beekeeping is for people; it's not a conservation practice,” says Sheila Colla, an assistant professor and conservation biologist at Toronto’s York University, Canada. “People mistakenly think keeping honey bees, or helping honey bees, is somehow helping the native bees, which are at risk of extinction."

High densities of honey bee colonies increase competition between native pollinators for forage, putting even more pressure on the wild species that are already in decline. Honey bees are extreme generalist foragers and monopolize floral resources, thus leading to exploitative competition—that is, where one species uses up a resource, not leaving enough to go around.
 
It's good that London bee numbers are healthy, but we need wild bumblebee numbers to go up, not necessarily the farmed / domesticated honeybees.



On the podcast linked to the article posted above, one of the interviewees talks about how keeping honeybees for conservation is like keeping chickens for bird conservation. I thought that was a good way of looking at it.

Also, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) seems to have been mitigated, although the causes are still up for question.
 
This gives a bit of background detail about White Nose Syndrome which is a fungal disease that has been ravaging North American bats.

The article does offer some hope that a programme of disinfection might stave off a mass die off, but millions have already succumb to the disease.
 
It's good that London bee numbers are healthy, but we need wild bumblebee numbers to go up, not necessarily the farmed / domesticated honeybees.



On the podcast linked to the article posted above, one of the interviewees talks about how keeping honeybees for conservation is like keeping chickens for bird conservation. I thought that was a good way of looking at it.

Also, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) seems to have been mitigated, although the causes are still up for question.


Excellent post and I am glad someone here other than me is saying it!

Although it might seem good for pollination of plants and for honey production to have a honey bee hive, they are an introduced species that are only kept domestically here (not part of our wild fauna) and are often in direct competition for food with our native wild bees.

Not sure how it got spread around that keeping honey bees is a progressive environmental thing - it isn't necessarily the case.
 
Last edited:
"Experts in the region say it is due to a depletion of oxygen due to high water temperatures."
I didnt know that was a thing.... so fucked up
And it is due to get much worse...

warming events can have considerable consequences, including triggering algal blooms, bleaching coral and negatively affecting fisheries and other ecosystems, Johnson said.

Marine heat waves can also provide more energy for tropical cyclones and more moisture for atmospheric rivers and flooding events. And a warmer ocean tends to expand, which can lead to sea level rise along with melting ice sheets.
 
The government has largely made any concerted effort to halt species decline in the UK futile:

“We’re not moving with the speed that will be needed to meet the 2030 species target. And we’re going to have to work much harder to be able to do that.”
“This is about reconciling, again, some really quite complicated conundrums, including how, for example, we can maintain a high level of domestic food production at the same time as bringing wildlife back into the landscape,” he said. “And some of this is about policy. Some of it is about knowledge. Some of it is about culture. It’s a transition that can be made. But it does need to go more quickly than presently is the case if we’re going to meet those 2030 targets.”


Too busy grifting I imagine. I would say a political priority change would be more welcome than a 'change of culture'. Whilst they only chase and only value big business priorities it seems hopeless. Particularly as we see the calibre of people such a system foists on us to the detriment of many crucial things the great majority hope for. Crooked, greedy, ruthless. Thick.
 
Some interesting ideas here:

With agriculture the main driver of the habitat loss and degradation that underpin the global biodiversity crisis1, governments worldwide have implemented policies to lessen farming’s impact on the environment. Meanwhile, landowners, organizations interested in the financing of biodiversity conservation and certain non-governmental groups, including conservation bodies, have been pushing for land-use changes that benefit nature.

However, numerous studies show that some of today’s most popular conservation policies are doing little to help those species most affected by farming. What’s more, by reducing how much food is produced per unit area (yield), they are driving up food imports and thereby having an impact on wildlife overseas.
Part of the problem is that, especially in Europe, the owners of the biggest, and often richest, farms stand to gain the most from current policies2. Thousands of influential individuals are lobbying to maintain the status quo in agricultural policy.
 
this is heartbreaking
"Experts in the region say it is due to a depletion of oxygen due to high water temperatures."
I didnt know that was a thing.... so fucked up

Gulf of Mexico has had a lot of these incidents last decade or so and it’s grim
 
Back
Top Bottom