Writing Assignment 1Conservation BiologyConner Bradley, 1/30/2015

Understanding the Need for Integrated Biodiversity Conservation

IntroductionBiodiversity describes the distribution and abundance of all species throughout the planet

earth, as well as the interactions between species and communities from a microscopic to a planetary scale. Biodiversity drives ecosystem productivity, creating stable ecosystems and efficient natural processes.

In stable ecosystem, biotic organisms interact with one another, as well as abiotic compounds in order to drive specific natural processes that otherwise may not exist. Processes such as bioremediation, carbon sequestration, and nitrogen fixation all occur because of specific ecological interactions. Biodiversity drives these key ecological cycles which in turn provide the infrastructure for continued biodiversity. Due to cyclical biotic interactions, connections between species are extremely important. Extensive studies of biodiversity show that ecological functions are hindered as a result of human activity.

In the last century, human population growth and consumption has severely threatened biodiversity. As a result, the extinction rate has reached levels up to one thousand times greater than previously measured. Much ecological change has been studied in direct relation to biodiversity loss, leading to conclusions that “The impacts of diversity loss on ecological processes might be sufficiently large to rival impacts of many other global drivers of environmental change.” (Cardinale et al 2012) Conservation Biologists and Ecologists continue to compile evidence to help prove that biodiversity has an irreplaceable economic value to humans, due to the direct relationship between ecosystem functions and community stability. Unfortunately, economists and politicians ignore it as threat of major importance. In order to successfully mitigate human loss as a result of biodiversity decline, the integration of scientific, political, and economic action must become a worldwide priority.

Economic value of biodiversityThe value of biodiversity can be quantified by measuring ecosystem functions.

Ecosystem functions such as: “biomass production, nitrogen fixation, nutrient cycling, control of water runoff, purification of air and water, soil regeneration, pollination of crops and natural vegetation, partial climate stabilization”(Baumgärtner et al, 2006) provide valuable services. These environmental services have irreplaceable economic value. Without the necessary biological components however, these services will ultimately fail. It is important to understand that “up until today, no man-made substitutes are known which could replace these ecosystem services.” (Baumgärtner et al, 2006)

We can use forests as an example of how biodiversity can be quantified economically based on the services provided. When a forest functions efficiently as a result of stable biodiversity we can expect there to be a substantial population of trees which in turn create a habitat for woodland creatures. The community of biotic organisms supplies goods and services,

which can be used by humans willing to sacrifice a cost. The services available include carbon sequestration, erosion control, bioremediation, ecotourism, and recreation, timber and medicine. Since the resources are finite, the opportunity cost associated with use is governed by the laws of supply and demand.

In order to avoid much cost, it is in our best interest to preserve these services and goods. If too many trees are harvested for timber, erosion may create flooding, ultimately leading to monetary loss. If too many game animals are hunted, losses of revenue based off recreation will occur. Through this simple analysis it becomes clear that biodiversity not only drives the natural living processes of life on earth, it also influences the economic functions. It is easy to understand how ecosystems and biodiversity have a useful value. Unfortunately the complexity of ecological interrelationships cause trouble among those who are in charge of regulating resource use.

Forces and consequences biodiversity lossEconomical thinking suggests to us that biodiversity should be valued by humans, yet

there are many reasons why biodiversity sustainability is not a top priority. Due to overconsumption, demand for food and resources is extremely high. To supply the demand for food, forests are cut down and used as pastureland or farmland. Currently, “approximately 60% of the world's food supply comes from rice, wheat, and corn.”(Pimental et al, 2007) As a result, these three species are replacing biologically diverse areas making us dependent on a way of life that relies on monocultures and simplification of ecosystems. This dependency is seen through political and social decisions, where we neglect biodiversity and emphasize agriculture. Governments invest resources into increasing crop yields, which harms biodiversity.

In addition to consumption, another primary threat to diversity is “habitat loss due to human appropriation of sites to fill other societal requirements.”(Camilo and Sale, 2011) Housing development often replaces vital ecosystems, leading to unforeseen economic losses. Take for example, the trade-off between a coastal buffer zone and beachfront housing. An economist might value the property on the beach over a zone of sand dunes and diverse native plants. An ecologist would value the opposite. In the long run, coastal storms may cause severe flooding, destroying homes and causing huge economic losses. This happened during hurricane Sandy, which put a significant amount of homes under water. Had the ecosystem service of the coastal buffer zone been valued in the first place, those economic losses would have been much less severe, and many lives would have been saved.

While the large scale drivers of biodiversity loss such as population growth and consumption are generally seen as favorable in an economic sense, economists and politicians often fail to account for unseen ecological trade-offs. The consequences of ecological trade-offs are often detrimental to human livelihood. If we ignore the importance of biodiversity, we put ourselves in more danger than we know. The more we destroy biologically diverse ecosystems of high value, such as coastal buffer zones, forests, and marshes, the more consequences we will see in the future. It is currently imperative to reconstruct our understanding of our role in many disappearing ecosystems.

Who pays for the loss?

One of the reasons many people neglect the value of biodiversity is because they are not directly impacted by the consequences of loss. Many consequences which “will be felt disproportionately by the poor, who are most vulnerable to the loss of ecosystem services.”(Díaz et al, 2006) In many ways, the loss of biodiversity will impact the poor because the poor sometimes rely on these services the most. In the United States, genetically modified corn dominates the growing market. The companies with the most money can put their profits into methods to increase crop yield, such as additional fertilizer. If a drought were to occur, or any other type of barrier to plant growth, the companies with successful growing methods might suffer a loss but they will not be out of business. At the other end of the spectrum we have farmers that rely on their yield as a livelihood. If they do not have success, their business may diminish and they may be left without food or income. If an ecological disaster persists, those with less economic resources will not be able to thrive.

Discussing solutions and barriers:Researchers have argued that technological advances will someday replace ecological

services. Without modern technology, many cities across the world would not have adequate freshwater. Freshwater, an ecological commodity can be created from salt water through a process of desalinization. However currently desalinization is an extremely expensive operation. In the future, technology may lessen the economic burden. While this may be true, there are numerous other ecosystem services that may take decades to replace. Instead of investing money into technological alternatives, increasing funding towards research and sustainability may be more beneficial.

Since “most of the concrete actions to slow down biodiversity loss fall under the domain of policy making by governments and the civil society,” (Díaz et al, 2006) we must work together to avoid diminishing our ecological assets before it is too late. In the past, policies have created protected natural areas. This solution however may not apply everywhere. One author argues that “setting aside and then effectively managing areas for protection will be improbable in states with poor and landless people, corruptible authorities, or powerful oligarchies.”(Camilo and Sale, 2011) As I previously outlined, the value of biodiversity is extremely variable across cultures and disciplines. If we are to make progress, societies must put pressure on politicians to enact conservation laws. In countries where people hold little power, this simply won’t happen. It is up to the economists, biologists, and ecologists to put together as much evidence as possible to convince those in power to sustain biodiversity.

People have the power to help too. As one author wrote, “Whether sustainability should be weak or strong cannot be decided solely on objective grounds, but ultimately depends on the philosophical view on humans, nature, and their interrelation.”(Baumgärtner et al, 2006) Scientists and economists can put together all of the necessary evidence to support their claims, but they only make up a small proportion of the population. In order for biodiversity to be properly sustained, the average person must change the way they interact with the environment. Perhaps, in the end, it will take an ideological shift throughout humanity in order to preserve biodiversity and the ecological services that accompany a stable environment.

Bibliography:

1. Baumgärtner, Stefan, Christian Becker, Malte Faber, and Reiner Manstetten. "Relative and Absolute Scarcity of Nature. Assessing the Roles of Economics and Ecology for Biodiversity Conservation." ScienceDirect. Alfred-Weber-Institute of Economics, University of Heidelberg, Germany, Jan. 2006. Web. 30 Jan. 2015. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800905005227

2. Cardinale, Bradley J., J. Emmett Duffy, Andrew Gonzalez, David Hooper, Charles Perrings, Patrick Venail, Anita Narwani, Georgina Mace, David Tilman, David Wardle, Ann Kinzig, Gretchen Daily, Michel Loreau, James Grace, Anne Larigauderie, Diane Srivastava, and Shahid Naeem. “Biodiversity Loss and its Impact on Humanity.” Nature 486, 59-67 (2012). Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

3. Díaz S, Fargione J, Stuart Chapin F III, Tilman D. ”Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-being.” PLoS Biology 4, 8 e277 (2006). Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

4. Mora, Camilo, and Peter F. Sale. "Ongoing Global Biodiversity Loss and the Need to Move Beyyond Protected Areas: A Review of the Technical and Practical Shortcomings of Protected Areas on Land and Sea." Marine Ecology Progress Series 434 (2011): 251-66. Web. 30 Jan. 2015. http://share.disl.org/heck/advanced%20marine%20ecology/Shared%20Documents/Mora%20and%20Sale%202011%2....

5. Pimental, David, Christa Wilson, Christine McCullum, Rachel Huang, Paulette Dwen, Jessica Flack, Quynh Tran, Tamara Saltman, and Barbara Cliff. "Economic and Environmental Benefits of Biodiversity." JSTOR. Oxford University Press, Dec. 1997. Web. 30 Jan. 2015. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568%28199712%2947%3A11%3C747%3AEAEBOB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H