DOCSLIB.ORG

Biodiversity and the Paradox of the Plankton

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biodiversity and the Paradox of the Plankton Ocea 130/230 Spring 2004 Ocean Processes and Ecology Biodiversity and the Paradox of the Plankton Miller, Chapter 9 Optional Reading: Valiela, Chapter 10 Lalli and Parsons, pp. 5-6, Chapter 8 (parts…read critically) Summerhayes & Thorpe, Diversity chapter I. Defining Diversity "If today is a typical day on planet Earth, we will lose 116 square miles of rainforest, or about an acre a second. We will lose another 72 square miles to encroaching deserts, as a result of human mismanagement and overpopulation. We will lose 40 to 100 species, and no one knows whether the number is 40 or 100. Today the human population will increase by 250,000. And today we will add 2,700 tons of chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere and 15 million tons of carbon. Tonight the Earth will be a little hotter, its waters more acidic, and the fabric of life more threadbare." David Orr (1991) “What is Education For?” http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC27/Orr.htm. • The above quote is somewhat typical of the pro-environmental movement, which suggests that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and it all started relatively recently. The purpose of our discussion is to put these ideas into the context of biological oceanography, and more importantly, to critically think about whether we should believe this or not. • To begin, we must agree on what “biodiversity” means: - Biodiversity: refers to the broadly diverse forms into which organisms have evolved and is considered at three levels: Genetic diversity: Variation in genes enabling organisms to evolve and adapt to new conditions. Species diversity: The number, types, and distribution of species within an ecosystem. Ecosystem diversity: The variety of habitats and communities of different species that interact in a complex web of interdependent relationships. • Next, we must consider how we can categorically and rationally measure diversity (how do we know, for example, that the coral reefs are more diverse than the open ocean?) • It’s generally considered that we must take into account both species richness and also abundance Ocea 130/230 Spring 2004 Ocean Processes and Ecology - So, for example, if we found a patch of ocean with 100 species of phytoplankton, but there was only 1 individual of each species for 99 of them, and 1 million individuals of the last species, versus another patch of ocean that contained 20 species, equally abundant, which would be more diverse? - There are numerous mathematical models for determining diversity. The one thing they all have in common is that (except for some recent ones based on information theory), they are empirically derived, and not based on any a priori knowledge about how diversity or evolution works. - A simple equation that captures both components was proposed by Ramon Margalef (1951): R = (S – 1) / logN R = Richness (diversity) S = Species number N = total number of individuals • In general, species richness increases with increased sample size (area, etc.) up to a certain point. This is because the larger the area, the more likely you’re sampling different ecosystems • No one really knows how many species exist, nor how fast they evolve, or how fast they go extinct…but a widely accepted value for the abundance is 6-30 million. II. Evolutionary Time Scales • Going backward in time, we know that, starting about 6 billion years ago, there has been a more or less steady increase in species on our planet • This is determined primarily by looking for marine fossils, because marine organisms are more likely to be preserved, and there is likely a strong bias towards organisms that are well preserved in the sediments • The evolutionary record is also biased by the availability of rock…marine sediments are destroyed at continental plate boundaries, so we don’t have a great record of the past…but it’s the only thing we’ve got • Evolutionarily, species richness is punctuated by the occasional massive loss of species, typically due to a worldwide disruption (meteor impact, volcanic eruption, glacial/interglacial changes, etc.) • A conflicting viewpoint of how this works is given by the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, proposed by Gould and Eldredge (1972). In this theory, evolution is non-existent for long periods of time, and is then “jump-started” by some change that causes a rapid change (in geological time) to the species. A non-technical review of this can be found at http://www.sciam.com/explorations/072196explorations.html, with links to more details. III. Factors Affecting Diversity Ocea 130/230 Spring 2004 Ocean Processes and Ecology • A number of proposed reasons for species diversity have been proposed, and are summarized in Valiela: 1) The Time Hypothesis - More time means more diversity…tropics vs. temperate, for example 2) The Spatial Heterogeneity Hypothesis - More ecological niches mean more species 3) The Competition Hypothesis - More biological competition means more specialization 4) The Environmental Stability Hypothesis - More stability allows more diversity, due to adaptation 5) The Productivity Hypothesis - More productivity means more species—easier to survive 6) The Predation Hypothesis - Lowers competition, increases speciation due to less selection • Several of these were combined by Sanders (1968) to form the Time-Stability Hypothesis: - Based on studies of benthic marine habitats - States that stressful, shallow habitats are less diverse than environmentally constant, benign, abyssal habitats - Combines time, stability, competition, etc. into one model • This is essentially the working theory of biodiversity that we’re most familiar with. A. Terrestrial vs. Marine Diversity • Marine ecosystems are much more diverse at the level of phyla, with 28 marine phyla and 11 terrestrial phyla • At the species level, though, the terrestrial environment has more numerically: - There are about 1500 know species of copepod (the most of any marine group), but about 1000x more species of beetles on land - There are about 4000 species of marine phytoplankton, and approximately 250,000 terrestrial plants • How do we explain this? • Time---the oceans have existed longer, which would explain why there are more phyla than on land • Homogeneity---there are many more ecological niches in the terrestrial environment than the oceans • We’re looking at several different types of diversity at once, so it’s not an equal comparison B. Speciation by Isolation • Speciation often involves the isolation of a continuous population into sub- populations, that over time become separate species. This can occur because of: Ocea 130/230 Spring 2004 Ocean Processes and Ecology • Spatial Isolation (different islands in a chain, etc.) • Temporal Isolation (not from the same geological time period) • Cultural Isolation (refusing to mate with another group) • On land, this is fairly easy to do—there are many ways to isolate one population from another • In the oceans, spatial separation is extremely difficult. Except for the permanent thermocline, there are essentially no barriers horizontally or vertically between populations • Over geological time, ocean basins have opened/closed depending on the position of the continents, ice flows, etc. This is the most prevalent way for isolation to have occurred in the oceans. • Because of the lack of isolation, there are numerous cosmopolitan species, which are species that have a global distribution C. Habitat Selection Horizontal • We expect that regions (spatial) with more variability would have a greater diversity of habitats for the formation of distinct species • Moving onshore-offshore, we find more species in deep water (more ecological niches), with a rapid change at the shelf-break. Why? • Inshore of the shelfbreak, conditions are essentially uniform…shallow, dominated by physical dispersion of energy, uniform distribution of benthic habitat • If we keep moving inshore, though, and expand our region to include different kinds of shoreline (more diverse habitats), we see a linear increase in speciation Latitudinal • There’s a well-known decrease in biodiversity moving from the equator towards the poles (with more diversity in the tropics) • This is thought to occur because of: - Tropics are older (glaciation) - Tropics are more stable - Tropics have less seasonality, meaning longer reproductive time - generally more productivity at lower latitudes Vertical • In the oceans, biomass increases logarithmically with depth (as does light, which fuels primary production) • Disrupted Communities • In any habitat, disruption will often cause an increase in species diversity, but continued disruption eventually causes a decline • This can be caused by removal of competition, removal of predators, etc. Ocea 130/230 Spring 2004 Ocean Processes and Ecology • When a region is “polluted”, the productivity and biomass often go up, but the species abundance drops, leaving behind a handful of species adapted to high nutrient loads (for example) D. Sampling Issues • When looking at species diversity, it is always important to examine the sampling methodology. - Increasing the sample size will automatically increase the abundance of species that are not uniformly distributed - Increasing the spatial sample size will also increase the chance of includng additional habitats - Number of species will often go up as sampling methods improve • There’s also the question of molecular diversity versus morphometric diversity: - In the oceans, diversity may be better characterized by the molecular sequence of DNA/RNA than by other characteristics - Prochlorococcus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Trophic Tapestry of the Sea
    COMMENTARY The trophic tapestry of the sea Matthew J. Church1 Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii, 1000 Pope Road, Honolulu, HI 96822 ceanic ecosystems are the as a powerful proxy for defining micro- largest habitats on Earth, bial lifestyles. and living biomass in these systems is dominated by Location, Location, Location Oplanktonic microorganisms. Microbial To the casual observer ocean ecosys- ecologists have long sought to under- tems may appear relatively homogenous; stand the role of environmental in reality, these environments are ripe selection in shaping the diversity of with habitat heterogeneity. Climate forc- planktonic microorganisms. The oceans ing of ocean currents, wind-driven mix- have proven a dauntingly complex arena ing, stratification, and upwelling all can to conduct such studies. Marine ecosys- contribute to seascape variability (7). tems are immense and remote and Moreover, numerous biotic processes hence chronically undersampled. More- result in patchy resource distributions. over, the enormous diversity of plank- Dead or decaying plankton cells, excre- tonic microorganisms challenges our ment, and spillage of cellular contents most sophisticated computational capa- into seawater by grazing or viral lysis all bilities. Only recently, through creative can form transient ‘‘hot spots’’ of nutri- applications of new technologies have ents and energy substrates against an oceanographers begun to overcome some Fig. 1. Representation of the ocean as a microbial otherwise dilute resource pool (8, 9). habitat; vertical gradients in sunlight are superim- of these hurdles. In this issue of PNAS, Singularly or together these processes Lauro et al. (1) use a comparative ge- posed on depth-dependent changes in inorganic nutrient concentrations (black line).
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Principles and Function of Natural Ecosystems by Professor Michel RICARD
    Intensive Programme on Education for sustainable development in Protected Areas Amfissa, Greece, July 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ecological principles and function of natural ecosystems By Professor Michel RICARD Summary 1. Hierarchy of living world 2. What is Ecology 3. The Biosphere - Lithosphere - Hydrosphere - Atmosphere 4. What is an ecosystem - Ecozone - Biome - Ecosystem - Ecological community - Habitat/biotope - Ecotone - Niche 5. Biological classification 6. Ecosystem processes - Radiation: heat, temperature and light - Primary production - Secondary production - Food web and trophic levels - Trophic cascade and ecology flow 7. Population ecology and population dynamics 8. Disturbance and resilience - Human impacts on resilience 9. Nutrient cycle, decomposition and mineralization - Nutrient cycle - Decomposition 10. Ecological amplitude 11. Ecology, environmental influences, biological interactions 12. Biodiversity 13. Environmental degradation - Water resources degradation - Climate change - Nutrient pollution - Eutrophication - Other examples of environmental degradation M. Ricard: Summer courses, Amfissa July 2014 1 1. Hierarchy of living world The larger objective of ecology is to understand the nature of environmental influences on individual organisms, populations, communities and ultimately at the level of the biosphere. If ecologists can achieve an understanding of these relationships, they will be well placed to contribute to the development of systems by which humans
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Paradox of the Plankton'.Pdf
    ecological complexity 4 (2007) 26–33 27 4. Additional limiting factors (density dependent effects) . 30 4.1. Behavioural effects . ......................... 30 4.2. Interactions with others . ...................... 30 4.3. Self limitation by toxin-producing phytoplankton . 30 5. Discussions . ................................... 31 Acknowledgements . ............................ 32 References . .................................. 32 1. Introduction recent approach on this topic. Instead of emphasizing any particle class of mechanisms in detail, we try to present in Phytoplankton are the basis of most aquatic food chains. Most brief the importance of all the mechanisms regulating the of the species of phytoplankton are phototrophs. These plankton dynamics and diversity in real world. phototrophic phytoplankton species ‘‘ . reproduce and build up populations in inorganic media containing a source of CO 2, inorganic nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorous compounds and 2. Classification of the proposed mechanisms a considerable number of other elements (Na, K, Mg, Ca, Si, Fe, Mn, B, Cl, Cu, Zn, Mo, Co and V) most of which are required in Because the principle of competitive exclusion says that the small concentrations and not all of which are known to be number of coexisting species in equilibrium cannot exceed the required by all groups’’ (Hutchinson, 1961) . However, in many number of limiting factors, there may be, in principle, two natural waters, only nitrate, phosphate, light and carbon are possible solutions of the plankton paradox: limiting resources regulating phytoplankton growth. The principle of competitive exclusion (Hardin, 1960; Armstrong (i) due to some reasons, the dynamics of real-world plankton and McGehee, 1980) suggests that in homogeneous, well- never approach to the equilibrium; mixed environments, species that compete for the same (ii) there exist some additional limiting factors that regulate resource cannot coexist, and that in such competitions one the overall dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
    Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India Curriculum on Coastal and Marine Biodiversity and Protected Area Management Module 1 An Introduction to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services For Field-Level MPA Managers Imprint Training Resource Material: Coastal and Marine Biodiversity and Protected Area Management for Field-Level MPA Managers Module 1: An Introduction to Coastal and Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Module 2: Coastal and Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services in the Overall Environment and Development Context Module 3: Mainstreaming Coastal and Marine Biodiversity into Overall Development and Environmental Planning Module 4: Coastal and Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries Management Module 5: Governance, Law and Policies for Managing Coastal and Marine Ecosystems, Biodiversity and Protected Areas Module 6: Assessment and Monitoring of Coastal and Marine Biodiversity and Relevant Issues Module 7: Effective Management Planning of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas Module 8: Communicating Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation and Management Issues ISBN 978-81-933282-1-7 October 2015 Published by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Wildlife Institute of India (WII) Indo-German Biodiversity Programme P.O. Box 18, Chandrabani A-2/18, Safdarjung Enclave Dehradun 248001 New Delhi 110029, India Uttarakhand, India T +91-11-4949 5353 T +91-135-2640 910 E [email protected] E [email protected] W http://www.indo-germanbiodiversity.com W www.wii.gov.in GIZ is a German government-owned not-for-profit enterprise supporting sustainable development. This training resource material has been developed under the Human Capacity Development component of the project ‘Conservation and Sustainable Management of Existing and Potential Coastal and Marine Protected Areas (CMPA)’, under the Indo-German Biodiversity Programme, in partnership with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity in Different Trophic Levels of the Plankton
    Biogeosciences Discuss., 5, 4897–4917, 2008 Biogeosciences www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/5/4897/2008/ Discussions BGD © Author(s) 2008. This work is distributed under 5, 4897–4917, 2008 the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Biogeosciences Discussions is the access reviewed discussion forum of Biogeosciences Diversity in different trophic levels of the Similar patterns of community plankton organization characterize distinct groups V. Raybaud et al. of different trophic levels in the plankton Title Page of the NW Mediterranean Sea Abstract Introduction V. Raybaud1,2, A. Tunin-Ley1,3, M. E. Ritchie4, and J. R. Dolan1,3 Conclusions References 1UPMC Univ Paris 6, UMR 7093, Laboratoire d’Oceanographie´ de Villefranche, Observatoire Tables Figures Oceanologique´ de Villefranche-sur-Mer, Station Zoologique, B.P. 28, 06230 Villefranche-Sur-Mer, France J I 2CNRS, UMR 7093, Laboratoire d’Oceanographie´ de Villefranche, Observatoire Oceanologique´ de Villefranche-sur-Mer, Station Zoologique, B.P. 28, 06230 J I Villefranche-Sur-Mer, France 3CNRS, UMR 7093, Laboratoire d’Oceanographie´ de Villefranche, Microbial Ecology and Back Close Biogeochemistry, Observatoire Oceanologique´ de Villefranche-sur-Mer, Station Zoologique, B.P. 28, 06230 Villefranche-Sur-Mer, France Full Screen / Esc 4Biology Department, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA Printer-friendly Version Received: 24 September 2008 – Accepted: 23 October 2008 – Published: 12 December 2008 Correspondence to: J. R. Dolan ([email protected]) Interactive Discussion Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 4897 Abstract BGD Planktonic populations were sampled over a 4 week period in the NW Mediterranean, at a site subject to little vertical advection during the Dynaproc 2 cruise in 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheldon Spectrum and the Plankton Paradox: Two Sides of the Same Coin : a Trait-Based Plankton Size-Spectrum Model
    This is a repository copy of Sheldon Spectrum and the Plankton Paradox: Two Sides of the Same Coin : A trait-based plankton size-spectrum model. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/116959/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Cuesta, Jose A., Delius, Gustav Walter orcid.org/0000-0003-4092-8228 and Law, Richard orcid.org/0000-0002-5550-3567 (2017) Sheldon Spectrum and the Plankton Paradox: Two Sides of the Same Coin : A trait-based plankton size-spectrum model. Journal of Mathematical Biology. pp. 67-96. ISSN 1432-1416 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-017-1132-7 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Journal of Mathematical Biology manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Sheldon Spectrum and the Plankton Paradox: Two Sides of the Same Coin A trait-based plankton size-spectrum model Jose´ A. Cuesta · Gustav W. Delius · Richard Law Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract The Sheldon spectrum describes a remarkable regularity in aquatic ecosys- tems: the biomass density as a function of logarithmic body mass is approximately constant over many orders of magnitude.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011
    Appendix E Ecosystem Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Region Ecosystem Diversity Report George Washington National Forest April 2011 Appendix E Ecosystem Diversity Report George Washington National Forest Draft EIS April 2011 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. I 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION PROCESS ................................... 3 3.0 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Background and Distribution of Ecosystems ..................................................................................................... 7 North-Central Appalachian Acidic Swamp ............................................................................................................ 10 3.2 Descriptions of the Ecological Systems ............................................................................................................ 10 3.2.1 Spruce Forest: Central and Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forest .......................................................... 10 3.2.2 Northern Hardwood Forest : Appalachian (Hemlock)- Northern Hardwood Forest ..................................... 11 3.2.3 Cove Forest: Southern and Central
    [Show full text]
  • Global Marine Biodiversity Trends 95
    Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006. 31:93-122 doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.31.020105.100235 Copyright (c) 2006 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved First published online as a Review in Advance on August 10, 2006 G lobal M a r in e B iodiversity T r e n d s Enric Sala and Nancy Knowlton Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0202; email: [email protected], [email protected] Key Words historical change, human impacts, natural disturbances ■ Abstract Marine biodiversity encompasses all levels of complexity of life in the sea, from within species to across ecosystems. At all levels, marine biodiversity has naturally exhibited a general, slow trajectory of increase, punctuated by mass extinc­ tions at the evolutionary scale and by disturbances at the ecological scale. In historical times, a synergy of human threats, including overfishing, global warming, biological introductions, and pollution, has caused a rapid decline in global marine biodiversity, as measured by species extinctions, population depletions, and community homog­ enization. The consequences of this biodiversity loss include changes in ecosystem function and a reduction in the provision of ecosystem services. Global biodiversity loss will continue and likely accelerate in the future, with potentially more frequent ecological collapses and community-wide shifts. However, the timing and magnitude of these catastrophic events are probably unpredictable. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Sustainability
    ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY INTRODUCTION Over the last half-century, ecologists have learned much about how ecosystems contribute to the fulfillment of human life. Most obviously, ecosystems provide many of the goods that are harvested and traded in the human economy -- food, fiber, timber, forage, biomass fuels, and many pharmaceuticals (Daily 1997a). Ecosystems also provide indirect benefits to humans through their impacts on nutrient flux and cycling, mitigation of flood and drought, and maintenance of biodiversity, all of which feedback in important ways on the production of ecosystem goods that humans directly derive from ecosystems (Chapin et al. 1996). Finally, ecosystems also provide less tangible, but equally important, benefits in the form of recreational, spiritual, and intellectual stimulation (Postel and Carpenter 1997). Despite widespread public awareness of the direct benefits that humans derive from ecosystems, the full magnitude of benefits attributable to ecosystems is woefully underappreciated by the public (Daily 1997b). The public’s failure to recognize these benefits increases the likelihood that natural resources will be managed and developed in a manner that leads to ecosystem degradation. Such resource development, in conjunction with increasing human populations and land use intensification, can stress ecosystems to a point where their ability to provide the aforementioned benefits is compromised (Rapport et al. 1985). Concern that the human enterprise may jeopardize the viability of ecosystems (Vitousek et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytoplankton Sampling in Quantitative Baseline and Monitoring Programs
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 2-1978 Phytoplankton Sampling in Quantitative Baseline and Monitoring Programs Paul E. Stofan Virginia Institute of Marine Science George C. Grant Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Stofan, P. E., & Grant, G. C. (1978) Phytoplankton Sampling in Quantitative Baseline and Monitoring Programs. Special Scientific Report: no. 85. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/m2-r64t-f518 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EPA-600/3-78-025 February 1978 Ecological Research Series RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate­ gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en­ vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The nine series are: 1. Environmental Health Effects Research 2. Environmental Protection Technology 3. Ecological Research 4. Environmental Monitoring 5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies 6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR) 7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development 8. "Special" Reports 9. Miscellaneous Reports This report has been assigned to thE~ ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal spe­ cies, and materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Indicators of Biodiversity for Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management
    Essays Indicators of Biodiversity for Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management DAVID B. LINDENMAYER,* CHRIS R. MARGULES,† AND DANIEL B. BOTKIN‡ *Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies & Department of Geography, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia, email [email protected] †CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, GPO Box 284, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia, email [email protected] ‡George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22202, and The Center for the Study of the Environment, P.O. Box 6945, Santa Barbara, CA 93160, U.S.A., email [email protected] Abstract: The conservation of biological diversity has become one of the important goals of managing for- ests in an ecologically sustainable way. Ecologists and forest resource managers need measures to judge the success or failure of management regimes designed to sustain biological diversity. The relationships between potential indicator species and total biodiversity are not well established. Carefully designed studies are re- quired to test relationships between the presence and abundance of potential indicator species and other taxa and the maintenance of critical ecosystem processes in forests. Other indicators of biological diversity in forests, in addition or as alternatives to indicator species, include what we call structure-based indicators. These are stand-level and landscape-level (spatial) features of forests such as stand structural complexity and plant species composition, connectivity, and heterogeneity. Although the adoption of practices to sustain (or recreate) key characteristics of forest ecosystems appear intuitively sensible and broadly consistent with cur- rent knowledge, information is lacking to determine whether such stand- and landscape-level features of for- ests will serve as successful indices of (and help conserve) biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Patterns of Matter and Energy Fluxes in Land and Ocean Ecosystems A
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.13.039156; this version posted April 13, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Universal patterns of matter and energy fluxes in land and ocean ecosystems A. V. Nefiodov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute named by B. P. Konstantinov of NRC «Kurchatov Institute», Gatchina, St. Petersburg, 188300, Russia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. In work [1], the fundamental relationships for the fluxes of matter and energy in terrestrial ecosystems were obtained. Taking into account the universal characteristics of biota, these relationships permitted an estimate to be made of the vertical thickness of the live biomass layer for autotrophs and heterotrophs. The distribution of consumption of biota production as dependent on the body size of heterotrophs was also investigated. For large animals (vertebrates), the energy consumption in sustainable ecosystems was estimated to be of the order of one percent of primary production. In this comment, it is shown that the results of work [1] also hold true for ocean ecosystems and thus are universal for life as a whole. This is of paramount importance for human life on Earth. Keywords: biotic regulation, energy flux, photosynthesis, metabolism, productivity, autotrophs, heterotrophs, plankton On the system of units and dimensions of physical quantities Since the density of living organisms practically coincides with the density of liquid water 1 t/m3, live body mass m and characteristic body volume l 3 are 3 related as m l .
    [Show full text]