5 ms·

Can someone make the case using logical arguments on why a higher number of species is any better or worse than a lower number? Why is an ecosystem in equilibri

• beebeepka 3y ago
  Can someone make the case using logical arguments on why drexlspivey is any better or worse than no drexlspivey? Why is an ecosystem in equilibrium with drexlspivey better than one without drexlspivey?
• Loughla 3y ago
  More resilience to disease or collapse maybe? Honestly, other than 'because I like animals', I don't really know though. I would be interested in the answer to this as well.
  • steve_adams_86 3y ago
    Resilience is one thing, but there are a lot of nuances to what makes species and habitat diversity so important. This isn’t a perfect example, but the other day I was researching shrimp. There is a genus called neocaridina, and they’re generally detritivores. However, I discovered that many species in the genus eat quite differently. Some will eat hair algae, some won’t. Some like to feed on hard algae, some only soft. Some have preference for higher protein foods, others less. Of the 26 known species, the manifestation of their presence in an ecosystem would actually be quite different. This is a single genus which would have substantially varying impacts on ponds, streams, and lakes for example. If you have a diverse set of these species, you will be far more likely to keep a variety of detritus and algae sources in check. Reduce the diversity, and perhaps hair algae will get out of control. Once this happens, you might see certain fish or insects lose their habitat because they depend on other vegetation, but the hair algae is absorbing too much light and nutrients now. This is applies to all kinds of animals, in all kinds of habitats. Diversity means greater balance, greater stability, and means of recovering faster when things collapse.
• francisofascii 3y ago
  The irreversibility is probably the key negative. If you assume life is good and biodiversity aids in keeping life going, then the more species that are stable, the better. And species take a long time to create, so losing them precipitously is most likely bad.
• sillywalk 3y ago
  Answer your question with a question: Which ecosystems on Earth are "in equilibrium"?
• at_a_remove 3y ago
  There's a bunch of fun simulation games you can play where you can sort of prove this to yourself. A given species doesn't just eat items X, Y, Z in a food web. In a pinch, they might be able to deal with others things. A W, perhaps. If the W-predating species suffers disease or some calamity, this other species can, to some degree, pick up the slack. It's really a key part of adaptive radiation. Maybe I could live here, although I don't usually. Maybe I could mate there, although it is a bit out of my comfort zone. When you play those simulation games with just a few species, you see a lot of boom-bust cycles and eventually you get a collapse. Similarly, those sealed terrariums have similar problems: they eventually fall into a lower equilibrium of fewer species and then they kind of turn to mush. I hesitate to say "role" because that feels assigned, but different species do different things in an overlapping fashion, like a cross-trained staff lowering your "bus factor." Now, I imagine there's some kind of maximum number (so many species that finding someone to breed with is hard), but the minimums lack resiliency for various cycles.
• tmountain 3y ago
  More species means greater potential for adaptation as ecosystems shift. If one niche species dies off, there’s greater potential for a neighboring species to fill the gap. On the same token, more species means more genetic diversity and higher levels of resilience to diseases and other threats. Different species service ecosystems in different ways. Pollination, water purification, soil enrichment, etc. With too few species, key requirements for cross species survival are less likely to be met. On a less scientific basis, more species just makes the planet richer. The thought of just a few dominant species across the planet is a very sad prospect and would represent a huge loss regarding the beauty that billions of years of evolution have brought us.
  • BurningFrog 3y ago
    > More species means greater potential for adaptation as ecosystems shift Of course, somewhat paradoxically, these species disappearing is an adaptation to shifting ecosystems. What's happening now is that ecosystems are globalizing. An ecological niche that was filled by 30 local species before modernity, is now being mixed up and whichever species is "best" may fill that niche everywhere. So if my local frog species disappears, it's probably replaced by more hardworking immigrant frogs. This can be very disruptive and have negative consequences in many ways. But it doesn't mean animal life disappears. It changes.
    • steve_adams_86 3y ago
      Arguably it has been disappearing; there is less animal biomass in most of the world than there was since we began keeping record.
      • BurningFrog 3y ago
        This is true, though I think of it as a separate problem. One big thing is that on land we converted from hunting and gathering the commons to farming private land thousands of years ago. In the oceans we're still doing it, and modern technology is devastatingly effective at it.
  • 3y ago
• LastTrain 3y ago
  The current top post (use roughly) does a pretty good job of it!
• _hcuq 3y ago
  Nope. Nobody can make that case. So let's just have say 10 species.
  • titzer 3y ago
    Ok. So just invest in one stock. The market never crashes and businesses never go bankrupt.