A: List the major ideas, concepts or key points-point by point:-Wetlands also have commercial andutilitarian functions.
-May's lecture grew more depressing. He complained that biologists and conservationists alike, are afflicted with "total vertebrate chauvinism" They bias toward mammals, birds and fish when most of the diversity of life lie somewhere else. It undermines scientists' ability to predict reliability and consequences of biodiversity loss. Raises questions about high-priority hotspots.
"the three kinds of argument we use to try to persuade politicians that all this is important...none is totally compelling"
-Perhaps the should focus on saving something equally at risk but more valuable: evolution.
-May's claim will shock those who haven't followed the biodiversity issue, but prompt no gasp from conservation biologists. They heard variations of this since 1979
-Norman Myers guessed that 40,000 species lose their last member each year and one million will be extinct by 2000.
-Tomas Lovejoy predicted that 15-20 percent would die off by 2000.
-Paul Ehrlich figured half would be gone by now.
-Recent projections factor in slower demise because doomed species hung on longer than anticipated.
-Some have returned from the grave.
-E.O Wilson cites (in his book The Diversity of Life) that current estimates between 1 and 10 percent of species are extinguished every decade...27,000 a year.
-Michael J. Novacek wrote that 30 percent extermination of all species by mid-21st century are not unrealistic.
-1998, survey of biologists, 70% said they believed mass extinction is in progress. 1/3 of them expected to lose 20 to 50 percent of world's species in 30 years.
-Lomborg argues that there is not evidence to prove this would happen. He alleges that environmentalists ignored recent evidence of tropical deforestation not taking toll it was feared. Best models project extinction rate of 0.15 percent of species per decade.
-First:Species of plants, mammals, insects, marine invertebrates and other groups all exist for about the same time. Survival time varies among groups by factor of 10 or more with mammals being least durable.
-Second: They assume that all organisms have equal chance of making it to the fossil record. Successful species they see are widespread. Weak species confined to hilltop or islands all went extinct before they could be fossilized.
-Third: May and Wilson used average life span when they should be using a median.
-All 3 oversimplifications underestimate background rate and make current picture scarier in comparison.
-Helen M. Regan and colleagues tried to correct the strong bias and uncertainty in the data. They looked exclusively at mammals. Estimated how many mammals are living, and how many have recently been extinguished would show up as fossils. They factored uncertainty for each number than relying on best guess. Concluded that the current rate of extinction lies between 17 and 377 times the background extinction rate.
-He and other extinction experts formed the Committee on Recently Extinct Organisms, who combed the -Red List to identify those species that were unique and had not been found despite reasonable research
-Certified 60 of 87 mammals listed by IUCN as extinct but claim 33 of 92 freshwater fish presumed extinct were gone forever.
-For every species falsely said to be absent, there may be hundreds or thousands that vanish unknown to science.
-May points out how they are uncertain to factor of 10 about how many species we share plane with.
-He guessed that seven million species live with us, but credible guesses range from 5 to 15 million.
-Taxonomists named 1.8 species approx. But biologists know nothing about them.
-May's lecture grew more depressing. He complained that biologists and conservationists alike, are afflicted with "total vertebrate chauvinism" They bias toward mammals, birds and fish when most of the diversity of life lie somewhere else. It undermines scientists' ability to predict reliability and consequences of biodiversity loss. Raises questions about high-priority hotspots.
"the three kinds of argument we use to try to persuade politicians that all this is important...none is totally compelling"
-Perhaps the should focus on saving something equally at risk but more valuable: evolution.
-May's claim will shock those who haven't followed the biodiversity issue, but prompt no gasp from conservation biologists. They heard variations of this since 1979
-Norman Myers guessed that 40,000 species lose their last member each year and one million will be extinct by 2000.
-Tomas Lovejoy predicted that 15-20 percent would die off by 2000.
-Paul Ehrlich figured half would be gone by now.
-Recent projections factor in slower demise because doomed species hung on longer than anticipated.
-Some have returned from the grave.
-E.O Wilson cites (in his book The Diversity of Life) that current estimates between 1 and 10 percent of species are extinguished every decade...27,000 a year.
-Michael J. Novacek wrote that 30 percent extermination of all species by mid-21st century are not unrealistic.
-1998, survey of biologists, 70% said they believed mass extinction is in progress. 1/3 of them expected to lose 20 to 50 percent of world's species in 30 years.
-Lomborg argues that there is not evidence to prove this would happen. He alleges that environmentalists ignored recent evidence of tropical deforestation not taking toll it was feared. Best models project extinction rate of 0.15 percent of species per decade.
-First:Species of plants, mammals, insects, marine invertebrates and other groups all exist for about the same time. Survival time varies among groups by factor of 10 or more with mammals being least durable.
-Second: They assume that all organisms have equal chance of making it to the fossil record. Successful species they see are widespread. Weak species confined to hilltop or islands all went extinct before they could be fossilized.
-Third: May and Wilson used average life span when they should be using a median.
-All 3 oversimplifications underestimate background rate and make current picture scarier in comparison.
-Helen M. Regan and colleagues tried to correct the strong bias and uncertainty in the data. They looked exclusively at mammals. Estimated how many mammals are living, and how many have recently been extinguished would show up as fossils. They factored uncertainty for each number than relying on best guess. Concluded that the current rate of extinction lies between 17 and 377 times the background extinction rate.
-He and other extinction experts formed the Committee on Recently Extinct Organisms, who combed the -Red List to identify those species that were unique and had not been found despite reasonable research
-Certified 60 of 87 mammals listed by IUCN as extinct but claim 33 of 92 freshwater fish presumed extinct were gone forever.
-For every species falsely said to be absent, there may be hundreds or thousands that vanish unknown to science.
-May points out how they are uncertain to factor of 10 about how many species we share plane with.
-He guessed that seven million species live with us, but credible guesses range from 5 to 15 million.
-Taxonomists named 1.8 species approx. But biologists know nothing about them.
B:Summarize the AUTHOR's main point or idea - at LEAST 1-2 paragraphs:
Determining if there will be a mass extinction is the question throughout this article. There were many predictions and reasoning through what people thought how mass extinction would be. To find when the mass extinction to happen, you have to find the natural extinction rate, current rate and whether the pace of extinction is steady or changing. Two people, Robert M. May and E.O Wilson had their own way of finding the current rate. Scientists used the idea of species-area relation, saying that as area of habitat falls, number of species living in it drop. Scientists believe the solution to preventing mass extinction is by saving evolution itself.
Determining if there will be a mass extinction is the question throughout this article. There were many predictions and reasoning through what people thought how mass extinction would be. To find when the mass extinction to happen, you have to find the natural extinction rate, current rate and whether the pace of extinction is steady or changing. Two people, Robert M. May and E.O Wilson had their own way of finding the current rate. Scientists used the idea of species-area relation, saying that as area of habitat falls, number of species living in it drop. Scientists believe the solution to preventing mass extinction is by saving evolution itself.
C:Write a reaction paragraph to the article stating your own thoughts on the topic:
I think that finding rates of extinction and the reason why is something all the scientists need to collaborate on. Scientists in this article are disagreeing with each other and are stating reasons why they're wrong, instead of finding the rates of extinction. This is why no one knows the current rate of extinction. Reading this article helped me realize that extinction isn't happening at a high rate and a way to stop mass extinction and the rate in which species will become extinct is to preserve evolution.
I think that finding rates of extinction and the reason why is something all the scientists need to collaborate on. Scientists in this article are disagreeing with each other and are stating reasons why they're wrong, instead of finding the rates of extinction. This is why no one knows the current rate of extinction. Reading this article helped me realize that extinction isn't happening at a high rate and a way to stop mass extinction and the rate in which species will become extinct is to preserve evolution.
So what?
We need to track and estimation of every species in the world.
Say who?
John W. Reid
What if?
So we can know the amount of species left.
What does this remind me of?
Estimation of the species
We need to track and estimation of every species in the world.
Say who?
John W. Reid
What if?
So we can know the amount of species left.
What does this remind me of?
Estimation of the species