+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 48
Latest: watcher
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16867
Total Topics: 271
Most Online Today: 27
Most Online Ever: 1208
(March 28, 2024, 07:28:27 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 12
Total: 12

Forum > Catastrophic Climate Change

Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere

(1/3) > >>

AGelbert:
Are There More Pigs than Humans in Denmark?

There are more pigs than humans in Denmark – the country’s human population is an estimated 5.4 million, compared to its pig population of around 24 million. Due to its high amount of pig livestock, Denmark is the leading exporter of pork in the world. From the 1980s through the 2000s, the number of pigs in the country doubled, while the number of pig farms decreased by nearly 80%, with the remaining farms growing in physical size. The amount of slurry produced at Denmark’s pig farms is estimated to be able to fill the equivalent of 90,000 swimming pools every year.

More about the world’s livestock population:

Chickens are the most populous livestock in the world, at an estimated three chickens for every one person on Earth.

There are over seven sheep for every one person living in New Zealand (Agelbert obsevation: Nuttin' but mutton  ;D). The country also has one of the highest cattle rates, at around 2.3 cows per person.

China is the country with the highest numbers of livestock, leading the world’s total livestock populations for cattle, sheep, and pigs.      


http://www.wisegeek.com/are-there-more-pigs-than-humans-in-denmark.htm

AGelbert:
Human Population Growth: The Truth About How Human Activity Threatens The Conditio Sine Qua Non For Our Survival
What Is the Greatest Number of Children Born to One Woman?

As of 2014, the greatest number of children born to one woman was 69. Birth records from the 1700s show that the wife of a Russian peasant named Feodor Vassilyev gave birth 27 times — to four sets of quadruplets, seven sets of triplets and 16 pairs of twins. It was reported that 67 of the 69 children survived past infancy. Vassilyev’s second wife reportedly gave birth to 18 children, which would make him the father of 87 children, with all but three surviving infancy. It has not been proved that the records are true, and some people believe that the numbers might be inaccurate.

More about child birth rates:

Niger is the country with the most births per woman, at an average of 6.16, with more than half of all Nigerian mothers giving birth before age 18.
The greatest number of surviving children born to one woman at one time was eight in 2009 in the United States.

The United Kingdom has the highest rate of childless women older than 45, at more than 20%.

Why Sterilizing the Poorest 50% of Homo Sap Won't Solve ANYTHING!
Brainwashed Propaganda Victims and Fossil Fuelers' REACTION to the ABOVE: 🤔
 
The "Human Population Must Be Reduced" Propaganda Myth. Why it is a divide and conquer tactic and why it has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.


--- Quote ---
"The total biomass of all the ants on Earth is roughly equal to the total biomass of all the people on Earth.

How can this be?! Ants are so tiny, and we are so big! But scientists estimate there are at least 1.5 million ants on the planet for every human being. Over 12,000 species of ants are known to exist, on every continent except Antarctica. Most live in tropical regions. A single acre of Amazon rainforest may house 3.5 million ants."
--- End quote ---
http://insects.about.com/od/antsbeeswasps/a/10-cool-facts-about-ants.htm

The Human biomass is tiny compared with thousands of species from insects to spiders to rodents, along with many marine creatures. 

See for yourself 🧐 the Evidence:

I will provide for you a couple of links for you to research but let me give you a brief introduction to earth's biomass pyramid.

You have different trophic levels (life forms that eat other life forms to survive).

The lower you are on the pyramid, the more collective mass you have as a segment of the biosphere. What does that mean?

Here's a quote so you can see where I'm going with this:


--- Quote ---"An ecological pyramid is a graphical representation that shows, for a given ecosystem, the relationship between biomass or biological productivity and trophic levels.

A biomass pyramid shows the amount of biomass at each trophic level.

A productivity pyramid shows the production or turn-over in biomass at each trophic level.

An ecological pyramid provides a snapshot in time of an ecological community.

The bottom of the pyramid represents the primary producers (autotrophs). The primary producers take energy from the environment in the form of sunlight or inorganic chemicals and use it to create energy-rich molecules such as carbohydrates. This mechanism is called primary production. The pyramid then proceeds through the various trophic levels to the apex predators at the top.

When energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next, typically only ten percent is used to build new biomass. The remaining ninety percent goes to metabolic processes or is dissipated as heat. This energy loss means that productivity pyramids are never inverted, and generally limits food chains to about six levels. However, in oceans, biomass pyramids can be wholly or partially inverted, with more biomass at higher levels."



--- End quote ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)

Take insects as one example of the Laws of Thermodynamics as applied to life forms in the Biosphere trophic (food chain) pyramids.

In order for insects to BE food for spiders as well as many other creatures, the biomass of insects has to be much, much greater because of the heat energy losses in transferring energy from the insect to the spider (about 90% is lost in heat). The predators (that's what we are, by the way) are at the top of the pyramid and have the least total biomass of all the life forms.

Lions, tigers, sharks, whales, bears, wolves, etc. have a tiny planetary biosphere biomass in comparison with ants, earthworms, rodents, and krill (those tiny shrimp like creatures that whales eat). And the krill eat tiny nearly microscopic phytoplankton (that has more biomass than the ubiquitous krill).

Mollusks, as well as ants and several thousand other species have a larger biomass than humans. I bring up the mollusks because they have a HUGE biomass. I studied them in depth in college Zoology.

The phylum Mollusca:

--- Quote ---"The phylum Mollusca is the second most diverse phylum after Arthropoda with over 110,000 described species. Mollusks may be primitively segmented, but all but the monoplacophorans characteristically lack segmentation and have bodies that are to some degree spirally twisted (e.g. torsion).

The Phylum Mollusca consist of 8 classes:

1. the Monoplacophora discovered in 1977;
2. the worm-like Aplacophora or solenogasters of the deep sea;
3. the also worm-like Caudofoveata;
4. the Polyplacophora, or chitons;
5. the Pelecypoda or bivalves;
6. the Gastropoda or snails;
7. the Scaphopoda, or tusk shells; and
8. the Cephalopoda that include among others squid and the octopus."

--- End quote ---

Agelbert Note: The biomass pyramid in the oceans in regard to mollusks and fish is NOT inverted. The oceanic "confusion" is due to the fact that some mollusks are apex predators like giant squid and the smaller mollusk predators like Octopodes that eat fish. Most mollusks are small to very small and are food for fish. They are the ones (bivalves near Fukushima) that concentrate radionuclides in their tissues that then get in the fish that eat them.  :( :P

The smaller mollusks (most of them are less than a foot long) are FOOD for fish. That means there HAS TO BE much more of them than there are fish. And I'm sure you don't believe the human biomass is greater than that of all the fish species, right?  ;D
.
Now for some biomass weights:
Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg.

--- Quote ---"Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg. This figure is based on an average human weight of more than 100lbs, though (50kg, to be exact).  I don't know how accurate this estimate is, especially considering that about 1/3 of us are children.  There are supposedly around 1.3 billion cattle in the world, and, put together, they may weigh almost twice as much as our species."

Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba =  379,000,000,000 kg.
There are more ants than krill. Also, metabolism plays a role along with biomass. A "million ruby-throated hummingbirds will consume much more food than one African Elephant, even though both have about the same biomass (3,000kg, or 3.3 US tons). 

Thus, ants, as a group, may actually consume more resources per year than antarctic krill, even though both may have roughly the same biomass, because ants tend to be smaller, and live in warmer environments. Although there may be about 10-15 times the biomass of termites than cows in the world, studies have suggested that termites might produce almost 30,000 times as much methane per year because of their faster metabolism."

--- End quote ---
http://www.antweb.org/antblog/2010/10/do-ants-really-have-the-largest-biomass-of-all-species-on-earth-laurie-usa.html

So how come nobody is hollering about reducing the termite population?

As the article in the quotes above points out, humans are a huge problem, not because of our biomass, but because of our carbon footprint (I.E. the use of fossil fuels!). And guess what portion of our population does over 80% of the Fossil Fuel consumption? You guessed it! The upper 20%!


Who Done it? 

The Global Compact: 20% using 80% of the Resources

To ACTUALLY address, confront and STOP the biosphere damage that Homo Sap is doing, we must face the scientifically confirmed REALITY that  if you get rid of the bottom 50% of the human population (the most poor among us) you will, I'm sorry to say, not even dent the pollution and biosphere destruction.

AS pointed out in the biomass numbers, the amount of people eating and defecating is not the problem, CARBON FOOTPRINT is the threat to a viable biosphere. We must attack that problem by reducing the carbon footprint of the most powerful people on this planet.

NOTHING ELSE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. The solution, in addition to a 100% transition to Renewable energy, involves eliminating corporate energy welfare queen subsidies for both fossil fuels and nuclear poison.

Democracy and a viable biosphere requires it from all of us.

The "let's reduce the human population" baloney is a divide and conquer tactic to avoid billing the top 🐽 human pigs for the damage they do while attempting to give the rest of us a totally unwarranted with ZERO empirical basis ( but VERY clever   ) guilt trip. It's a lie. Don't buy it.

What we need to do is transition to 100% renewable energy as soon as possible. That will give our future generations a chance to live in a viable biosphere.

If you agree please pass it on. Also, feel free to visit my forum and post on any subject you wish. Thank you.

Renewable revolution

AGelbert:
The predator survives – but the ecosystem crashes
Date:October 6, 2015  Source: Linköping Universitet


The killer whales' main prey used to be newborn whale calves. When whale populations fell dramatically due to intensive hunting, they began to hunt seal instead. Then when the seal population was quickly eradicated, the killer whales moved on to sea otters. This reduced the pressure on sea urchins, the preferred diet of the sea otters. As a result, the sea urchins grazed down the kelp beds that have served as nurseries for many different fish species and small marine animals.  :(

What do killer whales, polar bears and humans have in common? They are adaptable predators with the ability to select new prey when their favourite food is in low supply. But this change can disrupt entire ecosystems.

"If the predator is efficient at killing its prey, such a change can lead to negative effects in the long term, for the entire food web, even if in the short term it benefits the predator's survival," says David Gilljam, doctoral student in theoretical biology, who joined with Professor Bo Ebenman and PhD Alva Curtsdotter to publish a new model-based study in Nature Communications.

By working with both natural and computer-generated food webs, the researchers can show how the overexploitation of resources caused by predators changing their prey can, in the worst case, lead to an extinction cascade, where species after species is wiped out in a domino effect.

A dramatic example of this is the killer whale, whose main prey was newborn whale calves. When whale populations fell dramatically due to intensive hunting, they began to hunt seal instead. Then when the seal population was quickly eradicated, the killer whales moved on to sea otters. This reduced the pressure on sea urchins, the preferred diet of the sea otters. As a result, the sea urchins grazed down the kelp beds that have served as nurseries for many different fish species and small marine animals.

"Think of a rope that's made of a number of twisted fibres. When force is applied to the rope, the force is spread across all the fibres. If one fibre breaks, the remaining fibres take all the force, with more force on each individual fibre. If more break, eventually the whole rope will fail," says Prof Ebenman.

A few examples from the real world:
•As the ice in the Arctic melts, it gets more and more difficult for the polar bears to hunt seal -- their natural prey. Instead they have started to venture onto the land, to feed on the eggs and young of ground-nesting birds, which are already the prey of other predators such as arctic foxes. The risk is that the predatory pressure on these birds will be too great.

•West-African fishermen are abandoning their fishing grounds in times of poor supply -- which is caused by industrial-scale fishing. Instead they are hunting on nature reserves, which leads to drastic reductions to the populations of prey animals there. Humans are an extremely flexible, efficient predator, who have massive impact on ecosystems.

The theoretical simulations presented by the LiU biologists completely contradict what we previously believed took place, when a predator loses its favourite prey.

--- Quote ---
"The belief was that an extinction cascade would be avoided if the predator is adaptable and can shift to another prey. Our new results indicate that the opposite can occur, and the consequences can be even worse. A change in prey is a double-edged sword -- in the short term it can help a flexible predator survive, but long term it can negatively affect the entire existence of the food web," says Prof Ebenman.

--- End quote ---

 Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Linköping Universitet. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
 

Journal Reference:
1.David Gilljam, Alva Curtsdotter, Bo Ebenman. Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems. Nature Communications, 2015; 6: 8412 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9412

AGelbert:
The extinction crisis in a warming world
How climate change is intensifying threats to nature — and what can be done


Story by Ian James and Sammy Roth | Photographs by Marilyn Chung and Jay Calderon, The Desert Sun | April 18, 2016

SNIPPET:

The world is losing creatures at an accelerating rate: Species of frogs, lizards, fish and birds have all gone extinct as their habitats have been fragmented, degraded and destroyed by humans. Now, as the Earth grows warmer due to the burning of fossil fuels, the rapid disruption of the climate is placing even bigger stresses on species that are already struggling to survive.

Scientists have warned that unless humans act quickly to protect the natural world from habitat losses and the ravages of climate change, more than a third of all plant and animal species on the planet could disappear by the end of the century.

In every corner of the United States, animals are threatened by climate change, from chinook salmon in California to the Illinois chorus frog and endangered birds in the rainforests of Hawaii. So many plants and animals are at risk that scientists and conservationists are increasingly calling for new, more ambitious approaches to saving species and habitats.

Those strategies include aggressive interventions to protect species that are on the verge of dying out, and efforts to conserve larger wilderness areas and “corridors” that connect patches of fragmented habitat. There is also a growing push for better data to help prioritize the areas and species that are most vulnerable.

http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2016/04/18/extinction-crisis-warming-world/82642298/

AGelbert:

https://youtu.be/Ea_mard7FagThe Rainforest Alliance  
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/video/we-are-the-rainforest-alliance

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
March 30, 2022, 12:39:42 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
March 29, 2022, 08:20:56 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
March 28, 2022, 01:12:42 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
March 27, 2022, 02:27:28 pm

Heat Pumps by AGelbert
March 26, 2022, 03:54:43 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 02:04:23 pm

The Koch Brothers Exposed! by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 01:26:11 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 12:46:08 pm

Books and Audio Books that may interest you 🧐 by AGelbert
March 24, 2022, 04:28:56 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
March 23, 2022, 12:14:36 pm

Go to full version