can we link the concept that biodiversity is tied closely with environmental stability?

Question

in what ways?

Answer 1

This is a strange question, but the answer is a resounding YES!

The environment is all the living (plants, animals, microbes etc) and non-living (soil, atmosphere, etc) components around us.

Environmental stability can be defined as:
- a resistance to changes in the environmental factors (I only listed a few above).
- It can also refer to the ability of the ecosystem to adapt and recover from changes.

Biodiversity refers to all the living organisms (including microorganisms) and the ecosystems they live in. There is a delicate balance in nature, so ALL ecosystems are linked. Key changes in one will affect the others.

For example, although it may not be obvious, forest ecosystems are linked to coral reefs.

Lets look at the sequence of activities that may occur If a forest area is completely denuded of trees (i.e. if deforestation occurs):

-it directly affects all species associated with the forest. Animals are displaced. The displaced will try to find a new habitat or home, but typically, whole populations of animals may be lost in the process. This can be dangerous to humans. For instance, if the forest in question is a mangrove forest- predators such as alligators and crocodiles may migrate to urban areas and pose a threat to humans there.

- without the roots of the vegetation to hold the soil together, there is no anchor to keep it in place
- with rainfall, soil erosion occurs
- the soil or sediment is transported into watersheds (streams, rivers, etc.)
- rivers drain directly into the sea, carrying the high volumes of sediment there
- the sediment smothers the very sensitive coral species and they die
- this affects all the populations of animals associated with coral reefs, species of fish, urchins, molluscs etc

(- humans are also affected indirectly in economic terms- loss of reefs means loss of money from (1) recreational activities such as snorkeling, diving, etc. (2) fishing incomes decreases through loss of valuable reef fishes and species of lobster etc.)

The sequence of changes demonstrate how removing one component of biodiversity in one area can create instability in an ecosystem far away.

This is only one part of the picture as it doesn't take into account all the natural functions the forest plays and therefore doesn't show the full range of environmental impacts caused by removing it. - For example its key role in the water cycle, the nutrient cycles, the atmospheric cycle (removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and producing oxygen - which all living things need) etc...

Environmental instability can be caused by:
-natural hazards such as hurricanes
- human activities.

However, it can be said that human or anthropogenic impacts on the environment are the most dangerous threats to stability. This is because there is a natural system in place for recovering from natural hazards. To use our forest analogy again...if a forest is affected by a hurrricane, many trees may be broken or blown down. This creates a gap or open space in the forest canopy. However the leaves and trunks remain on the ground providing organic matter in the soil which other organisms can use. This gap is soon colonized by a series of plant life, each of which makes the area more suitable for the following colonizer. Eg. the area may be colonised first and quickly by some sort of grass (probably wind dispersed); this grows quickly, anchoring the soil. In time, small plants and shrubs (whose seeds were dispersed by wind or by animals such as birds) enter the area and begin to grow. These attract insects and small animals. The droppings and carcasses further fertilise the soil. In time small trees colonize the area, and so on, until a mature forest (with associated fauna) is replaced.

Human activites often halt this sequence altogether. Slashing large areas of forest strip the area of organic matter. In combination with the use of large vehicles for transportation of the lumber, the soil becomes hard and compacted, and thus unsuitable for primary colonisers. Without any plant life to anchor the soil, erosion occurs....


This illustrates the point that biodiversity cannot be separated from environmental stability. They are integrally linked. Removing biodiversity creates environmental instability and maintaining biodiversity helps to maintain environmental stability.

Answer 2

Gaia theory, (see any James Lovelock books or daisyworld) clearly show that environmental stability without bio-diversity = dead, eg Mars is dead because it has no life, therfore all chemical reactions etc, by the laws of thermodynamics drop to the lowest energy level, eg all the oxygen has reacted with iron, hence the red colour.

A living system/planet has a dynamic stability based on feedback processes. The more biologically diverse the more the feedback mechanisms evolve to maintain an environment suitable for life as we know it. eg level of oxygen maintained at a level sufficient for large aninmals, but not quite enough for trees to spontaneously combust.

Note that complex chaotic systems do not have a single state of equilibrium, but will suddenly flip to a new stable state. This is one of the worries about climate change combined with all the other environmental destruction (= removal of feedback mechanisms) going on at present. At some point, which we cannot predict, the feedback mechanisms will be insufficient to maintain the current status quo, then a whole new arrangement of life and environmental processes will emerge; probably not optimum for human life or most current species.

Answer 3

There needs to be some qualification to the
answers to this question. The stability of the
environment is not enough in itself to promote
diversity. First the environment has to be such as
to permit life to exist at all. Then it needs to be
favorable to life, not extreme in some condition or
other. A stable environment that provides ideal
living conditions will have a highly diverse community of living things - tropical rain forests and
coral reefs are the most diverse environments we
know of. Stability is always only relative, however,
no environment is entirely stable, or permanently
stable.

There was a period when ecologists thought that
a highly diverse community was more stable than
a less diverse one. I do not have my references
at hand at the moment, so this is from memory and
may not be entirely correct. I believe the idea of
more diverse communities being more stable was first suggested (and just as a suggestion that it
might be so) by Robert MacArthur. Somehow the
idea went from a suggestion to being accepted as
a fact, just by being repeated a lot, without the
qualification it originally carried. Finally a paper
published years later really looked into the problem
and concluded that there was no constant relation
at all between a community's diversity and its
stability.

Answer 4

HUH??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You ever been to the Desert or Antartica??? How about the surface of Mars or Venus.

Biodiversity is "intimate" with environmental stability. If it was any more intimate they would be doing the nasty LOL 8-)