Danger sign: species such as the endemic red-backed poison dart frog could be at greater threat from Amazonian deforestation than thought.
Image: D. TIPLING/GETTY
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
From Nature magazine
The vast majority of species extinctions in the Brazilian Amazon are yet to come, predicts a paper published in Science today.
Deforestation has declined to record lows in recent years, and just over 50% of Brazil’s rainforest now falls under some form of protected status. But the effects of habitat loss take time to manifest. “Cutting down trees doesn’t kill a bird directly. It takes a lot of time for those birds to actually die. They’re all crammed into the habitat that’s left. Then gradually you’ll have this increased mortality,” says Robert Ewers, an ecologist at Imperial College London and the study's leader.
Previous models of how deforestation affects biodiversity have assumed that deforestation happens in one swoop. But that’s not how it works. Deforestation tends to occur in fits and spurts, and as it continues, the number of species headed for extinction — the 'extinction debt' — rises.
“If you cut down a patch of habitat and, before the effects are felt, you cut down more habitat, you’ve got some outstanding debt,” explains Daniel Reuman, a mathematician at Imperial College, who also worked on the project. “We wanted to figure out how it happens with multiple instances over time instead of just one instance. It’s an amazingly simple model extension that has big implications.”
So, Ewers, Reuman and their colleague Oliver Wearn came up with a formula that relates species extinction to the timing and amount of habitat loss. “It sorts out the bookkeeping of all these different deforestation events and extinction debts,” explains Reuman. When they plugged individual species data for vertebrates that depend on the tropical forest for food and shelter and deforestation patterns from 1970 to 2008 into their model, it projected that 80–90% of extinctions caused by previous rainforest loss are yet to come. Brazil still owes the grim reaper an average of two mammals, five birds and one amphibian per 2500 square kilometres.
Future Trends
Next, the team ran four scenarios that look 40 years into the future: 'business as usual', or little regulation; 'governance', or some regulation; 'strong', or reducing deforestation by 80% by 2020, in accordance with the Brazilian government’s goal; and 'end of deforestation' by 2020. Under the most likely scenario — governance — local ecosystems could lose an average of 12 species and condemn 19 more to extinction. In the worst-case scenario, local species are close to eliminated.
Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho, a cartographer at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil, sees models such as this as useful planning tools. But no model is perfect, he says. “Although the paper touches on the steep decline in Amazon deforestation rates that took place in recent years, it disregards two major factors,” says Soares Filho. “First, 50% of Amazon forest is now protected; and second, increased green governance in Brazil makes those predictions quite unlikely.” To Soares Filho, Brazil's Forest Code, which was updated earlier this year amid controversy (see 'Brazilian president vetoes parts — but not all — of controversial forestry bill'), is the Amazon's best chance to preserve biodiversity.
Ewers stresses that although the findings seem bleak, they do provide a window of opportunity. “I’d like to think that people could look at the data and say, we know now exactly where you have the highest extinction debt and we can target those particular areas and conserve the species that are still there.”
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentAnd it will probably be another few of decades before we really see the effects of species loss, but they'll be noticeable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is why transhumanism pisses me off. We're focusing energy on transcending biology, but at what cost? Exploiting the Earth for all it has and then abandoning it, killing off almost all other life? And they say we're an empathetic species.
Don't you just love how computer "models" can be tuned to predict just about anything? Personally, I won't miss the red-backed poison dart frog one bit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must be a Republican. Only Republicans hate science and then blog about it - mostly because science is showing that your model of reality isn't working. That's cognitive dissonance lite. If you completely abandon reality, e.g. deny that the Earth is warming, it's full blown cognitive dissonance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Don't you just love how computer "models" can be tuned to predict just about anything?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole purpose of mathematics is to enable man to predict the outcome of action and reaction or cause and effect. You sound as if you really believe these scientists are purposely creating false data to fool people like you who can't be fooled that easily.
Funny thing is you were fooled into believing that by people who don't even believe in the scientific method.
I suppose you think even evolution is just another one of those tuned arguments, and your alternative is that man was created from a bit of mud and God's spit.
Hmmm, models indicate mass extinction (90% of invertebrates). But when reality is checked - no such extinction can be found. Lacking any empirical evidence, they simply side-step the science by projecting results sometime (somewhere?) into the future, instead of the clear falsification of the model, it represents. Post normal science at it's best... by naked men, sitting around a campfire, casting bones and muttering "booga booga". Wow! This is a science blog... right?? GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Lacking any empirical evidence, they simply side-step the science by projecting results sometime (somewhere?) into the future, instead of the clear falsification of the model, it represents."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese predictions are based on empirical data. Read the article.
"When they plugged individual species data for vertebrates that depend on the tropical forest for food and shelter and deforestation patterns from 1970 to 2008 into their model..."
This is hardly what you could label as, "...naked men, sitting around a campfire, casting bones and muttering "booga booga..."
It is just these kinds of comments that makes a real scientist laugh at such idiocy. I guess it just goes to show that some people will frequent a science blog not to learn something but to shovel crap and insults. I have noticed a marked increase in these types of post since Fox News no longer has online comments open.
I guess I'll have to explain it to you again. Data is input to a model. The output is not data even it matches reality. The very best output obtainable is simulated data. In this case with a 90% extinction output we can safely say "Garbage in = garbage out - aka GIGO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do understand the difference between a model and reality... right? Some models (unlike this one) are good and valuable. This one was designed for a 90% extinction event for additional funding and priceless alarm value. Validation? Not one iota, but despite this, I'm sure someone, perhaps you, consider it science. GK
"This one was designed for a 90% extinction event for additional funding and priceless alarm value. Validation? Not one iota, but despite this, I'm sure someone, perhaps you, consider it science. GK"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow would you know this? You don't sound to me like someone who would or even could apply for a study grant. You may think you know, but the truth is you just made that up to defend a baseless position.
I would suggest you do a little research on models and the protocols for validation. It will greatly aid you, whenever you are presented, with model results, for evaluation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHabitat destruction IS a serious problem and does not require exaggeration from extrapolating modality.
This decade has seen massive deforesting AND loss of pastoral lands, right here in the US/Can heartland. The main reason has been the drive to convert pasture and scubland into cropland for the production of corn and other FUEL crops. This drive for food, to fuel, is directly attributable to the "green" ideology of idealist activists, like yourself.
The massive draining of wetlands, pasture, and other marginal lands, in order to "grow" our fuel, is the real tragic result of the CAGW movement. Extrapolation figures of 90% extinctions, are hardly helpful.
Keeping it specific and real... is the ticket.
What you think of my grant attraction ability is hardly relevant and only reveals your mindset. GK
Let go of the hate ralph123 - it must be hard though, to be so logical then in the next breath condemn half the country in single breath. Yourself and many others here have to either get off your computers, out of your used volvos and quit the waste OR stop with the incessant self guilt and human hatred.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no doubt that habitat loss is one of the worst culprits for the demise of species, and the article seems well done. I drove across the country just last week and couldn't help but feel sick after driving for 16 hours without a break in the corn fields for as far as the eye could see. That loss of diversity and habitat must be puny relative the Brazilian Amazon.
The models give many scenarios, and some want to argue the numbers: forget the numbers for just a moment and remember we are not arguing IF there will be species loss, but how much. I agree with the article that targeted work and conservation based on good data will give us the best opportunity to slow species loss. It matters not if the left or right political wings like it, saving species AND human technological growth are critical. People are NOT going to stop reproducing, the right will not halt their capitalistic ways and left won't quit their consumerist needs. The takers will always take and the providers will find a way to profit from it.
If I were king, education of the population regarding species loss in a manner that does not vilify people would be high on my list of environmental initiatives. IMO, if the attacks on those who do not follow the science or understand the value of diversity make things worse. The simple lack of respect for non-science people is easily one of the worst problems facing science. Scientists should know and people should remember that humans are animals - not some enlightened god like being. If you think animals should be treated well, try to remember that of people you disagree with.
"The massive draining of wetlands, pasture, and other marginal lands, in order to "grow" our fuel, is the real tragic result of the CAGW movement."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrowing corn for ethanol has nothing to do with the green movement. Were you got that idea is from propaganda by petroleum oil producers that don't want a piece of the pie shared by any other industry, especially a renewable energy source like agriculture.
The whole ethanol concept is a moral pitfall for this country. The alcohol to fuel industry was created by the false premise that we needed to free the country from dependency on foreign fuels.
If you ever read any of my previous posts you would know that I have never advocated using anything to replace our dependency on fossil fuels. The only solution in the long term will be conservation, not alternatives to a lifestyle that is not sustainable.
To label me as an 'idealist activist' is ludicrous. I don't see any solution at all for mankind other then eliminating 90% of the population and starting with the 50% who think running around in a 3 ton SUV, stomping the earth into dust like there was no tomorrow, is their God given right. Does that sound like idealism to you? Let's get back to reality dude or dudette! Reality is where my head is at.
The consequences of deforestation are irreversible in our lifetime and whether you 'believe' in mathematical models or not is not going to save one specie from extinction that is on the run from the destiny of a shrinking habitat. All those in the know can do is warn the rest of the sheeple of the unintended consequences of over population and wasted resources.
Like it or this country is never going back to the 20th century. Electing people that are no better then capitalist bone pickers like Romney to revive the economy is a sick joke. The only thing Romney is going to do is make Romney and his backers richer while he exports the rest of America's best jobs. At least Obama has tried to help the rest of us, right or wrong.
Reality will set in sooner or later for people like you, but by then it will no doubt be too late. The time to wake up the people is now and whether or not model projections are accurate or not will be a moot point in the next century. Mass extinction is just a small part of the problem in the big picture. What worries me most is access to quality air, water and food. Is burying your head in the sand going to provide you with that?
"You don't sound to me like someone who would or even could apply for a study grant."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbtw:
When someone has conviction, in their words, one does not write anonymously. I can assure you, I do not allow research funding, to go to those who cannot stand up and be accountable for what they say or do.
Well... at least not to a "singing flea" anyway.
So if you just write under your name, I'll keep a sharp look-out, for any corresponding paperwork, deserving special treatment.
...Sorry folks... I couldn't resist low hanging fruit. I jest, of course... um well maybe?? GK
What is protected? Forests? Now do me please ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/vidae,governo-estuda-reduzir-area-da-maior-floresta-nacional-em-ate-13,900673,0.htm
Another dropout that thinks a Liberal Arts Degree is about left wing politics. FYI, Profitsup, Science Degrees are not Liberal Arts Degrees and neither are Mathematics Majors. History is however a very good start for anyone planning to go into higher education and that includes scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are ignoring the reality of earth and the geological clock that functions on tens of thousands of years as the short term. Most deserts were once FOREST LANDS - many current forest lands were once deserts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead Darwin - species go extinct every time a superior competitor for territory expands - those boarder are what alarmist use to forecast doom and gloom. Look at things over 100,000 year time cycles and Oh my the world is actually a different place each time. So let us create a computer modeling system based on 100,000 cycles and then you can all relax because the earth is self healing.Even if we killed it all off it would return and start all over again as the bacteria in ROCK and other life forms will survive all cataclysms just as the cockroaches survive all the atomic bomb in the pacific atolls.
Silly over reacting pseudo science looking for more GRANT MONEY TO FABRICATE OPINIONS - not SCIENCE.
"So if you just write under your name, I'll keep a sharp look-out, for any corresponding paperwork, deserving special treatment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurly you jest again. I am sure if you actually read much real science you would already have seen some of my work, but I am not a scientist. I do graphics work for a living and work with more real scientists then you have ever met. I don't get my talking points from talk radio or corporate advertisement agencies like you and some these other confused posters. I actually have to do serious research to get paid. I'm sure not going to risk my sanity by using a real name on any online blog site. I do however feel that my contributions may benefit some of the readers, but I already know the score with the right wing crowd.
You can't turn a crab apple into a red delicious.
Science has no wing and I have worked with REAL SCIENTIST FOR 60 years - Solid State Physicists, Nuclear Physicists, Chemists, Mathematicians, Engineers of all varieties, NASA employees, Most space programs from 1965 to 2002. So I know science and I know pseudo science for money as I have had both work for me over the years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModeling was so wrong that the first rockets fired at the moon missed because the models forgot that light bends when exposed to gravity - the moon was simply not where we saw it to be.
Enjoy you name calling and trying to pigeon holing people - more are out there that know bad science is bad for humanity.
Actually conservatives love science simply because of the scientific method. You've heard of the scientific method haven't you? It is the principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. Notice that the hypothesis is validated in order for the theory to be true. Liberals on the other hand tend to stop at the theory stage, ignoring the evidence to the contrary and resorting to shrill name calling when someone disagrees with them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis computer "model" is nothing more than a computer simulation, based on no empirical data and with no validation steps. There is no science here at all. It is a good exercise for entertainment purposes, but not suited for anything else.
Like politicians saying that government created X amount of economic growth by taxing and spending - it is the new regulations huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The whole purpose of mathematics is to enable man to predict the outcome of action and reaction or cause and effect." Actually, the real purpose of mathematics is to enable mankind to understand the universe around us, which is totally based upon mathematical formula.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You sound as if you really believe these scientists are purposely creating false data to fool people.." Just because something is published in a science magazine doesn't mean it was written by a scientist. And oh by the way, people have been known to lie in order to advance themselves or their agenda.
"I suppose you think even evolution is just another one of those tuned arguments, and your alternative is that man was created from a bit of mud and God's spit." Actually, aside from written human history, there is more scientific evidence that mankind and the whole of the universe are the product of intelligent design rather than a series of random accidents. Darwin's theory of evolution is embraced by liberals, because it takes God out of the picture and the required morality that goes with it. If there is no God, then we do not have any God-given Rights, only privileges that the government can easily rescind. Be very careful where you tread some roads are only one way.
I never enter into the world of creation as no one knows. Chaos theory can not explain the organization of the Universe. The human is an intelligent animal however even Einstein and the current crop of super Physicists and mathematicians have problems with particle theory and the idea of dimensions. Infinity is very difficult a concept to explain of even comprehend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe there is no God particle as they now think they have found???
Roaches, mosquitoes, sharks and crocs are safe!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI went to a private high school run by Capuchin Monks and they taught evolution. It was their concern that science would be dealt a bad hand without teaching the facts first. They also believed that evolution was the hand of God too. There is no contradiction if you understand that concept. The Capuchin order is very much like the Jesuit Order. They are educated men who know the value of a good science education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt saddens me quite a lot to be Brazilian at times like these. No matter what science has to say, our people simply can't see the facts, let alone our government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you were to take a 1903 model A Ford and place it in an empty parking lot and park next to it the subsequent year’s production and so on until you had a complete line of the Ford production from beginning to end. Upon examination and without knowing the genesis and nature of the vehicles, some weak minded "scientists" might immediately theorize that the latest model was a product of "evolution." We of course know that intelligent design was at work not random events or survival of the fittest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not important that this model is correct or not !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point is many living beings (animals, plants & etc.) have lost their lives and still some more loosing their live because of unkind & self-centered culture developed in the present society resulting in human encroachments in their natural habitats since their existence.
This human encroachments is not for well being of humans but it is to rule the economy, to win the power.
We will have to take up the responsibility for this and change our approach towards living. Just one corrective step by each of us will give healthy and beautiful natural habitat to millions of species and generations of human.
Please ... do something ... or stop doing something !
All species encroach on other species territory that is how successful species evolve. Recessive life forms will cease to exist as other will fill there position in the food chain of that particular system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere needs to be more stringent conservation efforts. A good amount of each country should be set apart as areas where no human developments can occur. Something like the national parks in St.John. Will this happen? Probably not. As the article says, people need to be more aware of the long term implications of deforestation.
"We of course know that intelligent design was at work not random events or survival of the fittest."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's hilarious. Aside from the fact that you are comparing apples with oranges, you have now drawn the conclusion that the invention of the automobile was a product of 'intelligent design'.
Well, have fun in your fantasy world, but in the end history will be the judge of that.
Yes I agree - now let us tear down 50% of NYC, SF, St. Paul, Dallas, San Diego, Los Angles, Phoenix, Minneapolis, and Chicago - we can then return half or all over populated encroaching spices areas to open space where people can not go, Oh yes all the roads and services must be removed so the area is pristine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen are all of the E=GREEN groups going to ask the Sierra club to do these things on the entire east coast and the great lakes areas.Maybe you could get all the many groups to sue the cities until they are forced to comply - the ACLU will help because the Government pays the legal fees.
My bet is you do not like the idea much huh?
You have proven a long held theory - chaos logic exists in the mind of the environmentalist - in fact it exists there in a 100% form - intertwined circles to infinity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this