Conservationists are reluctantly experimenting with three forms of triage to help them decide which species to try to save or not save. Each method has different priorities: "Function first" favors species that perform a unique job in nature. "Evolution first" seeks to preserve genetic diversity. "Hot spots" prefers ecosystems rich in species.

So which animals and plants would flourish or perish in each of the schemes?

See this slide show to find out
 

8 Comments

1. 1. WRQ9 01:03 PM 7/23/12

   It's a little like they say it is to die on the operating table, part of you lying there while your consciousness hovers above it. To take serious enough action on global warming to make a change would mean violence in several regions. Without the guarantee of success, such action is hard to endorse.
   The important thing is not to be wasteful. Make the best use of what is available, and preserve what can surely be done. Fragility has never been an evolutionary keynote, although many wonderful things fit this category. Level headed, open minded pragmatism is better than emotional gushing in any crisis. Life forms naturally constantly push the limits of survivability but at some point, entropy trumps everything.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Leroy 01:30 PM 7/23/12

   "To take serious enough action on global warming to make a change would mean violence in several regions."
   
   One could just as easily argue that to not take action will mean even more violence... but generally I agree that we should be pragmatic and focus on initiatives that are both politically and ecologically sustainable.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Wuzawuza 03:21 PM 7/23/12

   A few years ago I read (somewhere - forget where) that the worst ecological destruction in an area/country occurs after economic collapse, and the second worst occurs in regions of systemic large scale poverty. With that in mind, the current economic situation in the west does not bode well for the environment - a strong "middle class" should be the number one mandate of those of us who want a cleaner & healthier world.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. tempedan 04:41 PM 7/23/12

   I am not a researcher, and I have no knowledge of research that supports this, but I wonder if there is a correlation between a population's migration out of poverty and that same population's increasing disregard for the environment in which it exists.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. nuria 08:04 AM 7/24/12

   .

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Steve3 in reply to Wuzawuza 05:34 PM 8/1/12

   It's a "strong middle class" that consumes most. Using up resources and creating the GHG that's heating up the planet.
   Right now in the US,Europe and rich Asia less consumption equals less production results in less environmental damage.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. FelineFamily 01:28 PM 8/8/12

   I know of one useless, superfluous, destructive, harmful species the extinction of which would benefit the planet incalculably and the absence of which would not be missed, much less mourned.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. hotfrog 02:35 PM 8/10/12

   Mchelle Nijhuis’ article on species triage was well written and covered all the angles but in the end it is about capitulation. In not too many years the species that we choose to save this round will again face triage, and then again and again. Battles will be won but the war will be lost.
   
   This is inevitable unless scientists and everyone else get over wishful thinking and step forward to tackle the root of the problem and that is a burgeoning world population of people who all strive to live like 20th century Americans. And they strive in the face of ever declining resources. The hope for practices that lead to sustainable growth is an equally hopeless notion and for the same reasons.
   
   Even now, everything we see around us, from I-pads, to Cadillacs, to copper tubing, to Idaho potatoes, is propped up by cheap petroleum. No alternate form of energy will be as economic as oil pumped from the ground. We will have decimated this natural gift within a mere two centuries.
   
   There is already far too many people on earth; they are largely uneducated, and most live at the edge of survival. Their quest for food and shelter leaves them little time or energy to ponder the environmental consequences of their lives. Prosperous and educated people who should know better are worse. They are in denial. They consume far more food and resources than are needed for comfortable living.
   
   Meanwhile politicians continue to argue for an expanding population knowing full well that more humans to care for means an apparent growing economy, making them look good in the polling booth. Religious leaders are more damaging, shaming women for family planning of any kind. The unspoken reason: a growing supply of parishioners assures that the coffers of their vocation are always full and their authority is always assured. It seems like the most dominant religion is shortsightedness.
   
   Am I a pessimist? I sure am and with solid evidence. After all we still have plenty of people on this earth who believe thatl their ills can be cured with ground rhinoceros horn.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this