Slashdot Mirror


Empty Landscape Looms, If Large Herbivores Continue to Die Out

From the BBC comes this depressing excerpt: Populations of some of the world's largest wild animals are dwindling, raising the threat of an "empty landscape", say scientists. About 60% of giant herbivores - plant-eaters - including rhinos, elephants and gorillas, are at risk of extinction, according to research. Analysis of 74 herbivore species, published in Science Advances, blamed poaching and habitat loss. A previous study of large carnivores showed similar declines. Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University, led the research looking at herbivores weighing over 100kg, from the reindeer up to the African elephant. "This is the first time anyone has analysed all of these species as a whole," he said. "The process of declining animals is causing an empty landscape in the forest, savannah, grasslands and desert." Here's the study, published in Science Advances, on which the BBC article is based.

16 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Herbivores dying out? Not cows I hope! by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm going to have a nice steak, while they're still available. I hadn't heard how badly Herbivores are doing.

    Good thing whale populations are rebounding. It would suck not to be able to get a nice steak.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Herbivores dying out? Not cows I hope! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A guy lecturing others on maturity when he starts off with the term "libtard". My irony meter just exploded.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Herbivores dying out? Not cows I hope! by dasunt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Though they never explain how every planet in our solar system is warming if it is humans who are causing climate change

      Credible citation needed. This claims otherwise:

      The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming and in fact, warming throughout the solar system. There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).

      Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

  2. Empty landscape my arse by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will be inevitably filled with humans... ...at least until we destroy ourselves...

    1. Re:Empty landscape my arse by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's what happened here.

      What was the largest large mammal, that existed in high population densities, in most of the landmass of the lower 48 in 1850?

      Probably the Buffalo. There were others of course -- we had a presence everywhere, and high population density East of the Mississippi, there was a scattering of bears and other large carnivores, there are some pretty big herbivores as well -- but the one you'd have to mention is the Buffalo. Now there's very few Buffalo, and very very very many Home Sapiens.

      Same with most of the other large mammals. In Ohio or Michigan it's very unusual to see anything larger then a white-tail deer (lighter then us, averaging 100 lb.). Yeah you can find animals like Black Bears, or Moose, or Elk; but you really have to go looking for the damn things. Even in more rural/wild areas if you're just going down the highway the largest mammal you're likely to see is a fat guy whose having car trouble. The Ecosystem only has room for so many large mammals, and we crowd them out.

      Now what's the one region of the world where large herds of wild mammals (who are bigger then us) roam free? Africa, particularly Central and Southern Africa. What's the continent with both very low population density (Congo, for example, has a population comparable to Germany and land area comparable to Western Europe, it's northern neighbor has a population comparable to a third of the Paris Metro area and more land then all of France), and extreme population growth? Africa.

      So it's quite predictable that the Rhinos, Elephants, and Lions are under pressure. The people who live in Africa need the land for agriculture, and there's no cheap way to solve the problem of feeding said African people except destroying the ecosystem that supports those animals.

    2. Re:Empty landscape my arse by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      if you're just going down the highway the largest mammal you're likely to see is a fat guy whose having car trouble

      And you didn't stop to help me, insensitive skinny clod!

  3. humans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're smart enough to kill off everything else, but we're not smart enough not to.

  4. human overpopulation by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The sad truth that no one will ever talk about is that there are way to many humans on the earth to ensure the rest of the animals are not brought to extinction. we need to cut the human population in half in the next 100 years (by breeding less, not killing people off) if we really want to sustain the earth

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:human overpopulation by Hartree · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "no one will ever talk about is that there are way to many humans on the earth"

      You just proved yourself wrong. ;)

      Seriously, that gets brought up regularly. The problems start when you start considering "who" we need fewer of. People have a tendency to assume there will be fewer of the "other" people, but we'll keep the population of "good people like me".

      You can insert race, creed, political persuasion, amount of privilege as needed to fit the particular speaker.

    2. Re:human overpopulation by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keep in mind the problem species mentioned are mostly native to Africa, and it's problematic in more ways than one. Africa is the world's poorest and least developed continent, and that leads to two problems: First, their birth rate is skill sky high, unlike nearly every first-world country where populations are now largely stable or even falling. Second, the poverty and unstable political climate means there's a lot of poaching going on. Third, when you're dirt poor, you're a little less likely to worry about "big picture" issues like species viability, and more likely to do what you can to simply survive and put food on the table.

      Essentially, we need Africa to become more economically developed as soon as possible, and when that happens, it's almost certain that they'll follow the same trends that we've seen in happen in other developed countries: stabilizing populations and more serious efforts to protect their natural resources and environment. Unfortunately, we can only encourage these countries to protect their natural assets, but there's really nothing we can do short of that. We just have to hope that the populations don't become nonviable before that happens.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:human overpopulation by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, that gets brought up regularly. The problems start when you start considering "who" we need fewer of. People have a tendency to assume there will be fewer of the "other" people, but we'll keep the population of "good people like me".

      Let's not pretend this is the only problem with lowering the global population. Let's also not pretend that any time a problem is not easily solved we should just give up on trying to solve it.

      It will be very hard to limit population growth, but without some major breakthroughs in science we may not have any choice. Most likely the people on the short end of the stick will be the ones with the least wealth, just like everything else in life.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  5. Large herbivores were doomed from the start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This has been going on for tens of thousands of years, so while it matters, it isn't news.

    Large size makes animals evolutionarily fragile and is often a dead end.
    They say, during the K-T event, no land animal larger than a cat survived.

    1. Re:Large herbivores were doomed from the start by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Err... really? Sixty million American Bison disappeared from the Great Plains because they were big? Then why did the passenger pigeon over the same period go from the most numerous bird in the world to extinct? It's true that the largest baleen whale -- the Blue Whale, is listed as "threatened"; but the smallest baleen whale, the pygmy right whale is either extinct or very close to it.

      It's not as simple as big == headed for extinction. Sometimes bigness is a factor in extinction, sometimes it's a factor in survival.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Barren Landscapes. Related. Depressing. by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Copypasta from FARK. Slightly cleaned up for formatting.

    Rik01 4 hours ago
    Folks have heard me biatch about changes in my own city in the State of Florida -- and changes in the State itself. Basically the response has been (1) progress old man, (2) change the onion on your belt, (3) yelling at clouds, (4) who cares -- it's Floraduh!

    However, these changes have been going on in other states.

    I've watched politicians promise Eco-improvements with one hand and sell the voters down the river with the other. [For example] We had a massive oyster bed in the Indian River placed off limits to the public for preservation and ecological reasons for close to 20 years. That thing had huge oysters in it and the water in its cove was nearly crystal clear. The local police arrested scores of people sneaking down there to poach oysters and the shores were dotted with piles of empty shells. The cove was absolutely packed with the things, no river bottom exposed. Then, during the Housing Boom, an upscale development went it around it. Since the cove was too shallow for wealthy owners to park their boats at the planned docks behind the cove-side homes, it was dredged. No warning to anyone who wanted to get these delicious oysters. Dredges came in, ripped thousands of them out and disposed of them. The cove is now full of dark water and few oysters, making a lot of folks like myself wonder why we preserved them.

    Water use in the state has quadrupled. Florida used to be very swampy, but the water table was shallow. Now, after sucking so much out and changing the lay of the land, plus paving over every square inch they could, we're the capitol of the US when it comes to sink holes. Water shortages began to pop up years ago, where before, we never had any.

    Millions of acres of wild woods have been developed, endangering a host of native species of animals we used to have and the amount of fish in the rivers has diminished to the point that you need a license and a fishing season for Mullet -- once so plentiful that it was considered 'garbage fish' and caught mainly for bait. Within the last 40 years, the Indian River has to be closed to shellfish harvesting and fishing periodically during the summer because of massive human fecal bacteria contamination.

    The previously crystal clear air of my seaside town now shows signs of grey pollution. They stopped dump burning ages ago, along with burning huge piles of used tires. Land clearing agencies have to use these massive air blowers that surround burn pits to burn stumps and brush with, creating a hotter, less smoke making fires. However, the local traffic, even with more eco-friendly cars, has quadrupled and quadrupled again. Their lesser pollution has, by the sheer weight of volume, has surpassed that which was present in times of less pollution control, when you used to have 'smokers' rolling down the roads.

    Major advertising campaigns have convinced the public that instead of one or two cars per family, everyone except the dog needs one, plus a couple of ATVs, a boat and a couple of those fast, small watercraft good for nothing except going fast on the water and making a lot of noise. Prior to that, dirt bikes were the thing, tearing up thousands of acres of wild woods and chasing out local animals for fun. To round things out for the macho man, we have air boats, running on aircraft engines, no mufflers, tearing up the diminishing acres of wild swamps and annoying the crap out of neighbors when the owners 'test' them in their yards.

    We have fewer forest fires than when I was a kid, thanks to sophisticated fire equipment -- but then again, the acres of undeveloped woods has fallen by 3/4, so there's less to burn. Where lightening would hit decades old pine trees and forest floors thick with dry pine needles, it hits houses, paved streets, power poles and grassy lawns.

    My yard has an 'old growth' pine in it. Around 60 feet tall and nearly three feet around. It was 6 feet tall when we moved in around 1958. Across the street used to be a

  7. Obligatory XKCD by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  8. Easy solution: privatize them by paulpach · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In 1900 there were only 20 white rhinos left; in 2010, there were 20,000.

    So what happened? we privatized them.
    In fact take any animal that can be bought: chickens, horses, cows, etc..., and none of them are in any danger of extinction.

    Why this works? Well, suppose I owned those 20 white rhinos. Simple supply and demand would make them worth a fortune. I would have a very strong incentive to try to get 21, so I would make everything I could to make them reproduce. Eventually I would have enough rhinos that I will start selling some for profit and continue reproducing them. The people that buy them would also have a strong incentive to reproduce them. As supply continues to increase, the value of an individual rhino will fall. At that point, the animal is safe from extinction, and it may become more profitable to sell them to hunters for example.

    Simple market forces would make us breed them when there are too little, and hunt them when there are two many, keeping a sustainable population.