Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Animal functional diversity started out poor, became richer over time; Thoughts
Topic Started: Mar 5 2015, 01:40 AM (751 Views)
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I was wondering, I wonder a lot, if more and more niches are filled over time. My idea was that it would. First, as time passes more mutations arise, more mutations, amongst other things, over more options [simplified]. Two, because a new species can create more niches. For example take the plants. It started with mosses, ferns and conifers and later the flowering plants [simplified]. The mosses, ferns, conifers and flowering plants are around today, and the flowering plants for example opened up niches for the insects. There are of course some plants that don't do well today such as the gingko with one species of its kind left - but I am talking of species diversity not specifically taxonomic diversity. And new species can outcompete and replace other species. But the biggest flaw is that there is a phenomenon called the mass-extinction.

But appearently it are these mass-extinctions that see the most increasing in diversity:

Quote:
 
The team has now found evidence of another trend in the history of life on Earth: the increase of ecological diversity over time.

"What's striking is that unlike body size, which exhibited gradual, long-term trends, there were big jumps in ecological diversity after mass extinction events," Payne said.

See:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150304075406.htm


Anyone have a theory why this happens? Obviously mass-extinctions remove a lot of niches, and so their is room to radiate into the new. But why overall increase? Or am I understanding this all wrong and is ecological diversity not about the number of niches and species?

Lastly:

Quote:
 
"Life may rally back from the current mass extinction," Payne said, "but that recovery will never be seen by humans."


How true is this? There are numerous cases of contemporary evolution, and the emergence of novel ecosystems, see this nature article as good example. Can we even compare a human induced mass-extinction to the ones that happened in the past? What I mean with that, is, that we destroy habitats, make species go extinct, change the climate, but do not necessary destroy the athmosphere. If I understand correctly the former mass-extinction had rapid athmospheric changes, and the climatic changes would occur more directly.

Thoughts? Theories? Any errors on my part?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Simply put, as time goes on, more niches become avalable. And as mass extinctions remove compedators, new contestants arrive and develop new ways of filling those niches, sometimes opening up sub niches.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Creeper
Member Avatar
Carboniferous Arthropod

The previous mass extinctions seem to be rapid in fossil records, most of them took place over thousands and even millions of years. The current, human induces mass extinction may be the most rapid on record. Lots of factors come into play when it comes to mass extinctions and they are all just theories, plant diversification can drastically change the environments oxygen levels making it difficult for certain species to continue to successfully propagate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
FelisRex
Mar 5 2015, 02:53 AM
The previous mass extinctions seem to be rapid in fossil records, most of them took place over thousands and even millions of years. The current, human induces mass extinction may be the most rapid on record. Lots of factors come into play when it comes to mass extinctions and they are all just theories, plant diversification can drastically change the environments oxygen levels making it difficult for certain species to continue to successfully propagate.
I've recently also read that animals do worse than plants when mass-extinction events happen, which makes sense considering the (large) herbivores are some of the first to go extinct.

I am aware that the current rate of extinction is higher than it is during those former events. But our impact isn't direct like the asteroid, but instead a fast growing one.

By putting more CO2 in the air, will there eventually be more oxygen in the air again? That could be interesting (not for us really). Another study stated that insects weren't getting bigger because of birds - so giant arthropods are out of the question!
Edited by Mesopredator, Mar 5 2015, 03:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Creeper
Member Avatar
Carboniferous Arthropod

I think you mean arthropods? CO2 levels have gone up a bit during the Holocene. I wonder about methane though, are domestic species producing more atmospheric methane than the Pleistocene mega fauna did? What kind of long term effects would be expected.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
FelisRex
Mar 5 2015, 03:46 AM
I think you mean arthropods? CO2 levels have gone up a bit during the Holocene. I wonder about methane though, are domestic species producing more atmospheric methane than the Pleistocene mega fauna did? What kind of long term effects would be expected.
That was a funny mistake.

That is another impact by us. I have no idea what the long term effects are. Other impacts by us are the amount of microplastics in the environment and the acidification of the oceans. And I haven't even started on pollution, which might include nano-bots at one point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceph
Member Avatar
Piscivore

Did it say anthropods? Cause I am in favor of giant anthropods, just for the record.
Edited by Ceph, Mar 5 2015, 04:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cephalopithecus
Mar 5 2015, 04:01 AM
Did it say anthropods? Cause I am in favor of giant anthropods, just for the record.
Yes in the future we will have those. The merging of the Ipod with human.
Edited by Mesopredator, Mar 5 2015, 04:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply