Paleoecology readings for Wed Jan 28
I emailed the papers out, but if you need the reference info here it is:
Chris D. Thomas et al "Extinction risk from climate change" NATURE |VOL 427 | 8 JANUARY 2004
I chose this paper because it deals with the extinctions due to something more familiar to us, climate change.
* Did this paper change your perspective on the issue at all?
ANTHONY RICCIARDI AND JOSEPH B. RASMUSSEN "Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna" Conservation Biology, Pages 1220–1222 Volume 13, No. 5, October 1999
I chose this paper because it deals with a modern issue that we do not hear of very often; it is not the tropics.
* Do you think the issues threatening the freshwater systems are the same for terrestrial systems?
* Do you believe in the large difference of proposed extinction rates?
The abstract only for: Alroy "Constant extinction, constrained diversification, and uncoordinated stasis in North American mammals" Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology Vol. 127, no. 1-4, pp. 285-311. Dec 1996.
I chose this abstract because it looks across time, rather than focusing on one time frame.
* From the limited reading of this topic, do you believe in a state of stasis?
Here are some questions to think about from the book as well:
* What do you think the answer to the 2 main questions of the book are?
1) Why do so many species die out?
2) How did they die out?
* What did you take the title "Bad Gene or Bad Luck?" to mean before reading the chapter? And after? Is it the same for all species? At all times?
* With phyletic transformation/speciation, when do you consider the original species "extinct" and how do you know the split occured?
Why do you think such little attention is given to extinction vs speciation?
* Do you agree with McLaren that the emphasis should switch from species to individuals?
* If there was no extinction, do you think 5 to 50 billion species would currently exists? What type of diversity would there be?
Chris D. Thomas et al "Extinction risk from climate change" NATURE |VOL 427 | 8 JANUARY 2004
I chose this paper because it deals with the extinctions due to something more familiar to us, climate change.
* Did this paper change your perspective on the issue at all?
ANTHONY RICCIARDI AND JOSEPH B. RASMUSSEN "Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna" Conservation Biology, Pages 1220–1222 Volume 13, No. 5, October 1999
I chose this paper because it deals with a modern issue that we do not hear of very often; it is not the tropics.
* Do you think the issues threatening the freshwater systems are the same for terrestrial systems?
* Do you believe in the large difference of proposed extinction rates?
The abstract only for: Alroy "Constant extinction, constrained diversification, and uncoordinated stasis in North American mammals" Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology Vol. 127, no. 1-4, pp. 285-311. Dec 1996.
I chose this abstract because it looks across time, rather than focusing on one time frame.
* From the limited reading of this topic, do you believe in a state of stasis?
Here are some questions to think about from the book as well:
* What do you think the answer to the 2 main questions of the book are?
1) Why do so many species die out?
2) How did they die out?
* What did you take the title "Bad Gene or Bad Luck?" to mean before reading the chapter? And after? Is it the same for all species? At all times?
* With phyletic transformation/speciation, when do you consider the original species "extinct" and how do you know the split occured?
Why do you think such little attention is given to extinction vs speciation?
* Do you agree with McLaren that the emphasis should switch from species to individuals?
* If there was no extinction, do you think 5 to 50 billion species would currently exists? What type of diversity would there be?
Feel free to start commenting and blogging about the papers/chapter now. Otherwise, see you in class on Wed.
~ Yadéeh
Do you think there is still as little study of extinction today as Raup claims there was in 1991? We have a much better idea of why some extinctions occurred: the K-T extinction, for example, is very well studied, and nearly all scientists agree that it was caused, in one way or another, by the impact of a meteorite with Earth. Have we learned more fundamental truths about extinction since this book was written?
ReplyDeleteI just finished all the readings, and I have a couple thoughts. First of all, in the book, in reference to the bad genes versus bad luck debate, I would have to argue that it is probably a combination. Species probably slowly, and gradually become extinct as a result of natural selection (bad genes), but in a wider, less selective way from an outside catastrophe (bad luck). Also, on a different thread, the climate change article was very frightening. This is because now extinction rates are becoming measurable and predictable from a catastrophe of our own construction. A question I propose here is whether this has been modeled for other species in different biomes than the three they experimented with, and if the model would still apply. I guess that's it for now. See you all tomorrow!
ReplyDelete