In an article by TIME, author Justin Worland writes about a recent study published in Nature about minimizing negative effects on ecosystems through biodiversity. Justin makes a very intelligent comment that more action is needed in response to climate change than creating regulations that will not have a significant impact until years down the road. Rather than just changing human behavior, he argues, there needs to be movements to resist climate change in the present.Justin makes an educated summary of the Nature publication giving a brief synopsis of the study and a factual conclusion. In summary, 46 experiments across the northern hemisphere that manipulated grassland plant diversity were measured for productivity after quantified "climate extremes." The study found that productivity from communities with little diversity changed 50% from climate extremes and high diversity communities changed roughly 25% from climate extremes. Justin also stayed true to the original publication and admitted that biodiversity only affected the resistance to climate events and not the overall resilience of the community to recover after the event.
Justin Worland then went on to write about forests absorbing carbon emissions and how adding biodiversity to forests in addition to reversing deforestation trends might allow for absorbing more global carbon emissions. While this conclusion wasn't mentioned in the original Nature publication, the author, Justin, did cite two other studies to verify his own conclusion. Overall, his conclusion seemed based in logic and was not over the top.
Overall, the Time article was very factually accurate and was not oversold. It did a good job connecting multiple studies as well. The peer-reviewed article lived up to the reputation of Nature and was excellent in all aspects. I think this was an interesting concept to consider in regards to climate change. It was also interesting that biodiversity helped ecosystems resist climate change but had no effect on the ability of the ecosystem to rebound after. Both high diversity and low diversity ecosystems were able to make full recoveries after large climate events; perhaps an argument that the Earth is capable of healing itself with time.
Links:
http://time.com/4070683/nature-climate-change/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nature15374.pdf
I found it somewhat odd that the Time author focused very much on forests even though the Nature study was conducted only on grassland ecosystems. Few would argue against forests being important to climate change, but the Time author failed to bridge the gap between this knowledge and the information in the Nature article. The Nature authors were not able to give a definitive mechanism of the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem resilience against climate effects.
ReplyDeleteI think Worland emphasized the role of forests in particular because of how big their role is, and how it is changing. As mentioned, they can absorb “one-sixth of carbon dioxide released by fossil fuel emissions” and in addition, forests are decreasing due to deforestation. They have a substantial role in greenhouse gas absorption, and since deforestation is going to continually decrease the amount of forests, that means there will be a decrease in places, in locations where a bulk of global carbon dioxide is absorbed. Forests are marked by what they are doing now, and what will happen to them in the future, whether deforestation continues, or will be reversed.
DeleteI agree that it was odd the Time author focused on forests but I think he did so for two reasons. The first reason was well outlined by Jessica and the second reason because he was trying to tie the Nature paper to a second paper published in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/988.short). Of course, it is true that grasslands and forests are completely different and not necessarily comparable in this regard. Good point
DeleteI think the points brought up in both the journal article and the TIME piece made for an interesting read. The idea that supporting the natural, biological functions of ecosystems as a way to repair our changing climate seems very logical, after all, nature knows best! This idea has also been employed in the medical environment, for example, premature infants are housed in dimly lit, white noise environments (similar to the womb) to focus their energies on continued development. By supporting ecosystems and their respective diversities to re-develop and flourish, the plant life can continue to effective do their jobs to counteract the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. That being said, it's still very important to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels as best we can in the meantime!
ReplyDeleteThat is a really interesting comparison! Very cool
DeleteThe time's article is good read, it touches upon many ideas that are going on within anthropogenic standpoints of we are making the environment better but we also need the biodiversity standpoint as well. The statement about "enacting regulations to alter human behavior" is very broad. What does he mean alter human behavior? It is broad in the sense that it could drastically effect a state or even a whole area.
ReplyDeleteI think it is talking about the regulations put upon carbon emissions and the negative repercussions for businesses if they don't act within those regulations. Our current behavior is high polluting without regard to consequence and the regulation is trying to alter our behavior and mindset to conscientiousness of future repercussions.
DeleteI thought both the Time article and the study were very well done. WIthin the Time article, I think there was even an opportunity to explain the merits of biodiversity with animal life as well as with plant life. There have been fascinating studies with whales that show the small role they play in combatting climate change; their fecal plumes provide nutrients for the proliferation of phytoplankton, which then absorb CO2.
ReplyDeleteThat is really interesting! It would be interesting to do a study across ecosystems other than grasslands (such as forests or marine) to see their respective resistance and resilience to climate change.
DeleteVery interesting article! It does seem intuitive that greater biodiversity would allow a community to be more resistant to climate impacts - like a diverse portfolio is recommended to deal with ups and downs in the stock market. I do wonder how the message of the article could be applied. Currently, decreased biodiversity is the observed trend in many ecosystems, and this is something that is very difficult to reverse. Other ecological issues come into play- if we are to "restore" biodiversity, to what point? These systems have been constantly changing over time, and will continue to change to adapt to a changing climate.
ReplyDeleteI found this article interesting as well. It is unfortunate that the weather was the main factor in recovery, as it is not something we can immediately change. It would have been nice for the article to elaborate this point.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be very eye opening regarding the effect of biodiversity on ecosystems and their response to extreme climate. I was especially interested in the claim that if we decreased deforestation then we could rebuild the forests, which would then absorb a lot more CO2 than before. An increase of about 19% according to the time article.
ReplyDeleteGarrett, the TIME article was a super interesting read and appears to have done the Nature article valid justice. I found it interesting that it only seemed to show positive results in "an ecosystem’s resistance to the immediate effects of climate events and not necessarily to its ability to bounce back following an event," which seems to have large implications. I also found it interesting that the Nature article noted that biodiversity actually decreased resistance after wet events (not included in the article).
ReplyDelete