Sentences with phrase «rate of species»

Scientists have identified a «background rate» of species extinctions from the fossil record, which allows for a comparison to the current extinction rate, thus allowing us to assess the human impact on the rate of species loss.

he really ought to take a look at tThe Earth In The Balance — all the 29th century editions feature a rate of species extinction graph ending in the Mother Of All Hockey Stick blades, ramping vertical to infinity in the year 2000.

# 61: he really ought to take a look at tThe Earth In The Balance — all the 29th century editions feature a rate of species extinction graph ending in the Mother Of All Hockey Stick blades

he really ought to take a look at The Earth In The Balance — all the 29th century editions feature a rate of species extinction graph ending in the Mother Of All Hockey Stick blades, ramping vertical to infinity in the year 2000.

Wikipaedia says «the rate of species extinctions [not just animal species] at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times «background» or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth» and cites J.H.Lawton and R.M.May, Extinction rates, OUP.

New databases show that there are more taxonomists describing species than ever before, and their number is increasing faster than the rate of species description.

The unprecedented rapid change could accelerate the already high rate of species extinction as plants and animals fail to adapt quickly enough.

oceanic phytoplankton, a very high rate of species extinction, and severe damage to entire bioregional ecosystems (eg.

With a realistic current extinction rate of less than 1 per cent of species per decade and a discovery rate of something like 3 per cent a decade, the authors conclude: «the rate of species description greatly outpaces extinction rates».

If the current rate of species loss continues, people will lose several biodiversity benefits within three generations.

They compared the modern rate of species loss to the natural rates of species extinction before human activities dominated Earth, and found that people are actively participating in «a global spasm of biodiversity loss.»

Proponents of moving plants and animals threatened by rising temperatures to more hospitable locations are more concerned about the increasing rate of species extinction, while opponents are more worried about the integrity of coevolved ecosystems.

When global climate cooled, areas experiencing what are today considered tropical conditions shrank back toward the equator, and the net rate of species appearance (the number of new species that evolved minus the number that went extinct) increased.

The unprecedented rapid change could accelerate the already high rate of species extinction as plants and animals fail to adapt quickly enough.

Since Wilson's 1993 discussion of the rate of species extinction (the penultimate chapter), a debate has been raging over whether we should be worried by the rate of rainforest destruction.

And the worse news is that the world's countries have not lived up to their pledge under the Convention on Biological Diversity to reduce the rate of species loss by 2010.

Then, based on the numbers of species known in each of these groups today, the researchers were able to calculate the rate of species diversification in each and test the many putative causes of the explosion in orchid species.

The sturgeon finding is just one result in a wide - ranging study of the rates of species formation and anatomical change in fish.

Paleontologists have long suspected that these observations reflect a fundamental coupling between the rates of species formation and anatomical change: groups of organisms that contain lots of species also seem to have greater amounts of anatomical variation, while groups with only a few species, such as the gar, lack much morphological variety.

They say the analysis provides the simplest expectation for the future distribution of marine biodiversity, showing recurring spatial patterns of high rates of species invasions coupled with local extinctions.

The paper's authors reviewed recent studies in conservation science, looking at rates of species extinction, distribution and protection to determine where there were crucial gaps in knowledge, where threats to species are expanding and how best to tailor protection efforts to be successful.

The results of these effects are famine, the rise of 19th century pestilent diseases in underdeveloped countries, and rates of species extinction comparable with astronomic events of millions of years past.

This can be proved empirically, compared to the historical record and even early 20th century rates of species loss.

Emission rates of all species present in the inventory, including NOx, are kept constant for each run, with the exception of SO2 / H2SO4, as described earlier.

Thanks to the Anthropocene, the world is now in the middle of «its sixth great extinction event, with rates of species loss growing rapidly for both terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

Across the world, species extinctions are at or above the highest rates of species extinction in the fossil record (high confidence; Barnosky et al., 2011).

«We are witnessing alarming rates of species extinction,» said iBOL Scientific Director Paul Hebert, «but efforts to reverse that trend are hampered by huge gaps in our knowledge about the distribution and diversity of life.

He greatly underestimates rates of species extinction, and denies that it matters that billions of people lack access to clean water.

Not exact matches

Furthermore, at the same time that we undermine our own future, we are threatening or destroying the habitats of other species at rates unparalleled in natural history.

If I state that the average lifespan of a species is 2 million years, and the average speciation rate is once every 1.5 million years, then each species can only evolve once in its lifespan, a chain of 1000 transitions will only have 1000 species and at most only two species will be alive at any time.

The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species.

Biblical literalism is a powerful force today; it tends to imprison people in attitudes that were suitable enough when science and technology were little dreamt of but which fail to illuminate a society in which, for instance, it is desirable, because of the effects of modern hygiene on death rates, for women to bear, on the average, perhaps a third as many infants as were appropriate two or three thousand or even two hundred years ago, a society in which war might mean something like the end of the species, or at least vastly closer to that than any war of the past could be.

Because it absorbs sunlight better, which is required for the processing of vitamin D. Genetic differences that are advantageous to the survival of the species have a higher rate of survival and reproduction, and over eons of time, through geographic isolation and genetic draft, new species arise from the old.

We are decimating the natural environment, drawing down the nonrenewable resources of the planet at an astonishing rate, thereby accelerating the erasure of entire ecosystems and the extinction of thousands of million - year - old species — all in a few decades.

Majority of species appeared in a very short geological time — The Cambrian explosion occurred 530 billion yrs ago, and the rate of evolution accelerated over 70 - 80 billion years (now I hope we understand that figure)!

In times of population stressors (lack of food, ecological challenges, etc.) the rate of males in a species born gay increases.

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says that a species must evolve at a certain rate.

In fact, we're endangering every OTHER species on earth because of our rapid rate of reproduction.

That is, because this reaction leads to net production of species X, and the rate of reaction increases as the concentration of X increases, this fourth step keeps getting faster and faster.

When many chemicals interact, the rate of production (or of destruction) of each molecular species is influenced by the concentrations of all the others, as well as by such environmental factors as temperature and whether or not the system is illuminated.

These models are also in contrast to variable speed evolution, which maintains that different species evolve at different rates, and that there is no reason to stress one rate of change over another»

Increasing the concentration of X, say, may speed production of molecule P, but, at the same time, it may retard production (or increase the rate of destruction) of species Y.

In the particular reaction sequence shown, the second and third reactions increase in rate as the concentration of species X increases, but these two reactions use X up, rather than producing it.

Species disappear at the rate of one hundred a day.

The impact of one loss or disturbance may not be visible until the rate of change and impact on diversity threatens the habitat of a particular species so much that their food source, shelter, health or safety disappears.

The basic varieties of the chinense species are as follows: (To put the heat scale in perspective, ratings of a jalapeño range from 3,000 to 8,000 Scoville Units.)

If it continues to increase at the same rate (hopefully it's unlikely), virtually all the remaining species of mammals will be gone in about 30 years.»

While there are a very small number of females in every mammal species unable to get pregnant, the United States has the highest infertility rate in the world among humans.

Many species will struggle to keep up with the rate of ecosystem change without continually evolving habitat conservation.

Climate change amplifies existing risks to our natural resources, and many species will struggle to keep up with the rate of ecosystem change without continually evolving habitat conservation.