Why Is Biodiversity

Important? Who
Cares?
Author and Page information
 by Anup Shah
 This Page Last Updated Sunday, January 19, 2014

At least 40 per cent of the world’s economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are
derived from biological resources. In addition, the richer the diversity of life, the greater
the opportunity for medical discoveries, economic development, and adaptive responses to
such new challenges as climate change.

The Convention about Life on Earth, Convention on Biodiversity web site.

On this page:
1. What is Biodiversity?
2. Why is Biodiversity Important?
3. A healthy biodiversity offers many natural services
4. Species depend on each other
1. Soil, bacteria, plants; the Nitrogen Cycle
2. Bees: crucial agricultural workers
3. Interdependent marine ecosystem
4. Large carnivores essential for healthy ecosystems
5. Interdependency vs Human Intervention
5. Biodiversity providing lessons for scientists in engineering
6. More important than human use or biological interest
7. Putting an economic value on biodiversity
8. More information

What is Biodiversity?
 The variety of life on Earth, its biological diversity is
commonly referred to as biodiversity.

The number of species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, the enormous diversity of
genes in these species, the different ecosystems on the planet, such as deserts, rainforests
and coral reefs are all part of a biologically diverse Earth.

Appropriate conservation and sustainable development strategies attempt to recognize this

as being integral to any approach to preserving biodiversity. Almost all cultures have their
roots in our biological diversity in some way or form.

Declining biodiversity is therefore a concern for many reasons.

Back to top

Why is Biodiversity Important?

Biodiversity boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all
have an important role to play.

For example,

 A larger number of plant species means a greater variety of crops

 Greater species diversity ensures natural sustainability for all life forms
 Healthy ecosystems can better withstand and recover from a variety of disasters.

And so, while we dominate this planet, we still need to preserve the diversity in wildlife.

Back to top

A healthy biodiversity offers many

natural services
 Ecosystems
such as the Amazon rainforest are rich in diversity. Deforestation threatens many species
such as the giant leaf frog, shown here.(Images source: Wikipedia)

A healthy biodiversity provides a number of natural services for everyone:

 Ecosystem services, such as

o Protection of water resources
o Soils formation and protection
o Nutrient storage and recycling
o Pollution breakdown and absorption
o Contribution to climate stability
o Maintenance of ecosystems
o Recovery from unpredictable events
 Biological resources, such as
o Food
o Medicinal resources and pharmaceutical drugs
o Wood products
o Ornamental plants
o Breeding stocks, population reservoirs
o Future resources
o Diversity in genes, species and ecosystems
 Social benefits, such as
o Research, education and monitoring
o Recreation and tourism
o Cultural values

That is quite a lot of services we get for free!

The cost of replacing these (if possible) would be extremely expensive. It therefore makes
economic and development sense to move towards sustainability.

A report from Nature magazine also explains that genetic diversity helps to prevent the
chances of extinction in the wild (and claims to have shown proof of this).
To prevent the well known and well documented problems of genetic defects caused by in-
breeding, species need a variety of genes to ensure successful survival. Without this, the
chances of extinction increases.

And as we start destroying, reducing and isolating habitats, the chances for interaction
from species with a large gene pool decreases. Side Note»

Back to top

Species depend on each other

While there might be survival of the fittest within a given species, each species depends on
the services provided by other species to ensure survival. It is a type of cooperation based
on mutual survival and is often what a balanced ecosystem refers to.

Soil, bacteria, plants; the Nitrogen Cycle

The relationship between soil, plants, bacteria and other life is also referred to as the
nitrogen cycle:

(Image
source: Wikipedia)
As an example, consider all the species of animals and organisms involved in a simple field
used in agriculture. As summarized from Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest (South End Press,
2000), pp 61–62:

 Crop byproducts feed cattle

 Cattle waste feeds the soil that nourish the crops
 Crops, as well as yielding grain also yield straw
o Straw provides organic matter and fodder
o Crops are therefore food sources for humans and animals
 Soil organisms also benefit from crops
o Bacteria feed on the cellulose fibers of straw that farmers return to the soil
o Amoebas feed on bacteria making lignite fibers available for uptake by
plants
o Algae provide organic matter and serve as natural nitrogen fixers
o Rodents that bore under the fields aerate the soil and improve its water-
holding capacity
o Spiders, centipedes and insects grind organic matter from the surface soil
and leave behind enriched droppings.
o Earthworms contribute to soil fertility
 They provide aerage, drainage and maintain soil structure.
 According to Charles Darwin, It may be doubted whether there are
many other animals which have played so important a part in the
history of creatures.
 The earthworm is like a natural tractor, fertilizer factory and dam,
combined!
 Industrial-farming techniques would deprive these diverse species of food sources
and instead assault them with chemicals, destroying the rich biodiversity in the soil
and with it the basis for the renewal of the soil fertility.

Shiva, a prominent Indian scientist and activist goes on to detail the costs associated with
destroying this natural diversity and traditional farming techniques which recognize this,
and replacing this with industrial processes which go against the nature of diversity
sustainability.

Bees: crucial agricultural workers

Bees are crucial for agriculture.(Images source: Wikipedia)

Bees provide enormous benefits for humankind as another example.

As reported by CNN (May 5, 2000), One third of all our food—fruits and vegetables—
would not exist without pollinators visiting flowers. But honeybees, the primary species
that fertilizes food-producing plants, have suffered dramatic declines in recent years,
mostly from afflictions introduced by humans.

As German bee expert Professor Joergen Tautz from Wurzburg University adds:

Bees are vital to bio diversity. There are 130,000 plants for example for which bees are
essential to pollination, from melons to pumpkins, raspberries and all kind of fruit trees —
as well as animal fodder — like clover.

Bees are more important than poultry in terms of human nutrition.

Joergen Tautz interviewed by Michael Leidig, Honey bees in US facing extinction, The
Telegraph, March 14, 2007

Researchers are finding reasons for the massive decline hard to pinpoint, but suspect a
combination of various diseases, environmental pollution, environmental degradation
(leading to less diversity for bees to feed from, for example) and farming practices (such as
pesticides, large monoculture cropping, etc).

The link and dependency between plants, bees, and human agriculture is so crucial, the two
scientists writing up years of research into the problem summarized with this warning:

Humankind needs to act quickly to ensure that the ancient pact between flowers and
pollinators stays intact, to safeguard our food supply and to protect our environment for
generations to come. These efforts will ensure that bees continue to provide pollination and
that our diets remain rich in the fruits and vegetables we now take for granted.

Diana Cox-Foster and Dennis va n Engelsdorp, Solving the Mystery of the Vanishing Bees,
Scientific American, April 2009
Interdependent marine ecosystem
Whaling is often controversial. (Image source: © Greenpeace)

An example from the seas (originally mentioned here years ago but removed because the
link to the story no longer worked), was described by National Geographic Wild in a
program called, A Life Among Whales (broadcast June 14, 2008).

It noted how a few decades ago, some fishermen campaigned for killing whales because
they were threatening the fish supply and thus jobs.

A chain of events eventually came full circle and led to a loss of jobs:

 The massive reduction in the local whale population meant killer whales in the
region (usually preying on younger whales) moved to other animals such as seals;
 As seal numbers declined, the killer whales targeted otters;
 As otter numbers were decimated, the urchins and other targets of otters flourished;
 These decimated the kelp forests where many fish larvae grew in relative protection;
 The exposed fish larvae were easy pickings for a variety of sea life;
 Fishermen’s livelihoods were destroyed.

Large carnivores essential for healthy ecosystems

Three quarters of the world’s big carnivores are in decline. A study in the journal Science,
notes that these large animals — such as lions, leopards, wolves and bears — are in decline,
due to declining habitats and persecution by humans..

This also has a negative impact on the environment, perhaps partly formed by outdated-
views that predators are harmful for other wildlife. As the study notes, human actions
cannot fully replace the role of large carnivores because these large carnivores are an
intrinsic part of an ecosystem’s biodiversity.

As a simple example, the loss of a large carnivore may mean in the short term the
herbivores they prey on may increase in numbers but this can also result in a deterioration
of the environment as the herbivores can graze more, largely unchecked. Human
intervention to perform the same services would be more costly.

Interdependency vs Human Intervention

Nature can often be surprisingly resilient, often without the need for human interventions.
For example, a documentary aired on the BBC (I unfortunately forget the name and date,
but in the 1990s) described two national parks in Africa where elephant populations had
grown quite large within those artificial boundaries. The usual way to deal with this was to
cull the population to try and keep the ecosystem in balance. Without this, elephants were
stripping vegetation bare, affecting other animals, too.
 (Image source: Wikipedia)

A scientist pleaded with park management not to cull and let nature take its course. Being
against prevailing thought, they would not agree. In the end they agreed to let one park
have its elephants culled, while the other would be left alone.

A few years later, they found the park with the culled population had remained in poor
condition. The park where things were left alone has naturally regenerated; the large
elephant populations eventually reduced in number as they undermined their own resource
base. The natural pace at which this happened allowed vegetation to grow back. Other
wildlife grew in numbers and the ecosystem was generally back in balance.

Back to top

Biodiversity providing lessons for

scientists in engineering
For a number of years now, scientists have been looking more and more at nature to see
how various species work, produce, consume resources, trying to mimic the amazing feats
that millions of years of evolution has produced.

As just one small example, some spiders can produce their silk with a higher tensile
strength than many alloys of steeleven though it is made of proteins. So biologists are
looking at these processes in more depth to see if they can reproduce or enhance such
capabilities.

Back to top

More important than human use or

biological interest
Many people may support environmental causes to help preserve the beauty of Nature.
However, that is in a strange way, not really a justifiable excuse as it is a subjective, human
or anthropomorphasized view.

For many decades, various environmentalists, biologists and other scientists, have viewed
the entire earth as a massive living organism or system due to the interdependent nature of
all species within it. Some cultures have recognized this kind of inter-relationship for a very
long time. Some have termed this Gaia.

While there are disagreements and differences on how this works, it suggests that
ecological balance and biodiversity are crucial for all of earth, not just humans.

Back to top

Putting an economic value on biodiversity

It was noted earlier that ecosystems provide many services to us, for free.

Although some dislike the thought of trying to put an economic value on biodiversity (some
things are just priceless), there have been attempts to do so in order for people to
understand the magnitude of the issue: how important the environment is to humanity and
what costs and benefits there can be in doing (or not doing) something.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) is an organization — backed by the

UN and various European governments — attempting to compile, build and make a
compelling economics case for the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.

In a recent report, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and
International Policy Makers 2009, TEEB provided the following example of sectors
dependent on genetic resources:

Table: Example of market sectors dependent on genetic resources

Sector Size of Market Comment

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers 2009 , p.1

Pharmaceutical US$ 640 bn. (2006) 25-50% derived from genetic resourc

Biotechnology US$ 70 bn. (2006) Many products derived from genetic

from public companies resources (enzymes, microorganisms)
 Table: Example of market sectors dependent on genetic resources

Sector Size of Market Comment

alone

Agricultural seeds US$ 30 bn. (2006) All derived from genetic resources

Personal care, Botanical
and food & Beverage
industries
US$ 22 bn. (2006) for Some products derived from genetic
herbal supplements resources. represents ‘natural’
component of the market.
US$ 12 bn. (2006) for
personal care

US$ 31 bn. (2006) for

food products

In addition, it is estimated that implementing REDD (Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation and Forest Degradation) could help

 Halve deforestation by 2030, and

 Cut emissions by 1.5 Gt of CO2 per year.

From a cost perspective (p.18), it is estimated that

 It would cost from US$ 17.2 – 33 billion per year

 The estimated benefit in reduced climate change is US$ 3.2 trillion
 The above would be a good return on the initial investment. By contrast, waiting 10
more years could reduce the net benefit of halving deforestation by US$ 500 billion.

In addition, they cited another study that estimated that 3,000 listed companies around the
world were responsible for over $2 trillion in environmental externalities (i.e. costs that
have to be borne by society from ignored factors, or social costs). This is equivalent to 7%
of their combined revenues and up to a third of their combined profits.

The benefits of these silent parts of our economy is also summarized in these videos by
TEEB’s Pavan Sukhdev:

What the global economy would look like with nature on the balance sheetWhat is the
world worth?, TEEB, November 15, 2010
The hidden environmental and social costs from corporationsThe Invisible Economy,
TEEB, January 12, 2011
The BBC notes that biodiversity is fundamental to economics. For example,

 The G8 nations, together with 5 major emerging economies — China, India, South
Africa, Brazil, Mexico — use almost three-quarters of the Earth’s biocapacity
 An estimated 40% of world trade is based on biological products or processes.

Despite these free benefits, it has long been recognized that we tend to ignore or
underestimate the value of those services. So much so that economic measures such as GDP
often ignores environmental costs.

The economic benefits of protecting the environment are well-understood, even if

seemingly rarely practiced:

Numerous studies also show that investments in protected areas generate a cost-benefit
ratio of one to 25 and even one to 100 in some cases, [Pavan Sukhdev, from TEEB] said.
Planting and protecting nearly 12,000 hectares of mangroves in Vietnam costs just over a
million dollars but saved annual expenditures on dyke maintenance of well over seven
million dollars.

Stephen Leahy, Environment: Save At Least Half the Planet, or Lose It All, Inter Press
Service, November 17, 2009

It has perhaps taken about a decade or so — and a severe enough global financial
crisis that has hit the heart of this way of thinking — to change this mentality (in which
time, more greenhouse gases have been emitted — inefficiently).

Economists talk of the price signal that is fundamental to capitalism; the ability for prices
to indicate when a resource is becoming scarcer. At such a time, markets mobilize
automatically to address this by looking for ways to bring down costs. As a result,
resources are supposedly infinite. For example, if energy costs go up, businesses will look
for a way to minimize such costs for themselves, and it is in such a time that alternatives
come about and/or existing resources last longer because they are used more
efficiently. Running out of resources should therefore be averted.

However, it has long been argued that prices don’t truly reflect the full cost of things, so
either the signal is incorrect, or comes too late. The price signal also implies the poorest
often pay the heaviest costs. For example, commercially over-fishing a region may mean
fish from that area becomes harder to catch and more expensive, possibly allowing that
ecosystem time to recover (though that is not guaranteed, either). However, while
commercial entities can exploit resources elsewhere, local fishermen will go out of business
and the poorer will likely go hungry (as also detailed on this site’s section on biodiversity).
This then has an impact on various local social, political and economic issues.

In addition to that, other related measurements, such as GNP are therefore flawed, and
even reward unproductive or inefficient behavior (e.g. Efficiently producing unhealthy
food — and the unhealthy consumer culture to go with it — may profit the food
industry and a private health sector that has to deal with it, all of which require more use
of resources. More examples are discussed on this site’s section on consumption and
consumerism).

Our continued inefficient pumping of greenhouse gases into the environment without
factoring the enormous cost as the climate already begins to change is perhaps an example
where price signals may come too late, or at a time when there is already significant impact
to many people. Resources that could be available more indefinitely, become finite because
of our inability or unwillingness to change.

Markets fail to capture most ecosystem service values. Existing price signals only reflect -
at best - the share of total value that relates to provisioning services like food, fuel or water
and their prices may be distorted. Even these services often bypass markets where carried
out as part of community management of shared resources. The values of other ecosystem
services are generally not reflected in markets apart from a few exceptions (such as
tourism).

This is mainly explained by the fact that many ecosystem services are ‘public goods’ or
‘common goods’: they are often open access in character and non-rival in their
consumption. In addition, their benefits are felt differently by people in different places
and over different timescales. Private and public decisions affecting biodiversity rarely
consider benefits beyond the immediate geographical area…. They can also overlook local
public benefits … in favor of private benefits …, even when local livelihoods are at stake, or
focus on short-term gains to the detriment of the sustained supply of benefits over time….

Benefits that are felt with a long-term horizon (e.g. from climate regulation) are frequently
ignored. This systematic under-valuation of ecosystem services and failure to capture the
values is one of the main causes underlying today’s biodiversity crisis. Values that are not
overtly part of a financial equation are too often ignored.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers
2009 , p.10 (Emphasis original)

In effect, as TEEB, and many others before have argued, a key challenge will be adapting
our economic systems to integrate sustainability and human well-being as well as other
environmental factors to give us truer costs (after all, market systems are supposed to work
when there is full availability of information).

Think of some of the effects this could have:

 Some industrial meat production, which is very harmful for the environment, may
become more expensive
o For example, as mentioned in the previous link, if water used by the meat
industry in the United States were not subsidized by taxpayers, common
hamburger meat would cost $35 a pound.
 o Instead of regulation to change people’s habits, markets would automatically
reflect these true costs; consumers can then make better informed choices
about what to consume, e.g. by reducing their meat consumption or demand
more ecologically sustainable alternatives at reasonable cost.
 A reduction in meat production could protect forests or help reduce clearance of
forests for cattle ranches, which would have a knock-on benefit for climate change
concerns.
 Appropriate investment in renewable energy could threaten the fossil fuel industry
though they are trying to adapt to that (perhaps slowly, and after initial resistance).
But at the same time, governments that are able to use renewable sources are less
likely to find themselves spending so many resources in geopolitical areas (e.g.
politics, military, terrorist response to Western presence in Middle East, etc) to
protect or secure access to fossil fuels.
 Cradle to cradle type of design — where products are designed to be produced and
recycled or disposed of more sustainably — could considerably reduce costs for
producers and consumers alike, and possibly reduce stress on associated ecosystems.
 Land that is used to produce unhealthy or marginally nutritious items
(e.g. tobacco, sugar, possibly tea and coffee) could be used for more useful or
healthier alternatives, possibly even helping address obesity and other issues. (For
example, while factoring in environmental costs could make healthy produce more
expensive too, expanding production of healthier foods could help contain costs rises
to some extent.)
 etc.

How much would such accounting save? It is hard to know, but there is a lot of waste in the
existing system. In the mid-1990s, the Institute for Economic Democracy calculated that as
much as half the American economy constituted of wasted labor, wealth and resources
(book: World’s Wasted Wealth, II — see sample chapter).

Naturally, those who benefit from the current system may be hostile to such changes,
especially if it may mean they might lose out.

This is a clear case of inter-related issues: the health of the environment is strongly tried to
our economic choices (i.e. how we use resources), but addressing core short-comings in our
economic systems is a crucial political challenge.
Ecosystems and Ecology - Real-life
applications
Forests and Ecology
One easily understandable example of ecosystems and ecology in action is the forest.
Virtually everyone has visited a forest at one time or another, and those who are
enthusiasts for the great outdoors may spend a great deal of time in one. In the past, of
course, people interacted with

A VARIETY OF ANGIOSPERM , MANGROVE TREES ARE FOUND IN LOW-LYING ,MUDDY REGIONS NEAR
SALTWATER , WHERE THE CLIMATE IS HUMID . AMANGROVE FOREST IS POOR IN SPECIES : ONLY ORGANISMS
THAT CAN TOLERATE FLOODING AND HIGH SALT LEVELS ARE CAPABLE OF SURVIVING . (

© Wolfgang Kaehler/Corbis

. Reproduced by permission. )

forests not so much out of choice, and certainly not with recreation as the foremost aim in
mind, but simply because they depended on the forest for survival. Not only did the forest
provide hunters and food-gatherers with an abundance of wildlife and fruit, but trees
provided material for building dwellings. It is no wonder, then, that many early human
settlements tended to be in, or at the edges of, forests.

A forest is simply an ecosystem dominated by trees. There are many varieties of forest,
however, because so many factors go into determining the character of a forest ecosystem.
The fact that the forest is an ecosystem means that its qualities are defined by far more
than just the varieties of trees, which are simply the most visible among many biological
forms in the forest. Numerous abiotic, or nonbiological, factors also affect the
characteristics of a forest as well. For instance, there is weather, defined as the condition of
the atmosphere at a given time and place, and climate, the overall patterns of weather for
extended periods.
These play a clear role, for instance, in defining the tropical rain forest, a place where
constant rainfall ensures that there are always plenty of plants in flower. Because the trees
and other species of vegetation do not all shed at the same time, the rain forest canopy—the
upper layer of trees in the forest—remains rich in foliage year-round. Hence, the tropical
rain forest is an example of an evergreen forest. Climate can determine the type of life
forms capable of surviving in the forest ecosystem. This can be illustrated by referring to a
forest almost perfectly opposite in character to a rain forest: the taiga, or boreal forest, that
spans much of northern Eurasia.
The taiga is a deciduous forest, meaning that its trees shed their leaves seasonally; indeed,
because of the very cold climate in taiga regions, where the temperature during winter is
usually well below the freezing point, trees spend a great portion of the year bare. Rainfall
is much, much lower than in a rain forest, of course: only about 10-20 in. (250-500 mm) per
year, as compared with more than 70 in. (1,800 mm) for a typical rain forest. The dry,
inhospitable climate of the taiga makes it a forbidding place for reptiles and amphibians,
though the taiga is home to many endothermic (warm-blooded) creatures such as mammals
or birds.
LATITUDE, ALTITUDE, AND FORESTS.
Elevation or relief—that is, height above sea level—also determines the character of a
forest, as do latitude (distance north or south of the equator) and topography, or the
overall physical configuration of Earth's surface in a given area. Rain forests can exist
anywhere, but by definition a tropical rain forest, such as those along the Amazon River in
South America or the Congo River in Africa, must lie between the Tropic of Cancer in the
north and the Tropic of Capricorn in the south.
Naturally, in the tropical rain forest, temperatures are high—typically, about 86°F (30°C)
during the day, cooling down to about 68°F (20°C) at night. By contrast, there are much
cooler rain forests in the temperate zones. An example is the Cherokee National Forest on
the border between North Carolina and Tennessee, which, though located in the
southeastern United States, is chilly even in the summer months.
Just as latitude affects a forest, so does altitude. Rain forests at relatively high elevations,
such as the highlands of New Guinea, are known as montane forests. These forests, though
they may be located at the same latitude as tropical rain forests—most montane forests are
in eastern Brazil, southeastern Africa, northern Australia, and parts of southeast Asia—are
much cooler. Lush by comparison to most non-rain forests, their vegetation is nonetheless
much less dense than in a typical tropical rain forest.
In addition to its role in defining the overall character of the forest, differences in relative
altitude or elevation resulting from the great height of trees in the rain forest also influence
the formation of differing biological communities. For example, monkeys, flying squirrels,
and other animals capable of swinging, gliding, or otherwise moving from tree to tree
inhabit the canopy, which is rich in well-watered leaves and other food sources. These top-
dwellers seldom even need to come down to the ground for anything. The rain forest floor,
by contrast, is mostly bare, since the trees above shade it. On this level live creatures such
as chimpanzees and gorillas, who feed off of low-lying plant forms. Other biological
communities exist above or below the forest floor. (For more on these subjects, including
the various types of forests, see Biomes. See The Biosphere for a discussion of soil quality in
the rain forest.)
HUMANS AND FORESTS.
Earlier we noted the fact that humans' early history kept them, like other primates, close to
the forest. In modern times, a growing awareness of ecology, and of the distance that
technology has placed between modern society and the forests, led to the movement for the
establishment of national parks in general, and of national forests in particular.
The first of these preserves—places where commercial development is forbidden and
commercial activity is limited—was Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, established by
the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. Though Yellowstone contains
enormous areas of forest land, the first national forest reserve (as national forests were
called at the time) was Sequoia National Park, established in 1891. Home to some of the
largest, most awe-inspiring trees in the world, Sequoia is part of a group of national forests
and parks to the northeast of Bakersfield, California.
The United States Forest Service was actually founded earlier (1905) than the National
Park Service (1916), a fact that illustrates the importance of pristine forests to maintaining
a proper balance between humans and their environment. Since the establishment of the
forest service under the aegis of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the lands controlled
by the forest service have grown to encompass about 191 million acres (77.3 million
hectares), an area larger than Texas. During the same period, the U.S. example of national
parks and forests has inspired nations around the world to create their own preserves.
Coupled with the rise of national parks and forests at the turn of the nineteenth century
was a growing interest in conservation and management of environmental resources. This
interest manifested across a broad spectrum, from environmentalists who urged that the
forests be left in their original state to industrial foresters who view the forest as a resource
that can be utilized. Both sides have their merits, and both have their complaints about the
other. The close historical ties between conservationism and the science of forestry (the
management of forest ecosystems for purposes such as harvesting timber), both of which
had their origins during the nineteenth century, suggest that there is no inherent reason
that the two sides should be in conflict. If anything, responsible forestry goes hand-in-hand
with an attitude of conserving as many resources as is feasible.
 B Y EVOLVING BRIGHT COLORS , SCENTS , AND NECTAR , THE FLOWERS OF ANGIOSPERMS ATTRACT
ANIMALS , WHICH TRAVEL FROM ONE FLOWER TO ANOTHER , MOVING POLLEN AS THEY GO . W HEREAS INSECTS
AND ANIMALS POSE A THREAT TO GYMNOSPERMS , ANGIOSPERMS PUT BEES , BUTTERFLIES ,HUMMINGBIRDS , AND
OTHER FLOWER - SEEKING CREATURES TO WORK ASSISTING THEIR REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS . (

© Gallo Images/Corbis

. Reproduced by permission. )

Comparing Angiosperms and Gymnosperms

Several times we have referred to angiosperms, a name that encompasses not just certain
types of tree but also all plants that produce flowers during sexual reproduction. The name,
which comes from Latin roots meaning "vessel seed," is a reference to the fact that the
plant keeps its seeds in a vessel whose name, the ovary, emphasizes the sexual quality of the
reproductive process it undergoes.
Angiosperms are a beautiful example of how a particular group of organisms can adapt to
specific ecosystems and do so in a highly efficient manner, such that the evolutionary future
heralds only greater dominance for these species. This is all the more interesting in light of
the contrast between the success of the angiosperm and the rather less impressive results
achieved by another broad category of sexually reproducing plant, one that formerly
dominated Earth's forest: the gymnosperm.
Flowering plants evolved only about 130 million years ago, by which time gymnosperms (of
which modern pines are an example) had long since evolved and proliferated. Yet in a
relatively short period of time, angiosperms have become the dominant plants in the world
today. About 80% of all living plant species are flowering plants, and based on the record
of angiosperms and gymnosperms heretofore, it is likely that the world of 100 million years
from now will be one in which the forests are typified by angiosperms. Gymnosperms,
meanwhile, may well become a dying, if not a dead, breed.
POLLINATION BY GYMNOSPERMS.
Gymnosperms reproduce sexually as well, but they do so by a much less efficient method
than that of the angiosperm. Whereas the angiosperm keeps its seeds safely tucked away
inside the ovary and coexists with its ecosystem most favorably by putting the insect and
animal life to work, gymnosperm reproduction is an altogether less effective—and, indeed,
less pleasant—process.
For starters, gymnosperms produce their seeds on the surface of leaflike structures, and
this makes the seeds vulnerable to physical damage and drying as the wind whips the trees'
branches back and forth. Furthermore, insects and other animals view gymnosperm seeds
as a source of nutrition, as indeed they are. And in contrast to the angiosperm, which
attracts bees and other creatures to it, gymnosperms package the male reproductive
component in tiny pollen grains, which it releases into the wind.
Eventually, the grains make their way toward the female component of another individual
within the same species, but the fact that they do is an example of the wonder inherent in
life itself and not of the efficiency of gymnosperm reproduction. Gymnosperms shower
their ecosystems with pollen, a fact familiar to anyone who lives in a place with a high
gymnosperm population—and hence a high pollen count in the spring. In gymnosperm-
heavy environments, yellowish dust forms on everything, and where humans interact with
the natural world, this can create a great deal of discomfort in the form of hay fever and
allergies. Meanwhile, cars, windowsills, mailboxes, and virtually every other available
surface takes on a yellow film that usually is not relieved until a good rain falls or, more
likely, pollination ends for the year.
Though pollen is unpleasant to humans, it should be noted that like all natural
mechanisms, it benefits the overall ecosystem. Packed with energy, pollen grains contain
large quantities of nitrogen, making them a major boost to the nutrient content in the soil.
But it costs the gymnosperm a great deal, in terms of chemical and biological energy and
material, to produce pollen grains, and the benefits are uncertain.
POLLINATION BY ANGIOSPERMS.
If the gymnosperm and angiosperm varieties of pollination were compared to marketing
campaigns, gymnosperm reproduction would involve the client (i.e., the gymnosperms
themselves) investing maximum capital for minimal returns. In a very real sense,
gymnosperm pollination is like the marketing of a company that bombards a neighborhood
with leaflets, such that advertising rapidly becomes another form of trash simply to be
swept up and thrown away.
By contrast, the "marketing" of angiosperms is like that of a company that uses carefully
targeted, researched advertising, utilizing as many free means as possible for getting out
word about itself. Just as a smart marketer sets in place the conditions to get consumers
talking about a product—thus using advertising that is both free and extremely effective—
the angiosperm enlists the aid of mobile organisms in its environment.
In addition, the angiosperm puts a great deal of its energy into producing reproductive
structures, an effort that pays off bountifully. By evolving bright colors, scents, and nectar,
the flowers of angiosperms attract animals, which travel from one flower to another,
unintentionally moving pollen as they go. Thus, whereas insects and animals pose a threat
to gymnosperms, angiosperms actually put bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, and other
flower-seeking creatures to work assisting their reproductive process.
Because of this remarkably efficient system, animal-pollinated species of flowering plants
do not need to produce as much pollen as gymnosperms. They can put their resources into
other important functions instead, such as growth and greater seed production. In this
way, the angiosperm solves its own problem of reproduction—and, as a side benefit, adds
enormously to the world's beauty.

Deforestation
Returning to the subject of forests in general, if a forest experiences significant
disturbance, it may undergo deforestation. Despite the finality in the sound of the word,
deforestation does not necessarily imply complete destruction of the forest. In
fact, deforestation can describe any interruption in the ordinary progression of a forest's
life, including clear-cut harvesting—even if the forest fully recovers.
Deforestation can occur naturally, as a result of changes in the soil and climate, but the
most significant cases of deforestation over the past few thousand years have been the
consequence of human activities. Usually deforestation is driven by the need to clear land
to harvest trees for fuel or, in some cases, to obtain building materials in the form of
lumber. Though deforestation has been a problem the world over, since the 1970s it has
become an issue primarily in developing countries.
In developed nations such as the United States, environmental activism has raised public
awareness concerning deforestation and led to curtailment of large-scale cutting in forests
that are deemed important environmental habitats. By contrast, developing nations, such
as Brazil, are cutting down their forests at an alarming rate. Generally, economics is the
dominant factor, with the need for new agricultural land or the desire to obtain wood and
other materials typically driving the deforestation process.
CONSEQUENCES OF DEFORESTATION.
The deforestation of valuable reserves such as the Amazon rain forest is an environmental
disaster in the making. As discussed in the essay The Biosphere, the soil in rain forests as a
rule is "old," and leached of nutrients. Without the constant reintroduction of organic
material from the plants and animals of the rain forests, it would be too poor to grow
anything. Therefore, when nations cut down their own rain forest lands, they are in effect
killing the golden goose to get at the egg: once the rain forest is gone, the land itself is
worthless.
Deforestation has several other extremely serious consequences. From a biological
standpoint, it greatly reduces biodiversity, or the range of species in the biota. In the case
of tropical rain forests as well as old-growth forests (see Biological Communities), certain
species cannot survive once the environmental structure has been ruptured.
 A LONE TREE TRUNK STANDS IN AN AREA OF DEFORESTED GRASSLAND IN MARANHÃO , B RAZIL . T HE
DEFORESTATION OF VALUABLE RESERVES SUCH AS THE A MAZON RAIN FOREST IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER
IN THE MAKING ,DEPLETING AND STARVING THE SOIL , REDUCING BIODIVERSITY , AND BRINGING ABOUT
DANGEROUS CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON CONTENT . (

© Barnabas Bosshart/Corbis

. Reproduced by permission. )

From an environmental perspective, it leads to dangerous changes in the carbon content of

the atmosphere, discussed later in this essay. In the case of old-growth forests or rain
forests, deforestation removes an irreplaceable environ mental asset that contributes to the
planet's bio diversity—and to its oxygen supply.

Even from a human standpoint, deforesta tion takes an enormous toll. Economically, it
depletes valuable forest resources. Furthermore, deforestation in many developing
countries often is accompanied by the displacement of indigenous peoples, while still other
political and social horrors may lurk in the shadows. For example, Brazil's forests are
home to charcoal factories that amount to virtual slave-labor camps. Aboriginal peoples
(i.e., "Indians") are lured from cities with promises of high income and benefits, only to
arrive and find that the sit uation is quite different from what was adver tised. Having paid
the potential employer for transportation to the work site, however, they are unable to
afford a return ticket and must labor to repay the cost.

The Greenhouse Effect

The most potentially serious aspect of cutting down forests may well be the greenhouse
effect, which some scientists and activists believe is causing an overall warming of the
planet. Today, thanks to the popularity of environmental causes among entertainment
figures and on college campuses, terms such as "the greenhouse effect" and "global
warming" are commonplace. However, these phrases are used so frequently, and
sometimes so confusingly or misleadingly, that it is worthwhile to address their meaning
briefly; then, we can conclude our discussion by looking at what impact the steady
reduction in forest lands has had on the increasing release of greenhouse gases.
The greenhouse effect itself is not a consequence of any action on the part of human beings;
rather, it is a part of life on Earth. In fact, without it, there could be no life on Earth.
Though the planet receives an incredible amount of energy from the Sun, much of it is lost
by being absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere or on the surface. So-called greenhouses
gases such as carbon dioxide, however, help to trap this energy, keeping much more of the
Sun's warmth within Earth's atmosphere, much as a greenhouse helps trap heat. Without
the greenhouse effect, Earth would be so cold that the oceans would freeze.
Obviously, then, the greenhouse effect is a good thing—but only if greenhouse gases are
kept at certain levels. Earth, after all, is not the only planet in the solar system that
experiences a greenhouse effect; there is also Venus, a hellish place where surface
temperatures are as high as 932°F (500°C). To many environmentalists, there is a grave
danger that Earth could be slowly going the way of Venus, building up greenhouse gases
such that the temperature is slowly increasing. This is the phenomenon of global warming,
which threatens to melt the polar ice caps and submerge much of Earth's land surface. At
least, that is the opinion of environmentalists and others who subscribe to the idea that
Earth is steadily warming as a result of human pollution and industrial activity.
There is a considerable body of scientific knowledge that challenges the environmentalist
position on global warming and the greenhouse effect, but it is not our purpose here to
judge the various positions. Rather, our concern is the link between forests and the increase
of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. Old-growth or mature forests of the type discussed
in Succession and Climax contain vast amounts of carbon—the basis for all living things—
and when these forests are cut down, that carbon has to go somewhere. Specifically,
carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, will be released into the atmosphere, increasing the
amount of greenhouse gases there.
This release may occur quickly, as when wood is burned, or more slowly, if the timber from
the forest is used over long periods of time—for instance, in the building of houses or other
structures. Statistics suggest an alarming change in the amount of carbon in the forests as
compared with that in the atmosphere: since about 1850, the amount of carbon stored in
forests had dropped by about one-third, while the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere has increased by a comparable factor. Thus, the effort to keep greenhouse
gases at viable levels is inextricably tied to the movement to preserve forest ecosystems.