As defined in a previous post, biodiversity describes all life within a given area. High biodiversity generally means having many different species present in a given area. Conversely low biodiversity means fewer different species present in a given area. High biodiversity is often a good thing, but this can be misleading if an area has high incidences of non-native, invasive species that out-compete native flora. Non-natives may not necessarily be bad, as some non-natives don't exclude other species. Additionally, just because an area has low biodiversity doesn't mean it is in a poor state - it just may not support greater biodiversity.
However, often when discussing highs and lows with respective to biodiversity, we are speaking about ecosystems being altered significantly enough to affect the biodiversity causing concern for the future status of the system as a whole.
One of my favorite ideas from Aldo Leopold discusses the idea of, and is titled "Thinking Like a Mountain". You can find a PDF version of his writing here. Leopold addresses the balance of the natural world and how humans can often cause disruption in that world, thinking they are making a positive change. He 'thinks like the mountain' and finds this may not be the case.
Locally, within the US, and globally over generations people have altered habitats through deforestation, species introductions, and resource exploitation. Each of these adversely affects biodiversity from a holistic perspective, as nature has balanced itself out over time, only to have humans disrupt the natural order.
No comments:
Post a Comment