Talk:Biodiversity/Archive 2

Indigenous fauna/flora greatly outnumbered
In section 8.2, Introduced and invasive species there is the following assertion: At present, several countries have already imported so many exotic species, that the own indigenous fauna/flora is greatly outnumbered This statement is only supported in the following example: For example, in Belgium, only 5% of the indigenous trees remain.

Which is based in the following references (in Dutch language)

I find this paragraph unfortunate, let me explain why:

- What does it mean exactly "only 5% of indigenous trees remain"?

a) Only 5% of the tree species that were present at year x remain now.

b) In the present inventory of tree species the native ones represent only 5% of the total.

Furthermore, apart of native and introduced, there are naturalized species. These are the ones that were introduced in historic times, by Romans or even earlier. Most of the fruit trees are of this type. Are fruit trees also considered in the 95% of introduced?

A clear distinction exists between forest trees and ornamental trees, between those found in forests and wilderness, and those found in city streets and parks, or private gardens. We are in an article about biodiversity, I think all these distinctions matter.

I have just made an article for the Catalan Wikipedia, "List of forest species(tree and shrubs) of Catalan Countries (Paisos Catalans)" The statistics is

Native      71%

Introduced  17%

Naturalized 12%

I would appreciate if someone knowing Dutch language could clarify these questions, based on the references.Auró (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries
Add The number of species becoming extinct per million per year is a measure of biodiversity loss that is one of the Planetary boundaries. 99.19.46.34 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? (This one is even more suspicious than the rest of the "Planetary boundaries" spam, as extinction is only negatively correlated with biodiversity; biodiversity can be damaged without extinctions, as loss of regional subspecies cannot rationally be considered "extinction", but does result in a loss of biodiversity.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that Original Research Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin? See


 * "Boundaries for a Healthy Planet" by Jonathan Foley, Gretchen C. Daily, Robert Howarth, David A. Vaccari, Adele C. Morris, Eric F. Lambin, Scott C. Doney, Peter H. Gleick and David W. Fahey Scientific American April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.126.34 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're advertising the topic, just as you were advertising 350.org when I first noticed you. However, even assuming it were an appropriate topic to link, extinction or extinction event would be the more appropriate articles to spam pointers to this alleged planetary boundary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would extinction be more appropriate as per Talk:Planetary boundaries Biodiversity is a "Planetary Boundary"? 99.119.128.35 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Without a better article (and I for one cannot think one), I suggest reverting the revert. 108.73.113.97 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the concept of planetary boundaries, and which parameters are more or less critical to them, are subjects that need a lot of discussion in the scientific community before such general statements as are introduced in several Wikipedia articles may be done.Auró (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think ...? Do you have a reference, instead of wp:NOR?  99.35.14.146 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you? The only place the term "planetary boundaries" has occurred is in one Scientific American article.  That would be an WP:RS toward accuracy, but not toward notability.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I think that a discussion page is a place where opinions are admitted, but article pages a place to put well established facts. Auró (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Science is about continual never-ending reassessment of the facts (the Scientific method). Just because there may be more scientific discussion does not mean Planetary boundaries can not be linked, if properly written.  99.109.126.27 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Revised Planetary boundaries has "Extinction rate (number of species per million per year)" for Control variable. 99.56.123.49 (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Still no reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Rubin, however awkwardly IPs state their case here and elsewhere, it is you who comes across as the POV warrior. It is time you came clean and explained where the obsessive flurry of obstructive edits you make on planetary boundaries comes from. There is nothing I can find in the literature to support your position, apart from some throwaway comments made by Stuart Pimm when the concept was first floated. And I note that Pimm does not appear to have repeated or expanded his objections, and it may be that it is Pimm who has the egg on his face. Are you coming from a religious fundamentalist position? Or is it just that you genuinely believe, that even if God if not looking after all of this for you, then everything is going to be fine anyway, because that is what you want, and that the concept of habitable boundaries must therefore be nonsense? If these comments misrepresent your position, then it is long overdue for you to explain and justify just what your position really is. Can you do that? If not, then soon I'm going to start reverting your more eccentric and dysfunctional edits. You are bringing administrators into disrepute behaving this way. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Habitat destruction
"While most threatened species are not food species, their biomass is converted into human food when their habitat is transformed into pasture, cropland, and orchards."

This is sloppy at best, wrong at worst.
 * Not all the species biomass will remain in the habitat
 * Not all that remains will become crop
 * Not all crops are food crop
 * Not all food crop is eaten.

The following sentence I found very unlikely on its face, checking the citation, it is not supported so I have removed it.

"It is estimated that more than a third of the earth's biomass is tied up in humans, livestock and crop species. "

Rich Farmbrough, 10:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC).


 * The reference given is now available online and does not even vaguely address the claim "While most threatened species are not food species, their biomass is converted into human food when their habitat is transformed into pasture, cropland, and orchards. "


 * Therefore I have removed this statement also. Rich Farmbrough, 10:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC).

Mention indiginous peoples ?
I was wondering whether indiginous peoples can be mentioned as a tool to police biodiversity hotspots. Some ethnic groups have expressed willingness to act as a "forest police" to protect a zone from illegal logging, dumping of waste, ...

See 91.182.214.13 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reducing_Emissions_from_Deforestation_and_Forest_Degradation
 * Talk:Indigenous_peoples


 * Resource; * The Ragged Edge of the World: Encounters at the Frontier Where Modernity, Wildlands, and Indigenous Peoples Meet ISBN 978-0670022519 by Eugene Linden. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also of interest maybe Environmental migrant. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Overshoot (ecology) and Risks to civilization, humans.  99.181.150.29 (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general point, is there not clear evidence of humans increasing biodiversity in several areas - especially the biological hotspots? For example the Peruvian Andes - see Potato Park - have ten thousand years of human intervention leading to 4,000 varieties of potatoes.

Humanity has been a significant part of ecosystems for possibly two million years. I cannot believe it is all negative. Are tropical forests as they are because of humans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Terra preta relates to that, i.e. did it increase biodiversity or have no significant effect. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Resource: book Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity (American Museum of Natural History) by Dr. Richard Pearson
Resource: book Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity, ISBN 978-1402772238 by Dr. Richard Pearson scientist at the American Museum of Natural History with a PhD from Oxford University on the Effects of global warming on biodiversity, funded by grants from NASA and the National Science Foundation, published in Nature (journal) amoung others.

http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Extinction-Climate-Biodiversity-American/dp/1402772238/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310072015&sr=1-1 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

flora and fauna
The words "flora and fauna" were changed to "animals, fungi and plants" and, subsequently, changed back with the comment "flora and fauna cover it well". That is not correct. Biodiversity refers to all forms of life. Flora and fauna refer, respectively, to plants and animals. Fungi are neither. They belong in their own separate biological kingdom which has been widely recognized since at least the 1970s. Using the words "flora and fauna" as a shorthand for biodiversity is thus out-dated, inaccurate, misleading and inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Various words analogous to flora and fauna have been proposed for the fungi, including "funga", "mycobiota" and "mycota", but there seem to be no similar words for the other biological kingdoms (Chromista, Protozoa etc.), so using such terms tends to exclude them, making consideration of the true extent of biodiversity more difficult. The phrase "animals, fungi and plants" is thus a significant improvement on "flora and fauna", and it leaves the door, so to speak, open for consideration also of the other biological kingdoms. Alphabetical order is non-judgemental and avoids arguments about relative importance of the biological kingdoms. I propose therefore to change "flora and fauna" back again to "animals, fungi and plants". Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To summarise my reply on Vsmith's talk page, the phrase 'flora and fauna' (not the individual terms) are sometimes used to cover 'all living things' whereas 'animals, fungi and plants' is too specific, missing out most microorganisms. However, I've piped a link to biota (ecology) for that use of 'flora and fauna' so that it's clear that it's being used in the broad rather than the strict sense. Mikenorton (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Bioversity International wikilink.
Add Bioversity International wikilink. 99.181.146.41 (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Greater Health"?
This quote is from the first paragraph of the article: "Greater biodiversity implies greater health." What does that mean? In whose opinion does biodiversity imply health? What kind of health? This really confused me. Shouldn't there be a citation here at the very least? Further, the very next sentence goes on to say that: "Biodiversity is in part a function of climate." Doesn't that contradict the previous sentence? An arctic climate with less biodiversity is "less healthy" than another climate? I'm just not sure I understand what is being implied here. I think it should be removed or rephrased so that it makes sense. --74.105.188.107 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The uncited sentence will be removed if there are no objections. --74.105.188.107 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I opened this page to raise the same point. Bioviversity is not a measure of health. Low biodiversity environments - such as arctic or desert environments - are not necessarily unhealthy. Similarly, it is possible that a high biodiversity area is not necessarily healthy - weed infested heathland perhaps? Eanut (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The health of an ecosystem or the ecological health is a basic concept in present day ecology. There is an article devoted to it. I have added the link to that page.--Auró (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Coffee Rust Virus Resistance Citation
Either hamster cells are more applicable to plant viral resistance screening than I thought or the citation related to resistance to the coffee rust virus is not on the subject for which it is cited. 128.211.190.58 (talk)

Where reference best used in Wikipedia?
99.181.153.228 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Conservationists Use Triage to Determine which Species to Save and Not; Like battlefield medics, conservationists are being forced to explicitly apply triage to determine which creatures to save and which to let go July 23, 2012 Scientific American ... further notability, see Holocene extinction within Planetary boundaries
 * How 'bout you decide. Write up some content and add it to the article of your choice. You do the work, rather than just spamming talk pages with links. Vsmith (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Vsmith, you decide, since loss of biodiversity triage is "Irrelevant" or "Inappropriate" to any related article ... apparent IDON'TLIKE, likely wp:COI. 99.109.125.100 (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you, once, to revert that comment, per WP:AGF, and possibly WP:OUTING, or I'll request a block of your ISP. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

List of countries with biodiversity articles
I just created a new list: List of countries with biodiversity articles - and it's still a work in progress since I found out the links won't red link if the section doesn't exist.

Anyway, if you have any opinion about whether this is helpful:
 * As a list, like List of countries with biodiversity articles (with the assumption that only the articles that discuss Biodiversity will be called out
 * A category by continent of countries that discuss biodiversity
 * Not helpful in either day

... would you mind voicing your opinion at Articles for deletion/List of countries with biodiversity articles? Thanks!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 17:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Species loss rate section
This section begins with an interesting quotation from James Lovelock, but it has little relevance for the section. In fact it would be very well suited for an article about climatic change, among others. My proposal is to suppress the quotation.--Auró (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)