…Conservationists have long assumed that once natural landscapes are fractured by human development or agriculture, migration corridors for wildlife are broken, blocking access to food, shelter and breeding grounds. A scholarly theory was developed to estimate the number of species in such fractured landscapes, where patches of forest surrounded by farms resemble islands of natural habitat.

The “equilibrium theory of island biogeography” is a pillar of biological research — its elegant equation to estimate the number of species in a habitat has almost reached the status of a scientific law, according to Chase Mendenhall, a Stanford doctoral student in biology and the study’s lead author. The theory drives the default strategy of conserving biodiversity by designating nature reserves. This strategy sees reserves as “islands in an inhospitable sea of human-modified habitats” and doesn’t adequately account for biodiversity patterns in many human-dominated landscapes, according to the Stanford study.

“This paper shows that farmland and forest remnants can be more valuable for biodiversity than previously assumed,” said Daniel Karp, who earned his PhD in biology at Stanford in 2013 and is currently a NatureNet postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Berkeley.

….“Not only do more species persist across the ‘sea of farmland’ than expected by island biogeographic theory, novel yet native species actually thrive there,” said co-author Elizabeth Hadly, the Paul S. and Billie Achilles Professor in Environmental Biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “This indicates that human-altered landscapes can foster more biological diversity than we anticipated.”

….The study’s findings point to the need for new approaches that integrate conservation and food production, to make agricultural lands more hospitable to wildlife by reducing chemical inputs, preserving fragments of forest and other natural habitats and rewarding farmers and ranchers for the benefits that result.

Full report: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140418161437.htm

>>>A new study, published April 16 in the journal Nature and co-authored by three Stanford scientists, finds that a long-accepted theory used to
estimate extinction rates, predict ecological risk and make conservation policy recommendations is overly pessimistic.
<<<

Permafile will be here shortly to abuse you for posting such stuff,

and tell you that you have a distorted view of the world

>> novel yet native species actually thrive there

Until the farmers kill them.

Tamb said:

>> novel yet native species actually thrive there

Until the farmers kill them.

It maybe applicable in European and Northern American environments, but in Australia we have many more times the biodiversity, with many species being highly specific to habitat, other organisms and climate. To clear land is to wreck the local ecosystem and when the flora is removed so are all the organisms that depend upon it, and when these go, so do the predators, as there is not enough for them to live off.

Australia has amongst the most diverse biota in the world and to compare it with northern hemisphere countries, where only a few thousand years ago was largely under snow and ice and consequently with but a small number of species is no comparison at all.

The_observer said:

>>>A new study, published April 16 in the journal Nature and co-authored by three Stanford scientists, finds that a long-accepted theory used to
estimate extinction rates, predict ecological risk and make conservation policy recommendations is overly pessimistic.
<<<

Permafile will be here shortly to abuse you for posting such stuff,

and tell you that you have a distorted view of the world

It is a pity Observer that you do not use your considerable energy to promote and help safeguard your country and unique heritage in its hour of need. Instead you are prepared to trash Australia’s environmental needs, in favour of your own wellbeing.

In even my lifetime, I recall many if not most Australians referring to ‘home’ as Great Britain, even when they might have been born here. Australia was and still is regarded as a place to make your fortune and then return home, in other words to exploit the wealth of the country with little respect or consideration for its indigenous peoples or its flora and fauna, all of which must suffer so they might do so.

I have often seen fathers educate their sons in how to catch, trap and generally exploit this country, but precious few who educate their children to appreciate its beauty and the huge diversity that should be protected and cherished for all time.

>>> It maybe applicable in European and Northern American environments, / with northern hemisphere countries,
where only a few thousand years ago was largely under snow and ice and consequently with but a small number
of species is no comparison at all. <<<

“The study focused on bat populations within a mosaic of forest fragments and farmland in Costa Rica and
on islands in a large lake in Panama.”

Pretty sure their very close to the equator, not the northern hemisphere!

>>> To clear land is to wreck the local ecosystem and when the flora is removed
so are all the organisms that depend upon it, and when these go, so do the predators,
as there is not enough for them to live off. <<<

“To test the equilibrium theory of island biogeography against a more holistic theory of
agricultural or countryside biogeography, the researchers turned to bats acutely sensitive to deforestation.

“This paper shows that farmland and forest remnants can be more valuable for biodiversity than previously assumed.

Island biogeographic theory didn’t come close to accurately forecasting responses in the Costa Rican countryside landscape.
For example, the island theory predicted that the Costa Rican coffee plantations would have inadequate habitat to sustain
a single species of bat. In reality, plantations in the countryside typically supported 18 bat species, compared to the 23 to 28
supported by tropical forest fragments and nature reserves.

“Not only do more species persist across the ’sea of farmland’ than expected by island biogeographic theory,
novel yet native species actually thrive there,” said co-author Elizabeth Hadly, the Paul S. and Billie Achilles Professor
in Environmental Biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

“This indicates that human-altered landscapes can foster more biological diversity than we anticipated.”

“The study focused on bat populations within a mosaic of forest fragments and farmland in Costa Rica and
on islands in a large lake in Panama.”

Pretty sure their very close to the equator, not the northern hemisphere!

both are in the northern hemisphere.

ChrispenEvan said:

“The study focused on bat populations within a mosaic of forest fragments and farmland in Costa Rica and
on islands in a large lake in Panama.”

Pretty sure their very close to the equator, not the northern hemisphere!

both are in the northern hemisphere.

He’s right, you know.

The equator actually passes through Ecuador, not many people know that.

quote in full

>Pretty sure their very close to the equator, <<

and they are not in the part of the northern hemisphere such as Europe, affected by the last ice age

Right, I’m bloody well right you know you got a right to say Right, I’m bloody well right you know you got a right to say Ha-ha I’m bloody well right you know you’re right to say Yeah-yeah I’m bloody well right

northern australia is close to the equator too.

Costa Rica is very close to the equator like Hobart is very close to Newcastle.

>>>Costa Rica is very close to the equator like Hobart is very close to Newcastle.<<<

Costa Rica lies in the tropics.

pretty sure it wasn’t under ice, last ice age

The_observer said:

>>> It maybe applicable in European and Northern American environments, / with northern hemisphere countries,
where only a few thousand years ago was largely under snow and ice and consequently with but a small number
of species is no comparison at all. <<<

“The study focused on bat populations within a mosaic of forest fragments and farmland in Costa Rica and
on islands in a large lake in Panama.”

Pretty sure their very close to the equator, not the northern hemisphere!

>>> To clear land is to wreck the local ecosystem and when the flora is removed
so are all the organisms that depend upon it, and when these go, so do the predators,
as there is not enough for them to live off. <<<

“To test the equilibrium theory of island biogeography against a more holistic theory of
agricultural or countryside biogeography, the researchers turned to bats acutely sensitive to deforestation.

“This paper shows that farmland and forest remnants can be more valuable for biodiversity than previously assumed.

Island biogeographic theory didn’t come close to accurately forecasting responses in the Costa Rican countryside landscape.
For example, the island theory predicted that the Costa Rican coffee plantations would have inadequate habitat to sustain
a single species of bat. In reality, plantations in the countryside typically supported 18 bat species, compared to the 23 to 28
supported by tropical forest fragments and nature reserves.

“Not only do more species persist across the ’sea of farmland’ than expected by island biogeographic theory,
novel yet native species actually thrive there,” said co-author Elizabeth Hadly, the Paul S. and Billie Achilles Professor
in Environmental Biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

“This indicates that human-altered landscapes can foster more biological diversity than we anticipated.”

Well fk me, they weren’t discussing wildlife at all, only bats. Well microbats can fly and roost in tiny places, plus they catch their food on the wing, this reduces the risk of being eaten by cats, etc. Bats inhabit many environments and living with people or near people is not unusual.

The_observer said:

>>>Costa Rica is very close to the equator like Hobart is very close to Newcastle.<<<

Costa Rica lies in the tropics.

pretty sure it wasn’t under ice, last ice age

Neither Costa Rica nor Panama was under ice in the last ice age.

Anyway I think it’s a good idea to make agricultural land as wildlife-friendly as possible, which much of it isn’t at the moment, in most parts of the world.

Costa Rica and Panama are two of the largest countries in the world to have no military forces.

Neither Costa Rica nor Panama was under ice in the last ice age.

i doubt panama and costa rica even existed during the last ice age.

;-)

ChrispenEvan said:

Neither Costa Rica nor Panama was under ice in the last ice age.

i doubt panama and costa rica even existed during the last ice age.

;-)

Bats do not represent wildlife.

ChrispenEvan said:

Neither Costa Rica nor Panama was under ice in the last ice age.

i doubt panama and costa rica even existed during the last ice age.

;-)

‘

So you agree with me…

from the link

“Wildlife and the natural habitat that supports it might be an
increasingly scarce commodity in a world where at least
three-quarters of the land surface is directly affected by humans

3/4

B.S button, now pushing

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Neither Costa Rica nor Panama was under ice in the last ice age.

i doubt panama and costa rica even existed during the last ice age.

;-)

Bats do not represent wildlife.

Most of them are housepets these days, eh?

ChrispenEvan said:

Neither Costa Rica nor Panama was under ice in the last ice age.

i doubt panama and costa rica even existed during the last ice age.

;-)

Why?

morrie said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Neither Costa Rica nor Panama was under ice in the last ice age.

i doubt panama and costa rica even existed during the last ice age.

;-)

Why?

I assume he means that those nations did not exist.

The land territory upon which those nations lie did, largely, exist.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Neither Costa Rica nor Panama was under ice in the last ice age.

i doubt panama and costa rica even existed during the last ice age.

;-)

Bats do not represent wildlife.

Most of them are housepets these days, eh?

No it means if it only referred to bats, the title should read “Farmland less hostile to bats than was thought”

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Bats do not represent wildlife.

Most of them are housepets these days, eh?

No it means if it only referred to bats, the title should read “Farmland less hostile to bats than was thought”

Fair comment

DV has it. i did put a ;-) to indicate i was being pendantic.

dv said:

morrie said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Neither Costa Rica nor Panama was under ice in the last ice age.

i doubt panama and costa rica even existed during the last ice age.

;-)

Why?

I assume he means that those nations did not exist.

The land territory upon which those nations lie did, largely, exist.

And was, presumably, a good bit larger.

Published in some half baked pseudo-scientific rag. Can’t trust this sort of stuff.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13139.html

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Most of them are housepets these days, eh?

No it means if it only referred to bats, the title should read “Farmland less hostile to bats than was thought”

Fair comment

Farmland may be less hostile to bats but decreased natural habitat means they are much more subject to hostile human interference.

morrie said:

Published in some half baked pseudo-scientific rag. Can’t trust this sort of stuff.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13139.html

I think you should be directing you sarcastic comments to the person who dreamt up the topic title, as I responded to that, not bats on islands.

>>>Farmland may be less hostile to bats but decreased natural
habitat means they are much more subject to hostile human interference<<<
.
.

It Bat season

Tamb said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

No it means if it only referred to bats, the title should read “Farmland less hostile to bats than was thought”

Fair comment

Farmland may be less hostile to bats but decreased natural habitat means they are much more subject to hostile human interference.

Bats are less likely to be placed at risk from people (other than pesticides and habitat clearance) than most other creatures.

The_observer said:

>>>Farmland may be less hostile to bats but decreased natural
habitat means they are much more subject to hostile human interference<<<
.
.

It Bat season

Sadly in some peoples mind it’s always bat season.

I was merely reflecting the original title & content of the article:

Researchers rethink ‘natural’ habitat for wildlife

Date:
April 18, 2014
Source:
Stanford University
Summary:
Protecting wildlife while feeding a world population predicted to reach nine billion by 2050 will require a holistic approach to conservation that considers human-altered landscapes such as farmland, according to researchers. A new study finds that a long-accepted theory used to estimate extinction rates, predict ecological risk and make conservation policy recommendations is overly pessimistic. The researchers point to an alternative framework that promises a more effective way of accounting for human-altered landscapes and assessing ecological risks.

The_observer said:

>>>Farmland may be less hostile to bats but decreased natural
habitat means they are much more subject to hostile human interference<<<
.
.

It Bat season

It’s a pity you didn’t take more notice of what I said Observer, you might have learnt something.

Perhaps we should build more belfries

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

Fair comment

Farmland may be less hostile to bats but decreased natural habitat means they are much more subject to hostile human interference.

Bats are less likely to be placed at risk from people (other than pesticides and habitat clearance) than most other creatures.

They are shot, electronetted & have their colonies “moved on” as well as having their native food trees replaced by human type fruit.

dv said:

Perhaps we should build more belfries

Perhaps we should reduce the human population.

Bubblecar said:

I was merely reflecting the original title & content of the article:

Researchers rethink ‘natural’ habitat for wildlife

Date:
April 18, 2014
Source:
Stanford University
Summary:
Protecting wildlife while feeding a world population predicted to reach nine billion by 2050 will require a holistic approach to conservation that considers human-altered landscapes such as farmland, according to researchers. A new study finds that a long-accepted theory used to estimate extinction rates, predict ecological risk and make conservation policy recommendations is overly pessimistic. The researchers point to an alternative framework that promises a more effective way of accounting for human-altered landscapes and assessing ecological risks.

As I said before that is only applicable in Northern Hemisphere countries where the flora and fauna was largely wiped out during recent Ice Ages. Australia has a much greater biodiversity that has evolved over millions of years. You cannot clear land and expect even a tiny portion of the original inhabitants to survive, let alone return.

>>>It’s a pity you didn’t take more notice of what I said Observer, you might have learnt something.<<<

believe me permfile, I take notice of everything you say

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

Farmland may be less hostile to bats but decreased natural habitat means they are much more subject to hostile human interference.

Bats are less likely to be placed at risk from people (other than pesticides and habitat clearance) than most other creatures.

They are shot, electronetted & have their colonies “moved on” as well as having their native food trees replaced by human type fruit.

You are referring to Fruit-bats, not micro-bats.

>>>They are shot,
electronetted &
have their colonies “moved on” as well as
having their native food trees replaced by human type fruit.<<<

you left out the bit about wind turbines

Bats are being found beneath wind turbines all over the world. Bat fatalities have now been documented at most wind facilities in the U.S. and Canada and it is estimated that tens to hundreds of thousands die at wind turbines in North America each year.

The_observer said:

>>>It’s a pity you didn’t take more notice of what I said Observer, you might have learnt something.<<<

believe me permfile, I take notice of everything you say

That’s nice. Do you file it with your real climate change science literature?

.
Its Bat season
.
.

The_observer said:

.
Its Bat season
.
.

Difficult to beat your silliness Observer, you are quite an expert.

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Bats are less likely to be placed at risk from people (other than pesticides and habitat clearance) than most other creatures.

They are shot, electronetted & have their colonies “moved on” as well as having their native food trees replaced by human type fruit.

You are referring to Fruit-bats, not micro-bats.

Indeed I am. Microbats feed on insects so are much less affected by human activities.

>>>That’s nice. Do you file it with your real climate change science literature?
<<<
.
.
No; I file it here

“http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_peUxE_BKcU”

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

They are shot, electronetted & have their colonies “moved on” as well as having their native food trees replaced by human type fruit.

You are referring to Fruit-bats, not micro-bats.

Indeed I am. Microbats feed on insects so are much less affected by human activities.

Which is what I have been saying.

The_observer said:

>>>That’s nice. Do you file it with your real climate change science literature?
<<<
.
.
No; I file it here

“http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_peUxE_BKcU”

Silly, silly.

The_observer said:

>>>They are shot,
electronetted &
have their colonies “moved on” as well as
having their native food trees replaced by human type fruit.<<<

you left out the bit about wind turbines

Bats are being found beneath wind turbines all over the world. Bat fatalities have now been documented at most wind facilities in the U.S. and Canada and it is estimated that tens to hundreds of thousands die at wind turbines in North America each year.

True. Not here though. The predominant species are Little Red Flying Foxes which are low flyers & pass under the turbine blades. The other species, Spectacled, Grey headed etc tend to fly high enough to clear the blade tops.

>>>Silly, silly.<<

no not at all.

watch the video.

the main star of the video is an analogy for what comes out your gob.

and what they do with the star of the video at the end is also
an analogy for what I do with your statements

The_observer said:

>>>Silly, silly.<<

no not at all.

watch the video.

the main star of the video is an analogy for what comes out your gob.

and what they do with the star of the video at the end is also
an analogy for what I do with your statements

Yeah well, I leave you to fuckup the country with your incredible stupidity.

The_observer is the denier we deserve, but not the one we need right now.

>>>Yeah well, I leave you to fuckup the country with your incredible stupidity.<<

just because you are a lunatic extremist,

and I am not,

doesn’t mean I fuck up the country.

>>>The_observer is the denier we deserve, but not the one we need right now.<<

no worries. I was about to leave for Camden.

so long

The_observer said:

>>>Yeah well, I leave you to fuckup the country with your incredible stupidity.<<

just because you are a lunatic extremist,

and I am not,

doesn’t mean I fuck up the country.

You are just so unbelievably ignorant and what is more, you like being so. In that way you don’t need to think.