Presentation exam references Flashcards
Point 1 (Paragraph 1)
(Zalasiewicz, et al., 2015)
-Humans evolved by coexisting within the terrestrial ecosystem
-Broken down, especially since the 20th century, the conceptual start of the Anthropocene
Point 2
(WWF, 2022)
-Global wildlife abundance has declined approx 69% since 1970
-Due to increased interactions between humans and wildlife as we encroach and fragment habitats
Figure 1
Point 3
(WWF & UNEP, 2021)
-Disproportionally affect people in the global south
-Interactions threaten lives and livelihoods leading to conflict
-Affects 75% of the worlds wild cats, bears, and elephants
Figure 1
(WWF, 2022)
-Figure 1. The Living Plant Index with 1970 as the baseline (100%) measures the average decline in globally monitored wildlife populations’
X. Year - 1970 to 2018
Y. LPI - 0% to 100%
Trend curve going from 100% to leaving out around 30%
Point 4 (Paragraph 2)
(Decaëns, et al., 2018)
Starting sentence about conflict between wildlife due to expansion and intensification
-Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest through agricultural land use decreases biodiversity
-In the most intensive regions species richness has decreased by an average of 55%
Point 5
(Burns, et al., 2023)
-Biodiversity loss is also seen in UK
-Intensification of agricultural management primary cause of the 19% average decrease in species abundance since 1970
Point 6
(Decaëns, et al., 2018)
-Mitigation
-If over 40% Brazilian rainforest retained within agricultural regions, biodiversity could be protected and retained at levels close to 100% forest cover
Figure 2
Point 7
(Smith, et al., 2021)
-In UK already destroyed all our natural habitats
-Regenerate agricultural areas and reduce fragmentation through management changes to promote biodiversity
-Regenerative farming found to enchance biodiversity on all taxonomic levels
Figure 2
(Decaëns, et al., 2018)
Figure 2. Relationship between the synthetic index of species richness (%) and forest cover (%) within the Amazonian region
X. Forest cover - 0% to 100%
Y. Richness Index - 0% to 100%
Curve going from around 27% upto just under 70% at 40% cover and flat till the end
Point 8 (Paragraph 3)
(CABI, 2023)
-Natural ecosystem destruction provides opportunities for invasive species to expand their range
Impacts agriculture, forestry, fishing and infrastructure
-Total estimated annual global economic cost of $423 billion
Point 9
(Burns, et al., 2023)
-Invasive species such as the grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis and Rhododendron ponticum in UK
-Often outcompete native species
-Decreasing biodiversity
Point 10
(Oliver, et al., 2015)
-Detection, monitoring, prevention and eradication are important by highly difficult
-Therefore, schemes such as the reintroduction of native species to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem function proposed, such as the Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx and European beaver Castro fiber in the UK
Point 11
(Stringer & Gaywood, 2016)
-Out of these two, the beaver is the only reintroduction that has been approved
-Native 400 years ago in UK
-Selectively introduced in regions of Scotland and England
-Meta-analysis highlighted 73% positive impacts on biodiversity across a range of terrestrial specie groups
-Main negative being impacts on upstream fish migration
Point 12 (Paragraph 4)
(Parkinson & Cottrell, 2022)
-Negative impacts on terrestrial ecosystems through conflicts between our species
-Military activity contributes approximately 5.5% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions annually
Point 13
(Vuong, et al., 2024)
-Longterm pollution of soils, air, and water
-Intentional destruction of 1.2 million hectares of tree cove
-This destruction is critical with Ukraine containing 35% of Europe’s biodiversity, with 44% of the most important natural areas currently affected by war