
World's largest plant survey reveals alarming extinction rate - bookofjoe
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01810-6
======
misiti3780
If you read "The Sixth extinction" it talks a lot about this. Her hypothesis
is that the main cause of this is in fact humans, but not human-caused climate
change -global trade and travel.

"Kolbert then explains that global trade and travel are creating a virtual
"Pangaea", in which species of all kinds are being redistributed beyond
historical geographic barriers. This furthers the first chapter's idea that
invasive species are a mechanism of extinction."

------
laydn
The article says, "the project looked at more than 330,000 species...." and
"...seed-bearing plants have been disappearing at a rate of nearly 3 species a
year since 1900 ― which is up to 500 times higher".

So since 1900, that's 357 species disappearing, out of 330,000 (~0.1%)

How did they arrive at the conclusion that this is an "alarming rate"? Also,
"up to 500 times higher" means, the expected rate is less than 1 plant going
extinct out of 330,000 species, which sounds way too good to be true.

~~~
jniedrauer
> Also, "up to 500 times higher" means, the expected rate is less than 1 plant
> going extinct out of 330,000 species, which sounds way too good to be true.

Speciation does not occur in human timespans. If 3 species of seed bearing
plants out of 330,000 went extinct per year, we could expect to live on a
barren planet within 110,000 years. This is a very rapid rate, given that
plant life has existed for 5,000 times longer than that.

~~~
radicalbyte
We literally breed new subtypes of plants, constantly, to improve our food
crops. Those are new species being created within a human life span.

~~~
jniedrauer
This seems disingenuous. Genetically modified organisms created in a lab have
no bearing on the proliferation of biodiversity outside the lab.

~~~
mirimir
I wouldn't say "no bearing". But if current trends continued, there wouldn't
be much left except people, livestock, pets, crop plants (including trees),
insect pests, and microorganisms. And stuff in zoos and botanical gardens.

However, that's unlikely. Well before that, human society and population will
likely collapse, due to climate change.

------
perfunctory
I like to draw the connection between the climate change, natural world
destruction and the epidemic of loneliness [0]. They all have the same root
cause I believe. We are working our ass off chasing illusory happiness of
material goods, while not spending enough time with our friends and family.

Take a break. Take a day off. Or two. Go see your friend you haven't seen in a
long while. Go for a walk in a park. Good for climate, endangered species and
your mental health.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20116699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20116699)

~~~
sunshinelackof
I can take a few days off for no reason. Most people cannot. 40% of American
households cannot afford a $400 expense. That means they're at the whim of
their employer as to whether they ever get a break and if they do they're
going to take the overtime instead. Most people aren't simply chasing the
money either, they're just trying to live.

Leisure is a commodity that is out of the reach of many people now. It is no
longer a part of life. This will not change through individual choice, it
requires a coordinated reorganization of our society.

Source:
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/othe...](https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20180522a.htm)

~~~
perfunctory
The "good news" is that most people (those 40% of American households) are not
the biggest emitters. One of the biggest emitters are us, the HN crowd, people
who can afford to "take a few days off for no reason". Let's start with us.

------
gloriousduke
It's interesting that the image used for the article, from the windward side
of Oahu, shows only invasive species (or maybe that's the point). Ironically,
the biodiversity of plants on the Hawaiian Islands has increased tremendously
since the arrival of man. The graphic shows 79 species of plant lost. Anyone
that's been to Hawaii knows there are far more than 79 introduced plant
species.

I'm not saying this is a good thing by any means, but it's interesting to see
that novel forests of invasive species are still maligned even if they contain
a greater number of species/area than what was displaced. If anyone is
interested in this comment, I can unearth at least one paper that examines
these values.

In the end, I suppose we value the total number of different species in
existence, and as that number decreases, there is a Great Loss. Yet I do like
to mull over why conservationists favor native species that are struggling to
survive over the introduced that are flourishing, often at great economic cost
to control said invasives.

Note: this comment only considers plant species, which probably makes it very
uninformed and bad. Take it with a grain of salt.

~~~
whyenot
> The graphic shows 79 species of plant lost. Anyone that's been to Hawaii
> knows there are far more than 79 introduced plant species.

But these two things are not directly comparable. On the one hand, you have
species that have gone extinct -- no individuals of these species are known to
grow in the wild anymore. This does not count species that are declining
towards extinction. On the other hand, most lists of introduced plants for
Hawaii only count species that are invasive. These are plants that not only
grow and reproduce in Hawaii, but whose populations are increasing.

While species diversity as a whole in the Hawaiian islands is likely
increasing, due to introduced species, the diversity at smaller spatial scales
is likely decreasing as endemics become rarer.

~~~
gloriousduke
> But these two things are not directly comparable

Correct. You simplified my comment nicely here (though I'm trying to find
papers about smaller scales):

> While species diversity as a whole in the Hawaiian islands is likely
> increasing, due to introduced species, the diversity at smaller spatial
> scales is likely decreasing as endemics become rarer.

How do conservationists make value judgements in cases like this?

------
parentheses
Very sad to see. We should all be doing our part. Sadly many areas don't even
have a recycling program or require payment for participation.

~~~
jniedrauer
Recycling has a negligible impact on this problem. The big areas that could
actually make a difference are: Power generation, mass transit, and food
production.

But we don't seem to have the political will to fix any of these areas.
Pushing ineffective solutions that require effort from consumers is an
unfortunately effective trick to keep people distracted.

------
politician
Regardless of whether humanity caused this or not, we ought to be sequencing
the DNA of all of these species in the event that we survive the climate
shift.

If the conservative talk radio is right that humans aren't causing a shift or
that there isn't a shift at all, great! We'll still want to be able to study
the DNA of these extinct species to improve our understanding of living
systems.

~~~
notfromhere
I mean, its definitely humans. No one legitimate is disputing that.

~~~
fastball
So plants don't go extinct without human intervention?

~~~
esailija
They do but 500 times slower.

------
artomultiplo
Why we still place human beings as something alien to nature... If we're
wrecking the stuff out of the biosphere may be that's just what we're meant to
do as a species. It's sad, but it might be something hard coded in our purpose
in this big unknown game of existence.

~~~
bitcurious
To take the same thought one step further, why place our desire to preserve
nature as something alien to nature? If we’re worrying about the wrecking of
the biosphere perhaps that’s also what we are meant to do.

~~~
artomultiplo
Thanks. Your addition to the concept really is really helpful.

