Re: Species impact
 

Praxians!!!!

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We'll say humans have impacted the global ecosystem the most.

What species is second?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mitochondria. (It was a species once!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Current species.

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We'll say humans have impacted the global ecosystem the most.

What species is second?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mitochondria. (It was a species once!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Current species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human mitochondria!

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It will certainly be a domesticated species. Probably cattle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Globally, why cattle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cattle have a huge impact on the local ecosystems where they graze. But globally, domesticated animals like cattle and pigs contribute more greenhouse gases than do automobiles. It was in the New York Times, so it must be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
These animals wouldn't be doing what they're doing without human intervention. I consider this to be a downstream effect of humans on the ecosystem and not an affect of that species by itself.

What about a species that benefits from human urbanization, like the pigeon?

All that pigeon [censored] has to affect something.

Edit: Grammar!

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We'll say humans have impacted the global ecosystem the most.

What species is second?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mitochondria. (It was a species once!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Current species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human mitochondria!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that counts as a species or for this question! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
We'll say humans have impacted the global ecosystem the most.

What species is second?

[/ QUOTE ]

After more thought... there is no second. The only species I can think of off the top that exists over the entire globe naturally is the rodent. Or maybe not. Any mice at the poles?

Plus, no other species is capable of changing an ecosystem without human intervention.

Don't all species (except humans) live in balance with their ecosystem? We're the only ones [censored]-ing things up.

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
After more thought... there is no second. The only species I can think of off the top that exists over the entire globe naturally is the rodent. Or maybe not. Any mice at the poles?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Rodent" isn't a species, but more importantly you're forgetting single-celled organisms. I'm still sticking with E Coli, though rice and wheat seem like they may be contenders.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, no other species is capable of changing an ecosystem without human intervention.

Don't all species (except humans) live in balance with their ecosystem? We're the only ones [censored]-ing things up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Species change their environments all the time. These changes are largely responsible for the world as we know it - geologically as well as ecologically. As Rduke pointed out in another thread, species may even drive themselves to extinction by changing their environment. Also, the changes we're making are hardly the most dramatic - early changes in the atmosphere were extreme. One example is that early life probably had trouble surviving in the presence of oxygen, and as oxygen began to be released as a waste product evolution was driven significantly by the "coping mechanisms" of various species.

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We'll say humans have impacted the global ecosystem the most.

What species is second?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mitochondria. (It was a species once!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Current species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human mitochondria!

[/ QUOTE ]

They cant be counted as their own species, a large number of the proteins that make up mitochondria are coded for in nuclear DNA. They are, at best, half-human.

Re: Species impact
 

I'll take a flying leap and say cows.