Species impact
 

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

What species is second?

Re: Species impact
 

Algae

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
Algae

[/ QUOTE ]

What species is second?

Although I like the idea otherwise.

This thread may not work.

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Algae

[/ QUOTE ]

Species

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't decide if you meant currently or historically, so I was waffling ... and too lazy to look them up.
Besides, I'm not Sklanskalian, I have lots of 31% opinions that I won't bet on.

luckyme

Re: Species impact
 

I'm thinking current and species because otherwise cyanobacteria and algae would take it down.

I also edited my previous post.

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking current and species because otherwise cyanobacteria and algae would take it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...wk/no_wai2.jpg

Kittens, ftw

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking current and species because otherwise cyanobacteria and algae would take it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...wk/no_wai2.jpg

Kittens, ftw

[/ QUOTE ]

Penelope, Purkinje, Kraepelin. and Nala agree with you. I do too, as long as we're talking about the Rduke ecosystem.

Re: Species impact
 

It will certainly be a domesticated species. Probably cattle.

Re: Species impact
 

This is a really hard question, but I'm going to say E Coli. Aside from its direct impact on many ecosystems and possible role in animal evolution, it's been used by humans to support research and technology that has had a signficant impact on, arguably, everything.

Re: Species impact
 

A clear choice didn't pop up for the people having the conversation that inspired this thread. One of the things I was thinking of is not what affects the ecosystem but what prevented humans from affecting the ecosystem. For example, malaria was, and is, really an impediment to developing the kinds of nature obliterating civilization seen outside of the tropics. So one of the Plasmodiums could be a reasonable choice. But then, maybe we just need to consider one of the Anopheles mosquitoes as the species here, since they are the vector.

I still feel like I'm missing something obvious.

Re: Species impact
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Globally, why cattle?

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
A clear choice didn't pop up for the people having the conversation that inspired this thread. One of the things I was thinking of is not what affects the ecosystem but what prevented humans from affecting the ecosystem. For example, malaria was, and is, really an impediment to developing the kinds of nature obliterating civilization seen outside of the tropics. So one of the Plasmodiums could be a reasonable choice. But then, maybe we just need to consider one of the Anopheles mosquitoes as the species here, since they are the vector.

I still feel like I'm missing something obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I first opened the thread i was thinking rats as far as other mammels go. I don't really know how many different species of rodent are comomnly associated with humans, but some have been responsible for extinction of quite a few species when they were transported to islands, and have carried quite a few major deseases with them.

Re: Species impact
 

[ 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.

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
One of the things I was thinking of is not what affects the ecosystem but what prevented humans from affecting the ecosystem.

[/ QUOTE ]


Rduke,

I think there are 3 questions here all of which are interesting:

1) The original question as to which species is currently second after humans.

2) The one given in your quote above as to what species prevents humans from having an even greater impact on the ecosystem.

3) And which species if humans were all removed from the planet tomorrow, would have the greatest impact on the ecosystem to the detriment of the most other species.


I don't know the answers, but tolbiny's rat answer is likely a good candidate for #2 as is yours regarding the mosquito. However as 3/4 of the planet is covered in oceans, something aquatic like algae also has to be considered. And the fact that there is currently no other primate species capable of making fire is also significant regarding atmospheric impacts.

But regarding #2 again, there might not be a dominant disease causing virus or bacteria that holds humans back from a greater impact, but rather a group that collectively does so, or which alternate over time.

It is also worth noting, that many predator species that would otherwise be candidates for the original question, are held in check if not extincted by humans, so the real second place might not be the same if humans didn't have as great an impact on those other predators.

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the answers, but tolbiny's rat answer is likely a good candidate for #2 as is yours regarding the mosquito

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the word species here is what makes it so difficult to answer for a non specialist (ie me). I think Borodog is on the right track by looking at atmosphereic changes as they can effect the entire world more easily than other changes, but i think hes got it backwards. I would look at carbon fixing organisms first, things like coccolithophores which are responsible for the White Cliffs of Dover and other enourmous deposits of calcium carbonate. I also think that they effect the pH levels of the ocean (trying to remember 10th grade biology here), which would be an enourmous impact. Problem is there could be thousands (or more) different species contributing to this process, how to estimate the impact of one?

Re: Species impact
 

I'll hazard a guess.

Worms.

What other species currently reorganizes the most biomass to positive benefit?

Re: Species impact
 

Great questions.

[ QUOTE ]
But regarding #2 again, there might not be a dominant disease causing virus or bacteria that holds humans back from a greater impact, but rather a group that collectively does so, or which alternate over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I picked malaria/mosquito. It definitely is an obstacle to human civilization and, more importantly for this debate, is located in a certain place (say, the tropics) of really high biodiversity and can "protect" that area. While other diseases may kill more humans at certain times (influenza, plague, etc.) they don't have the effect or localization malaria has. That's also why I don't think rats are as good of a choice as the mosquito vector, they're pretty much everywhere and while they can have on effect on controlling human density, I don't think they have nearly as much effect. I did see something in Discover and other places on them wiping out species that I thought was interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
However as 3/4 of the planet is covered in oceans, something aquatic like algae also has to be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, here's where the species question comes in. As groups of species, a lot of other organisms have a greater effect than humans (like algae). Maybe we could go to the genus level (still be in the letter of the OP since we are the only extant species in our genus)

[ QUOTE ]
It is also worth noting, that many predator species that would otherwise be candidates for the original question, are held in check if not extincted by humans,

[/ QUOTE ]

But predators are often affecting small local populations (as opposed to tropical diseases - which have a much larger area).

I think that the rat would definitely drop down the list if humans went extinct.

Re: Species impact
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the word species here is what makes it so difficult to answer for a non specialist (ie me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think this may be a problem. But I think we can still limit it to a couple species in a genus or something.

[ QUOTE ]
I think Borodog is on the right track by looking at atmosphereic changes as they can effect the entire world more easily than other changes, but i think hes got it backwards. I would look at carbon fixing organisms first, things like coccolithophores which are responsible for the White Cliffs of Dover and other enourmous deposits of calcium carbonate. I also think that they effect the pH levels of the ocean (trying to remember 10th grade biology here), which would be an enourmous impact. Problem is there could be thousands (or more) different species contributing to this process, how to estimate the impact of one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, also I'm vaguely remembering some papers on the rise of agriculture, rice, and preventing ice ages.
Anyone remember those?

Re: Species impact
 

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

What species is second?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mitochondria. (It was a species once!)

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 ]

Cheater.

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.