|
9Local politics, the county, and the world, as viewed by Tammy Maygra Tammy’s views are her own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bill Eagle, his pastor, Tammy’s neighbors, Wayne Mayo, Betsy Johnson, Brad Witt, Former President Trump, Henry Heimuller, Joe Biden, Pat Robertson, Ted Cruz, Joe Biden’s dogs, or Claudia Eagle’s Cats. This Tammy’s Take (with the exception of this disclaimer) is not paid for or written by, or even reviewed by anyone but Tammy and she refuses to be bullied by anyone. See Bill’s Standard Disclaimer
|
|
A keystone species is an organism that helps define an entire ecosystem. Without its keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether.
Keystone Species
When people talk about stopping the climate crisis, plants are often the main target of conversations when it comes to natural systems. It makes sense that people would think of plants first, since they suck CO2 out of the air and turn it into wood and vegetation. There was information decades ago which pointed out that animals were a key to stop the climate crisis. Although it did not gain traction then, there has been a renewed interest and more indication that returning wild animals to their native habitats, or known as “rewilding” can also make a sizeable dent in the carbon surplus. Wildlife species, throughout their interaction with the environment, are the missing link between biodiversity and climate. The wildebeest is a keystone animal. More than a million of the animals navigate the African savannah today, turning grass into wildebeest poop as they go. But early in the 20th century, things were much more dismal. Their numbers plunged to 300,000 due to a disease introduced by domestic cattle. As the migrating herds dwindled, grass grew unchecked, fueling bigger wildfires, which sent more carbon into the atmosphere along with the smoke. Also it caused a decrease in lions, cheetah’s wild dogs, hyenas’ etc. All necessary to have a healthy system all depending on each other. Because of the onetime low numbers of wildebeests the Serengeti, scientists estimate, switched from a carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than it emitted, to a carbon source. Today, with the disease eradicated and wildebeest herds back, these grasslands are once again a carbon sponge, storing up to 4.4 million tons more CO2 than when wildebeest numbers were at their lowest. Just how much more carbon could be used up by ecosystems if major animal populations were protected or revived. Their total number: An eye-popping 6.4 billion tons of CO2 every year. That’s roughly a sixth of global energy-related emissions in 2021. The number comes from scientists’ estimates for the climate impacts of a variety of large, ecosystem-shaping organisms. There are sea otters, muskox, bison, wolves, and wildebeests, among other keystone animals. African forest elephants, for instance, are accredited with enhancing carbon stores as they feast on trees, making room for carbon-rich species and spreading seeds in their dung. Baleen whales have been publicized as climate soldiers because the iron concentrated in their feces triggers carbon-absorbing phytoplankton blooms. But the effects of these giant whales and the other species which were studied are dwarfed by schools of smaller ocean-going fish. Boosting whale numbers in the Southern Ocean could capture 620,000 tons of CO2, while fish around the world capture as much as 5.5 billion tons as an educated estimate. There are of course many other important keystone animals which fulfill the ecosystem’s carbon dynamics, from other huge animals to the tiny bats. By allowing key animal species to reach ecologically meaningful concentrations as part of a dynamic lands-masses and seascapes would undoubtedly shorten the time it takes to hit milestones for reducing carbon. In other words humans need to rethink their so-called managing of animal species, over fishing, and needless killing of all whales. Humans like to micro manage everything, it seems logical if they let nature do its own managing things would certainly work out better for everyone. I know there are people out there who do not like nature and do not want to protect all in nature because they would rather dig a rock pit, strip off entire mountains, deforest the rainforests for Palm oil, kill whales for nothing, the list is endless to what humans have and are destroying.. But our earths survival depends on doing the right thing, our lives depend on doing the right thing. Maybe science will prevail with new inventions, new energy sources, and with new generations of nature minded people we can reverse what the industrialization did to the earth. And what mans greed has done.
Tammy
|