סוגיות בסביבה, קיימות ושמירת טבע - אב"ג
- 186 שאלות
- 929 תגובות
- 0% הושלמו
- equalizer סטטיסטיקות
- share שתף
Discuss, Learn and be Happy דיון בשאלות
help
brightness_4
brightness_7
format_textdirection_r_to_l
format_textdirection_l_to_r
Species extinction:
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 30
הגיוני
מוניטין: 2095
לא רק אנחנו אשמים
מוניטין: 85
דינוזאורים
מוניטין: 1
Species = natural
The term 'Mass Extinction':
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Definition of a ‘mass-extinction’ event
Palaeobiologists reserve the term mass extinction for relatively brief geological intervals (typically < 3 Myr) during which the global rate of taxonomic loss spikes to many times the long-term ‘background’ rate of extinction. Five such pulses—the “Big Five” of the Phanerozoic—each eliminated ≥ 75 % of marine species. The operative criterion is therefore an extinction velocity orders of magnitude above the statistical baseline, not the body size of the victims, the causal mechanism, nor the absolute number of taxa lost. Framing the concept in rate terms allows direct comparison between episodes separated by hundreds of millions of years and underpins current debates on whether the present anthropogenic biodiversity crisis is already a sixth mass extinction.
The current state of biodiversity:
1
| mood |
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Biodiversity status: the iceberg of unevaluated species
Contrary to a common assumption that “most species have been Red-Listed,” only a small fraction—roughly 15 % of the 2.2 million species formally described and an even tinier slice of the 8–10 million thought to exist—has undergone IUCN assessment. Taxonomic bias is stark: virtually all birds and mammals are evaluated, yet fewer than one percent of insects, fungi or marine invertebrates appear on the List. This limited coverage means global extinction-risk figures are extrapolated from a thin, phylogenetically skewed evidence base; the majority of Earth’s biota remains data-deficient, rendering conservation triage both urgent and epistemically constrained.
Efficient conservation efforts should:
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
1. Why single-scale = single-point failure
• Focusing solely on a mega‐reserve or a solitary forest patch is basically the ecological equivalent of stacking all your chips on one roulette number. When that one site succumbs to drought, fire, invasive species or, you know, corporate bulldozers, poof—you’ve lost the lot. 🤢
• Multi-scale networks (from tiny wetlands to vast wilderness corridors) spread risk like an insurance portfolio: if one patch collapses, others can buffer the blow.
2. Diverse conservation units aren’t a nice-to-have—they’re survival insurance
• Species-level programs (captive breeding, genetic banks) 👉 great for single charismatic fauna, but utterly impotent if their habitat vanishes.
• Ecosystem-level restoration (rewetting peat bogs, reforesting hillsides) 👉 fantastic for carbon credits and PR, but often glosses over the microhabitats your tiniest invertebrates actually need.
• Landscape-level planning (land-use zoning, community engagement) 👉 political theatre unless backed by on-the-ground species and ecosystem actions.
• Only by juggling all three can you avoid the “conservation monoculture” that inevitably crashes.
3. Trade-offs, budgets and the ugly truth
• Sure, funneling every penny into giant rewilding schemes looks spectacular on Instagram. 📸 But without fine‐scale genetic monitoring and small-patch reserves, you’re just planting trees around empty fields.
• Conversely, obsessing over a single endangered snail in a lab flask while ignoring the surrounding polluted watershed is… well, let’s call it “targeted neglect.” 🥳
⸻
The Bleak Punchline
Efficient conservation is polycentric: it must thread together site-specific restoration, species safeguards, and landscape connectivity across scales. Anything less is simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic—pretty deck chairs, but you’re still sinking. 😈🌎
The main advantage of reintroduction is that it:
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Under the framing adopted by most conservation-biology syllabi, the primary purpose of a reintroduction is straightforwardly demographic: to re-establish a viable wild population of a species that has dwindled or disappeared, thereby securing its long-term persistence together with the ecological community on which it depends. Everything else—trophic rebalancing, ecosystem-function restoration, public outreach—while undeniably valuable, is viewed as either a downstream consequence (e.g., carnivore top-down control returns once the species is numerically secure) or an ancillary programme goal (e.g., media campaigns that accompany a release). Hence, when exam writers ask for the main advantage, they expect the narrowly conservationist answer: “improves the conservation of the species and its ecosystem.” Selecting the more expansive “all answers are correct” risks diluting that hierarchy by implying that every collateral benefit carries equal strategic weight, which is not the doctrinal emphasis of the discipline.
Usually, small populations:
1
| sentiment_very_satisfied | ||
Which case has the highest probability for a successful reintroduction project?
1
| done | ||
In which of the following cases should species reintroduction be avoided?
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
When is a species considered critically endangered by the IUCN?
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 295
זה מה שchatGPT טוען:
The rationale behind this criterion is that species with a small range are considered to be at a higher risk of extinction than those with a larger range. This is because a small range means that the entire population of the species is concentrated in a small area, making it more vulnerable to threats such as habitat destruction, disease, or natural disasters. Additionally, a small range also means that the population is less resilient to genetic drift, inbreeding and other genetic problems.
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
IUCN “Critically Endangered” – the < 100 km² threshold
Under Criterion B of the IUCN Red List, a taxon may be listed as Critically Endangered (CR) when its Extent of Occurrence is < 100 km² or its Area of Occupancy is < 10 km² and at least two compounding risk factors apply (e.g. severe fragmentation, continuing decline, or extreme fluctuations). The logic is demographic and stochastic: when the entire geographic envelope of a species can be traversed in a short day’s march, any local catastrophe—fire, pathogen, mine development—can engulf the full population, leaving no refugial sub-population from which to rebound. Hence very small range size is treated as a sufficient proxy for extreme extinction risk, even in the absence of precise census data.
What is the major aim of Conservation Biology?
1
| done | ||
מיין לפי
מוניטין: 0
GPT explains (level =C2; CEFR aligned):
Major aim of Conservation Biology → Maintain biodiversity worldwide
Conservation Biology, since Soulé’s founding manifestos (1985), defines itself not by single-species nostalgia or by ecosystem-service utilitarianism, but by the normative imperative to preserve the full spectrum of biological diversity—genes, species, and ecological processes—across spatial and temporal scales. Rewilding, ex-situ rescue or high-profile de-extinction projects are tactical instruments; the strategic end-state is a resilient, richly varied biosphere capable of sustaining evolution and supporting coupled human–natural systems. Thus “maintaining biodiversity throughout the world” captures the discipline’s overarching telos.
