Amphibian Extinction

[ttyo888]

What will be the repercussions on humanity if amphibian were to become extinct?

[CaptainPanic]

Direct effects on humanity

1. A portion of humanity would feel incredibly guilty (assuming that we're to be blamed)

2. All those living close to a pond finally get a decent night of sleep

3. The French would have re-invent their haute cuisine

 

Indirect effects

1. Eco systems would get all funny with either predator or prey going missing.

2. This could lead to some other species going extinct, and some other thriving a bit too much

3. for example insects (fly, mosquito) could become a pest, and could perhaps lead to increased disease

[PhDP]

Little, IMO, it's a small group (~5k species) limited to a particular ecosystem.

 

It's true that they eat some pests (mosquitoes), but many amphibians are considered pests.

[ttyo888]

I know the cane toad was a pest but most of the species are beneficial to us as food or pest control.

 

I would expect food production to drop since the pest to eat our crops multiply like crazy.

[SkepticLance]

There is a widespread and weird view of the 'balance of nature'. A lot of people see it as a vulnerable, static balance with everything on a knife edge and disaster just round the corner. Instead, it is a dynamic and constantly changing balance, with 'repairs' happening constantly.

 

The world's greatest disaster was at the end of the Permian era, with 95% to 98% of all species on land going extinct. Yet the world recovered.

 

Humans have already caused an enormous number of species to go extinct. The polynesians, in their spread across the Pacific Ocean, carried the polynesian rat to islands that had vulnerable bird species. It is estimated that 2000 species became extinct. Yet island ecologies still flourish.

 

If we kill off the amphibians, that will be a tragedy, since the amphibians are a scientific treasure. However, ecosystems would readapt and change to cope with the loss, and life would continue to flourish.

[ttyo888]

Well apparently it's our superior technology kinda makes ecosystems look fragile right?

 

Anyway, I think it will take the ecosystems a lot of time to cope with the loss of the amphibians right. I can see that primitive lifeforms from a point of view make up the bottom most base of ecosystems on the planet. The bottom most base of a food chain is like the base of a building. If its gone, the upper sections will crumble!

 

"If we and the rest of the backboned animals were to disappear overnight, the rest of the world would get on pretty well. But if they were to disappear, the land's ecosystems would collapse. The soil would lose its fertility. Many of the plants would no longer be pollinated. Lots of animals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals would have nothing to eat. And our fields and pastures would be covered with dung and carrion. These small creatures are within a few inches of our feet, wherever we go on land — but often, they're disregarded. We would do very well to remember them."

 

– David Attenborough, Life in the Undergrowth.

 

Amphibians are on the third last levels of the food chain just on top of the invertebrates and plants. If they disappear, the animals on the higher levels will be affected right?

 

And like the permian extinction, it will take years or millions of years to recover the void left behind by an extinct species. We might be able to survive but I think we may have to bear the pests like mosquitos and agricultural pests and the overwhelming number of their predators.

Edited June 11, 2008 by ttyo888

[SkepticLance]

ttyo

 

Your David Attenborough quote is not really appropriate for amphibians. He is correct to recognise the importance of insects, worms and other small animals that live in soil or leaf litter. However, amphibians do not hold such a key role in ecosystems.

[ttyo888]

Oh? so if they disappear, life goes on as per normal?

[SkepticLance]

As I said before, ecosystems are in a state of constant change. Remove amphibians, and that will stimulate further ecological change. However, it is unlikely that the change would be catastrophic. Loss of amphibians would be seriously regrettable, of course, since they are fascinating animals.

[ttyo888]

Ecological change? So in a few weeks after their disappearance, can I expect these disasterous events below?

 

1. Like say, a massive boost in invertebrate numbers. You would be walking in the streets and you see a huge "plague" of locusts but it turns out to be a plague of mosquitoes. ARghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! And for Farmers and gardeners, slugs and snails are popping up like in the movie, Slugs and destroying the crops.

 

2. Pesticide usage will increase, polluting the waters. And no canary in the cage to test them. It takes us much later to find out the effects.

 

3. Because of the increase in invertebrate numbers, insect-borne diseases become more common than common cold.

 

That would be too sci fi right?

[SkepticLance]

To ttyo

 

The changes would depend on the ecosystem, and each change would be different. For example : here in NZ, what would happen if Hochstetter's Frog became extinct? Apart from the loss of a very interesting animal, we probably could not even measure the subsequent ecological change.

 

However, there may be other ecosystems where the change would be greater - perhaps an increase in flying insect population since their predator is gone. That might lead on to an increase in numbers of other flying insect predators etc.

 

Each case would be different.

[ttyo888]

However, there may be other ecosystems where the change would be greater - perhaps an increase in flying insect population since their predator is gone. That might lead on to an increase in numbers of other flying insect predators etc.

 

Each case would be different.

 

I see so different location different effect?

 

OK but what are the global impacts on humanity if such an extinction had occured?

Edited June 13, 2008 by ttyo888

[Mr Skeptic]

On the other hand, there are a few species that are "keystone species," whose loss would drastically affect the ecosystem. For example, bears catching trout or salmon, provide some nutrients from the ocean for the forest, or beavers that build dams. I don't know whether any amphibians are keystone species though. If not, then the effect of removing them could be guestimated from looking at where they are in the food web.

[SkepticLance]

Mr Skeptic is correct. However, I am unaware of any amphibian species that are keystone. Maybe I am wrong, and someone can come up with such an example. If so, removing that species would have substantial and possibly very harmful consequences.

 

Obviously, the extinction of all amphibian species is unlikely, unless the Earth is hit by a planet killer or similar, in which case we will not be around to observe the results. Practically, we have to ask a separate ecological question for each species. And at this point, I cannot see any single amphibian species being so downright vital to the ecology for its removal to have more than minor effects.

[ttyo888]

I see... but still the extinction of amphibians would a loss to mankind right? Think about what secrets of regeneration their little bodies hold.

[freezy]

Indeed it would be a terrible loss.

The folks at Amphibian Ark are trying to prevent this from happening.

 

I agree with both skeptics that posted above. We (humans) would not suffer terribly from a loss of amphibians, other than the lack of biological diversity.

 

To see the effect of their absence, one has only to go to an ecosystem that is naturally free of amphibians and look for the creatures that have filled that niche.

[ttyo888]

And a place with no amphibians? Are there such a place?

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm pretty sure that you won't find amphibians where it is always cold, or always dry. Deserts, (ant)arctic, high altitude mountains.

[CDarwin]

There is a widespread and weird view of the 'balance of nature'. A lot of people see it as a vulnerable, static balance with everything on a knife edge and disaster just round the corner. Instead, it is a dynamic and constantly changing balance, with 'repairs' happening constantly.

 

The world's greatest disaster was at the end of the Permian era, with 95% to 98% of all species on land going extinct. Yet the world recovered.

 

Humans have already caused an enormous number of species to go extinct. The polynesians, in their spread across the Pacific Ocean, carried the polynesian rat to islands that had vulnerable bird species. It is estimated that 2000 species became extinct. Yet island ecologies still flourish.

 

If we kill off the amphibians, that will be a tragedy, since the amphibians are a scientific treasure. However, ecosystems would readapt and change to cope with the loss, and life would continue to flourish.

 

We should make the distinction between "life" surviving and a living world we want to be in surviving. Sure, life survived the end of the Permian, but I wouldn't want to be around for it. I'd probably get trampled by a Lystrosaur. Which bridges into a point about amphibians. We might not miss them per se, but what would fill their place? Would we want a bunch of whatever that would be? Would other animals that eat amphibians be able to switch over to the new replacements? Ecosystems may not be as fragile as they are sometimes assumed, by they are also very much more unpredictable.

Edited June 24, 2008 by CDarwin

[alanrocks]

we are the dominant life form on the face of the planet

 

every other species of animal could die but we would survive(although our diets would suffer)

 

the question is not if the ecosystem would be hurt or even collapse( because that does not matter) it is only how bad it would "inconvenience" humanity

 

to quote one of the many smiths in the matrix trilogy "there are levels of survival that we are willing to accept"

[Aardvark]

we are the dominant life form on the face of the planet

 

every other species of animal could die but we would survive(although our diets would suffer)

 

 

If every other species of animal died then humans would not remain dominant very long. Humans would likely become extinct quite quickly.

 

 

the question is not if the ecosystem would be hurt or even collapse( because that does not matter) it is only how bad it would "inconvenience" humanity

 

No. It would matter if the ecosystem were hurt or collapsed. Aside from the fact that it would immeasurably 'inconvenience' mankind, the diversity of life on this planet is a matter of beauty and wonder that has value of its own.

 

 

to quote one of the many smiths in the matrix trilogy "there are levels of survival that we are willing to accept"

 

People who think quotes from the 'Matrix' films have any actual wisdom or meaning really need to grow up.

[SkepticLance]

I agree with both aardvark and alanrocks. The loss of animal life is a tragedy, because it has all sorts of value scientifically, aesthetically, and in many practical ways. However, humans are adaptable, and a world with no animals will still have a wealth of plants, fungi, bacteria and archaeans. I have no doubt that we could find a way to survive and even build a life worth living.

[bombus]

As I said before, ecosystems are in a state of constant change. Remove amphibians, and that will stimulate further ecological change. However, it is unlikely that the change would be catastrophic. Loss of amphibians would be seriously regrettable, of course, since they are fascinating animals.

 

Mmmm. I don't know so much. I kinda agree that amphibs are probably not so important as inverts or microbes but I think that if amphibs go it will be an indication that something is very very wrong. Amphibians are the 'relics' of the first land vertebrates. They have seen the Permian extinction, the KT extinction etc and for them to go now might mean some heavy sh*t is goin' down...