Government views Monarch Butterfly Releases as a threat to We stern Milkweeds

Mark Walker MWalker at gensym.com
Tue Dec 11 12:15:29 EST 2001


Patrick,

Why should the Monarch and it's weakly supported threats get more attention
than those species that are indeed on the verge of extinction?  Wouldn't
precious federal regulation monies be better spent on problems we KNOW to
exist?

I know this wasn't your argument, but I was interested in your reply.

Mark Walker. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Foley [mailto:patfoley at csus.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 8:45 AM
> To: Mark Walker
> Cc: monarch at saber.net; LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Government views Monarch Butterfly Releases as a 
> threat to
> Western Milkweeds
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> The best source I know is the edited volume Extinction Rates, 
> Lawton, J. H.
> and R. M May 1995, Oxford University Press.
> 
> Extinction rates vary taxonomically and regionally. Moreover 
> estimates can
> be made in several very different ways. To get an overview, 
> see Table 1.2
> in May, Lawton and Stork from this volume. Since 1600, based 
> on "certified"
> extinctions and IUCN listings of threatened, vulnerable and 
> endangered,
> they estimate (sorry about the formatting):
> 
>                                 % extinct        % IUCN threatened
> Molluscs                        0.2                    0.4
> Crustaceans                    0.01                0.3
> Insects                            0.006            0.09
> Fishes                            0.1                2
> Amphibians                    0.1                2
> Reptiles                            0.4               3
> Birds                                1                   11
> Mammals                        1                     11
> 
> Total animals                0.04                0.3
> 
> Total Plants                0.2                    9
> 
> To translate these per 400 year rates a into annual rates b set
> 
>     1 - a = exp(-400 b) and solve for b
> 
> To get rates for 1000 years c set
> 
>     1 - c = exp(-1000 b) and solve for c
> 
> A short table (note a, b and c are fractions not per cents; 
> you must add 2
> zeros to the numbers above to get a rates)
> a                b                c
> 0.0001    0.000000025    0.000025
> 0.0001    0.00000025      0.00025
> 0.001     0.0000025        0.0025
> 0.01       0.000025          0.025
> 0.1        0.00026            0.23
> 
> In other words, if a taxon loses 0.01 (that is 1%) of its 
> species in 400
> years, it can expect to lose 0.000025 (0.0025 %) per year and 
> 0.025 (2.5%)
> per one thousand years.
> 
> The actual extinctions and IUCN threatened numbers are 
> appalling, but they
> probably represent the vulnerable tip of the iceberg. The 
> most vulnerable
> large bird and mammal species have already gone extinct or 
> are likely to do
> so soon. The vast iceberg of extinctions to emerge are the 
> "walking dead",
> the species doomed to extinction by the anthropogenic deterioration of
> their habitat. Given species area curves that are rather 
> consistent, we can
> predict the number but not the identity of species that will 
> go exinct when
> local extinction vs speciation and colonization dynamics have 
> settled down
> to new, less generous equilibria. This will take thousands of 
> years, but it
> will involve hundreds of thousands of species.
> 
> Patrick Foley
> patfoley at csus.edu
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Walker wrote:
> 
> > What has the (estimated) extinction rate been over the past 
> 1000 years?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patrick Foley [mailto:patfoley at csus.edu]
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 7:00 PM
> > > To: monarch at saber.net
> > > Cc: LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu
> > > Subject: Re: Government views Monarch Butterfly Releases as a
> > > threat to
> > > Western Milkweeds
> >
> > <snip>
> > > As often happens in environmentalist-development debates, one
> > > side is not worried
> > > about cumulative impacts, because the immediate effects seem
> > > so small. Lomborg, in
> > > his recent book the Skeptical Environmentalist, argues that
> > > an extinction rate of
> > > 0.7% per 50 years is manageable and hardly worthy of
> > > hysteria. To me, this
> > > extinction rate will lead to 13% of the species on earth
> > > going extinct over the
> > > next 1000 years. (exp(-0.007*20 half-centuries)= 0.87). If
> > > this doesn't trouble
> > > you, consider the results of another 6000 years of human
> > > history. You should only
> > > worry about the environment if you are rooting, as I am, for
> > > human civilization to
> > > last ... or at least start.
> > >
> > >
> > > Patrick Foley
> > > patfoley at csus.edu
> > >
> > >
> 

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list