Invasive Species

We all know that invasive species are nonnative species that take over a certain area. This invasion may lead to health, economic and ecosystem problems. They may even lead the native species to extinction through competitive exclusion, niche displacement, or hybridization. But when we think of evolution, what are the effects that these "alien species" have?
When considering invasive species through the lenses of evolution, we see it not as a harm, but as a proof of the capability of some plants to adapt. Invasive species are not good when they lead the native species to extinction, but that is not always the case. Sometimes, these invasive species make the native species adapt to the consequences, and if this evolution occurs fast enough, the change is not necessarily negative. Because of international trade, and tourism,  invasive species have started spreading. They already dominate 3% of all the ice-covered land of the world. If the species are not able to adapt, they will eventually be led to extinction. An example is the soapberry bug. Their beak lengths have varied during the last 50 years in order to adapt to the new invasive hosts. The reality is that international trade is ever-accelerating, which means, that the plants will have to adapt because the invasive species will only spread more and more. That is dangerous because some plants will not be able to adapt on time and will therefore become extinct, but the ones that will, will become stronger and fitter for their environment. So, to conclude, in terms of evolution, invasive species is neither good nor bad. It is just a cause that has evolution as a consequence. Because it happens, plants and animals evolve. Sometimes, evolve to something that they would not need to become if the invasive species was not there, but that is not necessarily bad. As long as they do not change their role in the environment affecting the food chain, the ecosystem will remain stable and the invasive species will have a neutral effect. 

Invasive species

Species -> Criteria |	Anoplolepis gracilipes (insect)	Acacia Mearnsii (shrub)	Acridotheres tristis (bird)	Aedes albopictus (insect)	Anopheles quadrimaculatus (insect)
Do they grow fast?	Ö	Ö		Ö	Ö
Do they harm other populations?	Ö	Ö	Ö
Are they a threat to human health?	Ö		Ö	Ö	Ö
Do they have a high dispersal ability?	Ö	Ö	Ö	Ö
Are they tolerant to a wide range of environmental conditions?		Ö	Ö

1) In order to determine the worst invasive species, I chose the five categories listed above: growth, harm to other populations, threat to humans, dispersal ability, and tolerance to environmental conditions. The reason why I chose these five categories is that I believe they are the main determinants of invasive species. Invasive species are commonly defined as being widespread and disruptive. All of the categories that I chose fit into this definition: the growth, the dispersal ability and the tolerance to environmental conditions fit into widespread and harm to other populations and threat to human health fit into disruptive. 
2) In order to choose the invasive species that I would study, I accessed the ISSG database and observed the 100 worst invasive species in South America. I studied the first invasive species and determined the ones that fit into my categories. However, during this process I made a mistake. I did not realize that they were in alphabetical order not from worst to least worst as I had thought. Because of that, my results were not precise. On the other hand, I was able to find species that fit into most of my categories, so my results were not entirely compromised. 
3) In order to eliminate the first three species from my list, I studied the five and determined the three that fit into the least amount of categories: one of them, the Anopheles quadrimaculatus, only fit into two, so determining that that was the least worst of the five was easy. Then, Aedes albopictus only fit into three of my categories so I determined that it was the second least worst. Finally, to determine the species that would get third place I had a problem. Of the five that I had selected, the three that I had left all fit into only four of the categories. Because of that, I had to rank my categories, determining which I thought was worst and seeing which ones met them. With that, I determined that Acridotheres tristis deserved third place because it did not grow fast. 
4) Lastly, to determine which invasive species I should take to the class debate, I followed the same step I used to determine which one should get third place: which ones have the categories that I believe make them be worst than the other. With that, I decided that Anoplolepis gracilipes won over Acacia Mearnsii. The first one, fit into all of the five except for tolerance to a wide range of environmental conditions. The second one fit into all five except for threat to human health. I determined that being a threat to human health made the Anoplolepis gracilipes be a worst invasive species that the Acacia Mearnsii. 

Meat or no meat?

As a native Brazilian who strictly follows the tradition of going to Porcão once a week or having a nice barbecue at my house on a sunday afternoon, giving up meat seems outrageous. The facts presented by vegetarian scientists, who are clearly biased, indicate that the production of meat accounts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions, whereas all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839995,00.html). Considering that these numbers are true, they represent a need for change coming from the producers of meat not from the consumers. 
Companies need to start raising cattle in an organic pasture, which raises the cattle in a way that "all ruminants must have access to pasture ... and, pasture must be managed organically using strategies that improve soil and water while increasing the nutrient value of the pasture." (According to howtogoorganic.com). It is unfair that we have to give up on a complement that has become a significant part of our diet and that is necessary for a good health and a pleasurable life. This idea that meat leads to global warming is nothing but merely an attempt by the vegetarians, to have the world stop killing the animals. But, the truth is, our world has become carnivore, and giving up this right is not something that a lot of us are willing to do. If the concern is really with the environment as they say, why not tackle the companies and demand their effort to creating less polluting means of growing these animals? Why is it that the consumers have to change their lifestyle? 
Before they can ask us to stop eating meat, they need to ask the companies to stop polluting, the truckers to stop working, the houses with fireplaces to stop lighting fires, the dry cleaners to stop working, the chef to stop cooking. All of these actions, that even though may be harmful to do the environment, have become part of our lives pollute to a certain extent. It is unacceptable that they ask the consumers to stop eating meat while allowing these companies to pollute to such an extent. 
Obviously, I understand that global warming is here, and it is scary and intimidating. But at the same time, it is unfair that the consumers pay the price for the wrong doings of the companies. Strict laws and regulations should monitor the growing of cattle and the meat should only be certified if it comes from an organic pasture. With that, both consumers and vegetarians will be happy. To conclude, I would like to emphasize that the question here is not whether you are a vegetarian or not; but rather a question of unfairness. What we have to learn from this blog is that companies need to change their ways, not the consumers. 

Is the Indian Embassy field biologically diverse?

Based on our Simpson Index, the index of diversity is .905. This represents a biologically diverse ecosystem but this information may be misleading. This is so, because we chose some of the most populated areas of the field, not considering the earth spaces. With this, since our number of samples were small and clearly populated, our results may have been compromised. A solution to this is that we could have had one or two groups consider the parts that had few plants and studied how this would affect our diversity rate. Never the less, I believe that even if we had considered the earth spaces, our diversity rate would still be low, meaning, high diversity. I believe this because there were few earth spaces amidst tall, small, green, dry plants, that all together compose the field of the Indian Embassy and allowed us to observe over 50 species.

Plant measurements

Measurements of plant:

Size	Measurements
Height	5 meters
Diameter Breast Height (DBH)	46.5cm
Canopy	3.05m

Light penetration:

Horizontal range

Location on tree	Initial penetration	Light penetration	% Difference between initial and leaf penetration value
Farthest from the branch	60143	1413	.023
Close to the branch	59322	1961	.0326

Soil Temperature:

Location of soil in relation to plant	Soil temperature (Degrees celcius)
Close	19.8
Middle	21.3
Far	19.4

Soil PH:

Location of soil in relation to plant	PH Value
Close	6.55
Middle	6.65
Far	7.28

Observations:

Because of the dry season, I have observed that my plant has more dry leaves than it did in the beginning. Also, the eye of the plant, which tells us when the bananas are ready to be consumed, has started to peel at a faster rate, and the bananas have slightly turned into a yellowish color. Soon, they will be ready to be cut down. 

Breeding Bunnies: Discussion Questions

My original hypothesis was that, as the generations changed, the population would become predominantly thick-haired. This hypothesis proved to be right, because by the third generation the gene frequency of thick-hair was 81% and thin-hair was 19%. As the generations changed, the predominance of the thick-hair could be easily observed through the change in alleles. In the first generations, the number of alleles of F was 49 and of f was 49 too, 50%. By the third generation, the number of F alleles was 39 and f was 9, meaning that now, the f alleles only accounted for 19%.
In a real habitat world, considering immigration and emigration, the difference between F alleles and f alleles would only increase. This would occur because the rabbits immigrating to the top of the mountain will only go there if they know that they can survive, and the ones that think they cannot, will emigrate. To simulate this effect, we would have to add some F alleles for each generation, and take away the same amount of f alleles.
Because we have not shared our results with the class yet, I am not sure of what the other groups, who represent the bottom of the mountain and the middle of the mountain have found. Never the less, based on our results I can imagine what they had. The group that represented the bottom of the mountain probably had opposite findings. The predominance of the f alleles was clear and it probably occurred at approximately the same rate as ours. This would happen because the rabbits of the bottom of the mountain cannot have very thick hair because they would be too hot. The group that represented the middle of the mountain probably had a stable number of f and F alleles, but a clear predominance of the Ff individuals. This is so, because in the middle of the mountain, the rabbits need to have a hair of intermediate thickness.
The result of this simulation is an example of evolution because as the rabbits spread across the mountain because of natural causes, the populations adapted to best fit the environment. This represents the survival of the fittest. The rabbits fittest for the environment survived, and their predominance soon became a complete dominance.

Population questions

Brazil's current population shows a fast growth. The number of babies greatly surpasses the number of elders. This fast growth is not good for a country. In the next 15-20 years, Brazil's population will probably still be able to be sustained by the environment, but it will become overly crowded. With that, consequences such as unbearable traffic jams and huge lines in public places will become routine. This may already be observed in cities like São Paulo and Rio. If the population continues growing like this, cities like Brasília, Curitiba, Florianópolis and etc will become just like these two. With that, violence increases and everything becomes harder. As time goes by, the environment will no longer be able to sustain so many people, reaching maximum capacity. If the population growth continues like this, within the next 50 years, Brazil will probably have met its carrying capacity, so the population will now begin to decrease. Because the resources will be scarce, the "survival of the fittest" will begin. The people who can afford, or who have access to health, education and basic needs will live, the people who do not, will begin to die. Eventually, the population will become steady again.
This fast growth might help the economy in the beginning, because since there will be more options, businesses will be able to choose from a wider range, allowing them to pick the best of the best people. But, as population continues to grow, there will not be enough jobs for everybody, increasing unemployment rate, poverty, diseases, resources become harder to get, a lot of energy and water is required to sustain the country, among others. With this energy and water, we will increase pollution, and for those who believe, worsen global warming. More forests will be cut down, species will become extinct, water will become scarce, housing will be hard to find. Hopefully, population growth will stop before Brazil reaches this point, because as a developing nation, we cannot afford to undergo such drastic changes all at once.