"Why the Beaver Should Thank the Wolf"

AP Bio                                                                                                9/30/12

Blog                                                                                                 Brooke Bonfiglio

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/the-world-needs-wolves.html?ref=science

            “Why the Beaver Should Thank the Wolf” is an article which describes how interconnected an ecosystem is. Through multiple examples it shows how an affect on one species has a series of affects on the ecosystem as a whole. First Hannibal shows the profound affect the wolf has on its ecosystem by describing the drastic change in the Yellowstone National Park after the wolf was reintroduced in the 1960’s. She argues that because the wolf is a natural predator to elk and other grazing animals, they tend to eat less of vegetation by the riverbank, reduces erosion that occurs as a result of overgrazing. She says the healthier vegetation from the reduced erosion aids beavers because they can then make dams, which in turn help the ecosystem by reducing drought,  and the vegetation protects from flooding. This sequence of impacts is titled a “trophic cascade” and describes how organism’s roles influence the organisms and ecosystem around them.

            This article is significant because as we are experiencing drastic changes in climate and drastically altering our surrounding environment we don’t realize the affects it has on other species. At the beginning of this article Hannibal says how nonprofit organizations are fighting to keep the Endangered Species Act for species like wolves, which are facing extinction. Her argument shows that if wolves are extinct in Yellowstone, or other areas, they can have a domino affect on the ecosystem. By removing the wolf form the ecosystem you degrade the quality and diversity of the area and may even endanger another specie, which was dependant on the wolf for survival. Large species such as wolves and sea otters are keystone species, which means there are very few of them in an ecosystem, however they have a large impact on the functionality of the ecosystem. By further endangering the wolf Hannibal proves we are endangering the entirety of the ecosystem.

            This article made a convincing argument about how closely connected all species are in an ecosystem and how important each one is to another. By making such large scale connections between organisms she shows the line of affects removing wolves from an ecosystem would have. At one point said that because there is greater or better quality vegetation that more carbon is sequestered from the atmosphere, which would in theory help reduce global climate change. This point seemed like an overreach and if she was to make this argument I think she should have made an example where this was proven to help reduce climate change. I also think the end of her article, where she said we can’t just have national parks to conserve the environment we need to have conserved continents, was too ambitious and unrealistic.