As I understand it there are various ways biodiversity is measured, with varying results. From what I have been told on these boards, part of the difficulty is because it's hard to define a species exactly, so it's hard to count them. What I really want to know is whether genetically engineered organisms count towards increased biodiversity but my last attempt at asking that question foundered on the rocks of species definition.
Asked
Active
Viewed 819 times
0
1 Answers
1
A very good way to measure biodiversity would be to do environmental barcoding with high-throughput sequencing methods, and then use an algorithm that estimates genetic distance to get both species count estimates, and then calculate higher-level diversity, such as genera and families. Then you would repeat this procedure over several collections to obtain a species accumulation curve, so you could then estimate the asymptote. The future possibility of biogenereed organisms would not be worth reporting among the thousands of species at a given location.
Karl Kjer
- 7,665
- 1
- 18
- 26
-
OK, but what about by methods used now, particularly the ones that are used to tell Joe Public like me what the state of the world is in a typical news outlet ? Currently the news is that biodiversity is on the slide due to human activity. I've no doubt it is. But, counting all organisms including ones that may be man made, will this always be the case ? It may or may not reflect a pleasant planet to live on, but will it be the case ? – Jimmy Widdle Feb 24 '18 at 16:40
-
No. You seem fixated on a hypothetical that somebody used to sell magazines. Not going to happen. And if it ever did, it would be such a tiny fraction of biodiversity, that it would not be significant in the counts. – Karl Kjer Feb 24 '18 at 17:20
-
Why won't it happen ? Why would it be a tiny fraction ? How much is significant ? – Jimmy Widdle Feb 24 '18 at 19:06
So I could rephrase as "If in the future new species are engineered, will that count as an increase in biodiversity, and will it be a significant increase ?"
– Jimmy Widdle Feb 19 '18 at 13:46https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610180/why-redesigning-the-humble-yeast-could-kick-off-the-next-industrial-revolution/
"Instead of engineering or even editing the DNA of an organism, it could become easier to just print out a fresh copy. Imagine designer algae that make fuel; disease-proof organs; even extinct species resurrected."
So if that industrial revolution does take off, does that mean more biodiversity ?
– Jimmy Widdle Feb 23 '18 at 12:00Karl, Ventor says he has created a new species. I know people debate what counts as a species. If that IS a new species, then has he increased Earth biodiversity by one bacterium ?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-synthesize-bacteria-with-smallest-genome-yet/
"the genome of the minimal cells is like nothing in nature. Venter says that the cell, which is described in a paper released on March 24in Science, constitutes a brand new, artificial species."
– Jimmy Widdle Feb 24 '18 at 19:47