Lab Manager | Run Your Lab Like a Business
Top view of forest with footprint shaped lakes
iStock, Petmal

Theories about the Natural World May Need to Change to Reflect Human Impact

Call to consider whether and how to include human impacts into our understanding of the natural world today

by Bangor University
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify

New research, reported in Nature Ecology & Evolution, has for the first time validated at scale, one of the theories that has underpinned ecology for over half a century. In doing so, the findings raise further questions about whether models should be revised to capture human impacts on natural systems.

Scientists working in the 50’s and 60’s developed theories to predict the ecological distribution of species. These theories could be applied across a broad range of environments and variables such as food supply or temperature and when tested on a small scale they were found to be accurate. Amongst the earliest examples of these theories is the coral reef zonation theory that explains how different types of fish or corals for example are found on coral reefs at different depths.

Get training in Lab Crisis Preparation and earn CEUs.One of over 25 IACET-accredited courses in the Academy.
Lab Crisis Preparation Course

Modern computing capabilities have now made it possible to test these theories at a larger scale, to see whether they “hold water.”

To validate the depth zonation model on coral reefs, scientists at Bangor University and the US Government National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), led by Dr. Laura Richardson, of Bangor University, collected data from 5,525 surveys at 35 Pacific Ocean islands. Their work has revealed that the model is correct and can predict the distribution of different fish species according to depth, but only on uninhabited islands where there is no and has never been any local human interference.

At islands and reefs with human habitation the pattern was not as marked or predictable.

The findings therefore suggest that our old “models” of the natural world may no longer be valid in the face of mounting local human impacts.

As lead author, Richardson of Bangor University’s School of Ocean Sciences, suggests,

“Science is cumulative, building on past work. Now that we have greater computing capabilities, we should be testing these widely accepted but spatially under-validated theories at scale. Moreover the intervening years have seen human impacts on the environment increase to such an extent that these models may no longer predict the ecological distribution patterns we see today. This leads to more questions, both about the usefulness of models, which represented a world less impacted by human activity, and about how to quantify or model our impact on the natural environment. The results show that now is the time to consider whether and how to include human impacts into our understanding of the natural world today.”

- This press release was originally published on the Bangor University website