Human Dependence On Ocean Systems Answer Key: Fill & Download for Free

The consensus and the Cook et al 97% study is still valid but its improved by newer science.The smear attack on the 97% Cook et al debunked.Just because a paper on natural science does not mention or “confirm” the planet is a globe, this does not mean natural scientists thinks the planet is flat.Also, very few papers in physics research confirms gravity. This does not mean that gravity theory is weak among physicists.The point is that not all studies on climate matters are necessarily about climate change, and whether or not it’s man-made. Thus, is not natural to count such studies in if you do a survey on how many papers supports the AGW theory. You need to look at the papers which is addressing the particular question.“What the Cook et al. paper did was examine 11,944 abstracts from papers that were published from 1991 to 2011 that included the words “global climate change” or “global warming” in their abstract. What they found after analysing these abstracts is that among those that expressed a position on global warming, 97% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.The researchers broke their meta-analysis into two parts. In the first part, they used their own methodology to categorize the population of abstracts. In the second phase, they actually reached out to the authors of the papers themselves, asking them directly whether their paper endorsed the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Both the third-party and self-rated methods returned a figure in excess of 97%.Thus,They […] contacted 8,547 authors to ask if they could rate their own papers and got 1,200 responses, which meant that 2,142 papers were also rated by their authors on their endorsement level. The results for this again found that 97% of the selected papers stated that humans are causing global warming.That is, the second phase of the study served as a check on their own methodology, and ended up validating their result.This was done to determine that there wasn’t any sort of inherent problem in the rating system used and this seems to indicate that.97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers again not debunked - Real SkepticEvidence for man-made global warming hits ‘gold standard’:Scientists are 99.9999 percent sure humans caused climate changeCONSENSUS UPDATE:Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.Every scientific body, org and institution of the world, every National Academy of Sciences of the world, over 97% of the peer reviewed papers + most oil companies ALL agree that AGW theory is a fact. And everything is supported by the principles of basic physics!List of Worldwide Scientific OrganizationsThe Global Warming Consensus | NeuroLogica BlogThe Climate Is Changing For Climate SkepticsWHAT ABOUT THOSE 3% PAPERS WHICH DO NOT AGREE ON AGW?The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.“Is there such a strong consensus in the scientific community on climate change simply because anyone proposing alternate explanations is black-balled and suppressed?This is one of the most frequent questions I get here on Facebook.It's a lot easier for someone to claim they've been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can't find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology that requires them to reject climate solutions and, to be consistent, 150 years of solid, peer-reviewed science, too.But over the last 10 years, at least 38 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, each claiming various reasons why climate wasn't changing, or if it was, it wasn't humans, or it wasn't bad. They weren't suppressed. They're out there, where anyone can find them.So we took those papers and - thanks to the superhuman efforts of my colleague Rasmus Benestad - recalculated all their analyses. From scratch.And you know what we found?“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus.”It's real, it's us, it's serious.”Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawedHere’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana NuccitelliSUMMARY:“There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming, Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.”Why Climate Skeptics Are WrongIts over.Amateur climate change deniers have outlived their usefulness to the fossil fuel industry. Even oil companies agree on the science now. Just a few more to go + the Kochs.Climate deniers are like those japanese soldiers who was unaware that the war had ended 60 years ago.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What are the causes of climate change?

In the ocean of Europa in our own solar system :).NASA's sending a probe to Jupiter's moon Europa. It might be home to life.(The geysers here are speculative - known to exist for Enceladus, indirect evidence so far though for Europa as we haven't been able to study it so thoroughly close up and its geysers also if they exist are harder to spot and may be sporadic).A civilization that develops in a subsurface ocean would probably not have technology at least not at an advanced level, without fire. And how would they develop fire in an ocean? They would have hydrothermal vents, even lava at times possibly - but what's the chance of developing technology like ours? And even more so if they are like dolphins and don't have hands.But they could have language, mathematics, art, music, etc etc, could be a billion years old high level of civilization even well beyond us, and we wouldn't know about them (because we can't see through the ice yet with our technology) and they wouldn't know about us.EUROPAN LIFE AND OXYGENI say Europa as perhaps the best candidate of the possible subsurface icy moon oceans, because it probably is an oxygen rich ocean, oxygen created in the surface by radiation from Jupiter breaking apart water in the ice, then circulated into its ocean. And oxygen rich ocean + hydrothermal vents seems to suggest possibility of higher life with high energy requirements.The rate of supply of oxygen is low compared to Earth with photosynthetic life. But if it is like hydrothermal vent communities in a large ocean, it's a mix of H2S and methane breathing and oxygen based life. So the aerobes could be surviving on food from non aerobes. And also just locally numerous - there might be only a small carrying capacity for the entire ocean, and still, have plenty of oxygen for complex life around every single hydrothermal vent in its oceans.This estimate suggests enough oxygen could be supplied to support 3 billion kilograms of macrofauna. Europa Has Enough Oxygen For Life - Astrobiology MagazineThat's not enough for a civilization of 7 billion humans obviously, but if you think of more like the early hunter gatherer type stage of humans, no reason why it couldn't have a small population civilization. Or if the beings are small.Gray parrots are very intelligent and weigh about half a kilogram each.Average weight of common parrot species. So could easily have a few million of some species that weighs that amount, and still have plenty of kilograms for the rest of their megafauna.COULD AS EASILY BE AHEAD AS BEHIND US EVOLUTIONARILYAnd the thing is, highly unlikely their evolution has developed in lock step with Earth.If they could potentially have evolved as far as animals, e.g. fish or squid like creatures, as many seem to think is at least remotely possible - they could as easily be a half billion years ahead of us in evolution, as behind us, over a timescale of 4.7 billion years. We could find life there that is equivalent of what might evolve on Earth half a billion years from now in complexity of the life.So not just intelligent life, it could also be more complex more highly evolved life than us. For instance, if there is some future stage for instance, after multi-cellularity - it might have evolved already on Europa - as multicellularity in its modern form developed only half a billion or so years ago on Earth.Not saying that is probable. We have nowhere near enough understanding anyway to assign probability levels to such things. But seems not impossible, and you only asked "could", not "probable" :).TIDALLY HEATED OCEANS ELSEWHERE IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM - OORT CLOUDAnd given this possibility of life in oceans of icy moons, well tidally heated oceans could exist anywhere even in furthest reaches of the Oort cloud. If you have systems of moons there and they are not tidally locked, or have radiation heat sources, or long lived ocean after a major impact - well - life could potentially evolve.There could be thousands of "subsurface ocean" moons in the Oort cloud, as active or more active than Pluto and Charon. maybe never reached tidal locking. By probability are likely to be worlds there that are significantly larger than Pluto. Maybe Mars or Earth sized, and remote possibility perhaps, even Neptune sized.Though Europa may seem the best bet at present for intelligence, we have no idea really what is out in the Oort cloud. Maybe it has thousands of ocean worlds covered in ice.If there were any reason to suppose that any of them could have enough energy for complex life, then the sheer number of worlds and huge total volume of liquid water could make that more favourable, even if the probability was much less than for Europa that any individual one of them has a civilization.If it turns out that any of them have sufficient energy sources for complex life, and that some of them do have complex lifeforms, our descendants may have to do a long search before they can be sure whether or not there is no civilization in any of those oceans.TITAN'S METHANE OCEANS AND OTHER EXOTIC BIOCHEMISTRIESOf course that is a rather Earth - centric way of looking at it. Could be other forms of higher life in our solar system also, conceivably, e.g. in the seas of Titan, we wouldn't know about them yet either, radically different biology if they exist. And again at those low temperatures, hard to see how they could develop fire or technology, supposing there was an ancient civilization there. Without technology then again could be hard to spot. According to Dirk Schulze-Makuch's book on places for life in the solar system, the conditions on Titan apparently don't seem very favourable for a complex ecosystem but it can't be ruled out. For this and other ideas of alternative biologies in our solar system, see Cosmic Biology.There are also other newer ideas including life in supercritical CO2. Even in our own oceans. At the high pressures of the ocean depths, anywhere below around 0.8 kilometers depth, CO2 is a liquid. See "Life in liquid carbon dioxide". The first discovery of natural liquid CO2 in the oceans goes back to 1990. Interestingly, as you raise its temperature, liquid CO2 at around 31.1 C and 73.8 atmospheres in pressure becomes supercritical. That's a phase where the distinction between a gas and a liquid disappears and the properties often change. Liquid CO2 is often used for sterilizing. However, some microbes and their enzymes can tolerate living in liquid CO2. This was a surprising recent discovery reported in February of this year. They found six strains of microbes, isolated from three sites targeted for geological carbon dioxide sequestration - that have the astonishing ability to grow on the interface between water and supercritical CO2. See Microbial growth under supercritical CO2.There are fairly large reservoirs of liquid CO2 beneath the Earth's oceans. For instance a CO2 lake found off the coast of Taiwan at a depth of 1.4 kilometers. It is heavier than water below a depth of around 3,000 km, so there may be extensive deeper reservoirs. It is a bit of a far-out suggestion - but could there be complex life in those deep reservoirs. If so could there be a civilization down there? I don't think it is likely. But just mentioning it for completeness.There could also be supercritical CO2 on Mars at depth, even below the Venus surface. See As Philae Awakes - Where Might Life And Proto Life Hide In Our Solar System?For this type of life see Alien Life Could Thrive on 'Supercritical' CO2 Instead of Water COULD WE HAVE AN UNDETECTED CIVILIZATION IN OUR OWN OCEAN DEPTHS?For that matter, I don't think we can say for sure that we are the only intelligent civilization on the Earth.The giant squids especially are expected to be highly intelligent, perhaps more so than octopuses and squids. Which can lead one to wonder - could they be as intelligent as humans? (In a very different way of course).If they had a civilization in the ocean depths, we probably wouldn't know yet. Not yet been able to bring any up from the ocean depths alive and keep them in captivity and only a few elusive sightings of them in their natural habitat.COULD WE HAVE AN UNDETECTED CIVILIZATION ON LAND?Some human civilizations have been able to survive almost undetected by everyone else until recently. I'm talking here about uncontacted tribes in the rainforest.If an intelligent species had a very limited range on land, just a few acres left, say, and was also small, shy, fast moving, or well camouflaged, intelligent and scared of humans, we might not know of them yet.To take an example, many parrots are trapped and killed, or taken for the pet trade. Just suppose (no reason to think that there is) there was some intelligent species of grey parrots. I choose grey parrots here as one suggestion for the next most intelligent species after humans, some possibly may be more intelligent than chimpanzees. Then they'd surely hide away from humans, and spread the word to others in their species that it's best not to be seen by humans.Could we detect a small remnant civilization of shy reclusive intelligent parrots? Perhaps occupying a small area, just a few acres of the rainforest, say? I think not.Now - doesn't mean this is likely. But - hard to say that is totally impossible I think.Even larger creatures - well intelligent creatures seldom get caught, very rare in fossil record, and they'd have friends to get them out of trouble. If they also don't go into building large structures or cutting down trees and clearing land - and are shy and keep out of the way of humans - again - hard to say such creatures absolutely can't exist.So much of the planet is still not explored in detail. Expeditions are still discovering new small mammals from time to time and they don't know about humans and are not deliberately hiding from us, indeed tend to be over tame in remote areas. Add to the mix that the creatures are hiding deliberately, and are as intelligent as us (say), and it gets much harder to find them. Again, just looking at this as a possibility - not saying it is likely.(Thanks to Todd Smithgall for touching on this in a comment)ALPHA CENTAURI - OUR NEAREST STARAs for Earth like habitable planets around other stars, there is an active search right now for Earth like planets around Alpha Centauri. So that isn't ruled out yet, so our nearest starTwo Earth-like planets could be hiding close to our solar systemSome astronomers also suggest it could have "super habitable" planets more habitable for life than Earth itself.Two Earth-like planets could be hiding close to our solar systemThese have not been detected, it's just a possibility.CIVILIZATIONS WITH TECHNOLOGYAs for civilizations with technology - it depends on how quiet their technology is. As it advances, it is likely to get more efficient and quiet. E.g. if they use mainly laser communication, you'd only notice it if it is directed towards you. Also the most efficient way to code up information fills up the frequency spectrum and is close to noise in its structure, so if you do receive their transmissions, it may be broad spectrum and more or less indistinguishable from noise unless you have the key to decipher it.And then there's also the possibility of some means of communication we don't have yet. Not so long since we first discovered radio waves. Also idea that laser transmission was possible, even more recent. Are there future technologies that we just haven't discovered yet, which when discovered would totally take over from radio and optical communication?TECHNOLOGICAL ETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM - LEAVE NO FOOTPRINTSWe could have technology like that in our own solar system and be hard put to spot it, either very efficient indistinguishable from noise, or using some method not discovered by us yet.Though I don't think there is, because the solar system seems totally pristine, no footprints and tracks of alien beings on the Moon for instance and we have already photographed the Apollo tracks from orbit around the Moon - we'd spot anything like that even if they visited it billions of years ago.Same also for Mars, we frequently photograph our own rover tracks from orbit, and there are no signs at all of any present or ancient tracks by aliens (or Martians). So no sign of anyone on Mars for millions of years at least.If there were any alien visitors here at any time in the past, through pretty much entire history of our solar system - then they obviously have a policy of minimal impact.Would have to be a case of: take away your rubbish, no camp fires, and also clean up all traces of your visit when you leave, even your footprints :).So I would agree, probably not going to find them in our solar system - except - in the icy moon oceans where it could be possible but then would expect them to be non technological. Because it would seem to be likely to be hard to develop tech there - and also because if they did have technology at similar levels to us or beyond, they would have emerged from their oceans and we'd see them easily.COULD WE DETECT OURSELVES AROUND ANOTHER STAR?As for whether we could detect ourselves - well very unlikely that a civilization evolves at exactly the same moment in time as us. But since that's part of your question, well someone from the SETI League answers that here: How far can we hear?A dedicated SETI search could detect us up to 1000 light years away while a small radio telescope such as amateur radio astronomers have would find it a challenge to detect us around the nearest star. The galaxy has a diameter of 100,000 light years, and a thickness of about 1,000 light years - so a dedicated search for us, would be able to cover only around a millionth of the volume of the galaxy.COULD WE SPOT OURSELVES FURTHER THAN 1000 LIGHT YEARS FROM EARTHIf our clones were actively signalling to us, with focused radio beams, then we'd detect them anywhere in the galaxy, indeed, beyond the galaxy, unless hidden by dust and gas clouds.But we aren't actively signalling anyone else, except for one very short test transmission some years back, so if you are talking again about clones of us, then you wouldn't spot us that way, and it would take a huge dedicated project to try to signal to most of the habitable planets in the galaxy if they didn't know we were here yet, rather unlikely at our level of technology.In the search for ETIs, SETI, then with most of the searches, our best chances are of finding ETIs that way would be to find ones that are way ahead of us, and actively transmitting to the entire galaxy or to all habitable planets or some such. Which makes sense as a search strategy, as the chance of finding ETIs that have only just started to develop radio technology, in the last century or so, when they and we have evolved independently for billions of years, is surely tiny.

Oh, no! There are many other (groups of) species that alter ecosystem-, and/or by extension evolutionary processes, at an extent comparable to or even greater than humans.Cyanobacteria →Perhaps the phylum with the greatest impact on the history of the world, and on life, as we know it. Cyanobacteria are a photosynthesizing group of bacteria, formerly known as “blue-green algae”. They are the only prokaryotes capable of producing oxygen (O2), and are believed to be the earliest organisms to do so [1]. By introducing oxygen into the atmosphere, cyanobacteria have caused one of the greatest transformations in planetary ecology –like ever!- and ended almost all life on Earth at the time. That was the so called “Great Oxygenation Event” (GOE), during which Earth’s early, oxygen-poor, reducing atmosphere underwent massive oxygenation. This lead to near-extinction of anaerobic organisms and a dramatic change in the composition of our planet’s life forms [2]. It paved the way for the evolution of aerobic respiration – the most energy efficient metabolism known [3] – making it possible for complex, multicellular organisms to emerge.The way those tiny creatures reshaped the environment had an impact that resonates through the eons, as plants, animals and humans (*), all owe their existence to cyanobacteria’s oxygen producing ability.(*) With this wording, I do not imply humans are not animalsParasites →Parasitism might well be one of the most successful survival strategies in the course of evolution! It is estimated that parasites comprise an impressive ~40% or even ~50% (*) of all known species on Earth [4,5], while virtually all free-living animals are host to one or more parasitic taxa [4].(*) depending on whether parasites of plants are included or not in the calculationTo ensure their survival and reproduction, parasites have developed a multitude of cunning ways to alter their (living) habitats in a manner that fits them best. Let’s take a look on some of those:- Modulation of the host’s immune responseFor example, pox- and herpesviruses “borrow” genes from their hosts and produce immune-related molecules that mimic the original ones, but are not harmful to the virus. Host cytokines become virokines and host receptors become viroreceptors, effectively disarming the host’s immune defenses against the virus [6].- Transformation of the host’s morphologyFor instance, parasitic flatworms’ larvae of the genus Ribeiroia infect frogs at the tadpole stage, drill themselves in the tissues that are meant to develop into legs and interfere with the way they form. The end result is an adult frog, whose body is a tangled mess, sprouting misshapen, extraneous limbs and joints – and looks very much like the product of a nuclear accident. Unable to walk or swim like a normal frog, the flatworms’ host makes an easy prey for birds, in the stomach of which the parasite can continue its life cycle [7].- Manipulation of the host’s behaviorMany parasites alter the behavior of their hosts, hijacking their brain either directly or indirectly, in a way that increases the parasite’s chances of transmission, so that its life cycle can go on (Read “Mindsuckers” in National Geographic). One example is the so-called gordian or horsehair worm, which parasitizes mostly on crickets. The problem is that while the cricket cannot swim and avoids water like hell, the worm needs an aquatic habitat to mate and have its eggs hatched. So, once it’s ready to reproduce it releases neurotransmitters that goof up the cricket’s brain, making it jump around in search for light. During the night, the only light sources are lakes and rivers, whose surface reflects the moonlight. That is an irresistible lure for the worm-infected crickets, which readily jump in the water – practically committing suicide. Hairworms emerge, ready to find love, lay their eggs and continue the cycle once again [8].So far, I talked about large groups of species that, by altering their environment, had a large effect on the evolutionary or life’s course of other species. But there’s also another category of organisms, which structure and reshape their habitat in a way that suits their needs, and in doing so they exert profound effects on the occurrence, abundance, diversity and spatial pattern of other organisms. These are called “ecosystem engineers” and they can make or brake an ecosystem. Here are some prominent examples:Beavers (Castor Canadensis) →Beavers have already been mentioned by a fellow Quoran, and for a good reason. They are the textbook example of “ecosystem engineering” species. These voluminous rodents fell trees and combine them with mud and stone to build dams, which serve them as a protection against predators. And since we talk about engineering… Beavers can built gigantic structures (the biggest known, in Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberta, Canada, spans a length of 850 m! - see the picture below) and vary the shape of the dam depending on the speed of water; in slow-moving water, they build a straight dam, whereas in fast-moving water the dams tend to be curved [9].This habit of theirs has dramatic and wide-ranging effects on the ecosystem, which can last for more than 50 years [10]. Damming streams slows water currents and increases deposition of sediment and organic material in the water, resulting in the creation of nutrient-rich ponds and wetlands, which host innumerable species. For instance, insects that prefer still water thrive and the standing crop of plankton increases about 5 times compared to the unaltered stream [11], providing abundant food sources for fish, amphibians, birds and, in turn, mammals.In addition, beaver dams remove toxins and pollutants from waterways, reduce soil erosion (protecting people in surrounding areas from flood), and help recharging aquifiers (protecting the ecosystem from drought as they increase the levels of underground water) [12].Gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) →These tortoises live in “scrub” habitats (areas with sandy soil and sparsely populated by trees) and have the ability to dig large, deep burrows that resemble subterranean villages. These burrows are critical for the survival of more than 350 other species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects and even birds, since they use them as shelter from predators, or as a temporary refuge from fires, which are common in this type of ecosystem. Because of their critical role in the ecosystem, Gopher tortoises are considered a “keystone species”[13].Parrotfish →Among the thousands of reef fishes roaming in the Great Barrier Reef, in Australia, the parrotfish is the only species that scratches limestone and macroalgae off from coral reefs [14]. This is especially important for the health and maintenance of the ecosystem, as macroalgae compete with corals for space and, if not consumed, would smother them [15]. So, without the parrotfish the complex and colourful coral-reef ecosystem runs the risk of collapse. And this is not a trivial matter… Apart from creating a habitat for the most diverse ecosystem on the planet, coral reefs defend coastlines from the damaging effects of waves and tropical storms, are the primal source of nitrogen and other essential elements for marine food chains and have a major contribution in nutrient recycling. Moreover, they are of great financial importance; the fishing industry depends on the reefs, because they provide nursery grounds to about one third of all saltwater fish species, while tourism greatly benefits from their beauty that attracts millions of tourists [16].Fun fact: On the occasion of a scant number of males, females can readily change sex [17]!Oysters →The humble oyster is much more than a “sophisticated” delicacy. Just as coral reefs are critical to tropical marine habitats, oyster reefs are the ecosystem engineers of bays and estuaries, and are essential for maintaining local marine systems populous, diverse and healthy.First of all, being the only hard substrate in a predominantly soft-sediment environment, oyster reefs provide a habitat for mollusks, polychaetes, crustaceans and many other invertebrates, as well as a refuge and foraging ground for juvenile fish [18]. Probably, though, the greatest gift they make to their environment does not come from the “worthy-to-become-a-Pokémon” weirdness of their shape, but from their eating habits. Oysters feed by actively filtering nutrients, sediments and phytoplankton from the water, and their filtering capacity is astonishing! An individual oyster can filter on average ~115 liters per gram (of oyster tissue) per day [19]. Compare this to the mean blood filtration rate by the human kidney, which is ~0,4-0,5 liters per gram (of kidney tissue) per day… [20].This diligent water-cleaning activity decreases the microbial and toxin load of the area [21], while it also hinders the population of phytoplankton (that is, all the photosynthesizing microscopic organisms inhabiting the upper sunlit layer of almost all oceans and bodies of fresh water) from growing out of hand [18]. This is more important than it sounds! That is because too high concentrations of phytoplankton prevent sunlight penetration to deeper water levels, causing submerged aquatic vegetation to die. The bacteria that feast on those (large bulks) of dead organic matter consume huge amounts of the oxygen that is dissolved in the water, which is eventually depleted. Thereby, fish and other life forms suffocate and die.So, oysters are marine organisms’ best friend, not only because they safeguard them against “homelessness”, disease and poisoning, but also because they forestall phytoplankton from turning bay ecosystems into a wet desert.Honorable mentions:Decomposers (bacterial & fungal species) →Without their nutrient-recycling activities, plants (and thus herbivores, and thus carnivores, and omnivores) would starve and the Earth would soon become a huge dump, full of carcasses and fecal matter. Thank you, decomposers!Bees →It has often been said that bees are responsible for one out of every three bites of food we eat (reference: the internet :P). Pollination is the process of plant fertilization and is necessary for the production of fruit, vegetables, agricultural crops and flowers. Bees are the main insect pollinators, by far. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the U.N estimates that of the 115 crop species that provide 90% of food supplies for 146 countries, 71 need bee-pollinators to increase their yields and quality [22]. A few examples of the foods we ‘d miss from our table, if bees ceased pollinating our agricultural goods, are: broccoli, cucumbers, pumpkins, onions, garlic, almonds, cantaloupes, watermelons, apples, blueberries, strawberries, cherries, coffee, tea and cocoa beans (Yes! Chocolate…). Thank you bees!Earthworms →They mix the soil, break down organic matter, recycle nutrients, improve water intake and transmission, and generally alter soil properties in ways that are beneficial to plant growth. All of these hobbies of theirs, make earthworms one of the best bio-indicators of forest site quality and an invaluable ally for forest life [23].Termites →Together with ants and earthworms they constitute our Earth’s top soil-engineering crew. Termites are the main macroinvertebrate decomposers in arid and semi-arid environments, thereby helping in soil formation. They influence the distribution of natural resources (e.g. water and nutrients) in the landscape, and consequently the diversity of soil microbes, plants and animals. Using excavated mineral material, stone and clay they created giant mounds, which can serve as “Fertility Totems” amidst barren territories, like the African savannas [24].Woodpeckers →Inspiring the creation of a classic cartoon character with its funny looks is not the only thing the crafty woodpecker has to offer. Their field of expertise as engineers is drilling holes in trees. By excavating cavities, woodpeckers construct homes for numerous small cavity dwellers - besides its own young -, such as bats, squirrels, raccoons, several bird- and owl-species, [25], and occasionally amphibians and reptiles [26]. Current research has shown that occupancy of woodpecker-crafted excavations is important not only in green forests, but also plays a vital role in reestablishing ecosystem diversity post-fire [27].1. Hamilton T.L., Bryant D.A. & Macalade J.L., (2016), The role of biology in planetary evolution: cyanobacterial primary production in low‐oxygen Proterozoic oceans, Environ Microbiol.; 18(2): 325–340.2. Fischer A.G., (1965), Fossils, early life and atmospheric history, American Journal of Science; 53: 1205-1215.3. Dismukes GC, Klimov VV, Baranov SV, et al., (2001), The origin of atmospheric oxygen on Earth: the innovation of oxygenic photosynthesis. PNAS; 98(5): 2170–2175.4. Dobson A., Lafferty K.D., Kuris A.M., Hechinger R.F. & Jetz W., (2008), Homage to Linnaeus: How many parasites? How many hosts?: PNAS, 105(1), doi:10.1073/pnas.08032321055. Price P.W., (1977), General Concepts on the Evolutionary Biology of Parasites, Evolution, 31(2): 405-420.6. Schmidt-Hempel P., (2009), Immune defense, parasite evasion strategies and their relevance for ‘macroscopic phenomena’ such as virulence, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci., 364(1513): 85–98.7. Johnson P.T., Lunde K.B., Thurman M.E., Ritchie E.G., et al., (2002), Parasite (Ribeiroia ondatrae) infection linked to amphibian malformation in the western United States, Ecological Monographs, 72(2): 151-168.8. Ponton F., Otalora-Luna F., Lefevre T., Guerin P.M., et al., (2011), Water-seeking behavior in worm-infectedcrickets and reversibility of parasitic manipulation, Behav Ecol., 22(2):392-400.9. Fall, S. (2007). "Beaver pictures & facts".10. Terwilliger J. & Pastor J., (1999), Small mammals, ectomycorrhizae, and conifer succession in beaver meadows. Oikos 85:83–94.11. Dietland Muller-Swarze (2003). The Beaver: Natural History of a Wetlands Engineer. Cornell University Press.12. Correll D.L., Jordan T.E. & Weller D.E., (2000), "Beaver pond biogeochemical effects in the Maryland Coastal Plain". Biogeochemistry, 49 (3): 217–239.13. Five Fun Facts about Gopher Tortoises14. Single species may be key to reef health15. Hughes, T.P., (1994), Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef, Science, 256: 1547–1551.16. Biodiscovery and the Great Barrier Reef17. Cardwell J.R. & Liley N.R., (1991), Hormonal control of sex and color change in the stoplight parrotfish, Sparisoma viride., Gen Comp Endocrinol., 81(1):7-20.18. Grabowski J.H. & Peterson C.H., (2007), Restoring oyster reefs to recover ecosystem services, Theoretical Ecology Series, 4: 281-298.19. Cranford, P.J., Ward, J.E., Shumway, S.E., (2011), Bivalve filter feeding: variability and limits of the aquaculture biofilter. In: Shumway, S.E. [Ed.] Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment. John Wiley & Sons Publ., pp. 81-124.20. Barnes-Svarney, P. L., & Svarney, T. E., (2016), The handy anatomy answer book: Includes physiology (Second edition.). Detroit: Visible Ink Press. pp. 279.21. Jackson J.B.C., Kirby M.X., Berger W., Bjorndal K.A., et al., (2001), Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems, Science, 293(5530): 629-637.22. Kluser S., Peduzzi P., (2007), ”Global Pollinator Decline: A Litterature Review”, UNEP/GRIDEurope. © UNEP 200723. Kooch Y. & Jalilvand H., (2008), Earthworms as Ecosystem Engineers and the most Important Detritivors in Forest Soils, Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 11(6): 819-825.24. Bignell D.E., (2006), Termites as Soil Engineers and Soil Processors. In: König H., Varma A. (eds) Intestinal Microorganisms of Termites and Other Invertebrates, Soil Biology, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, vol 6, pp.18325. Aubry K. & Raley C.M., (2002), The Pileated Woodpecker as a Keystone Habitat Modifier in the Pacific Northwest, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181, 257-274.26. Bunnell F. L. &. Dupuis L. A, (1995), Riparian habitats in British Columbia: their nature and role, in Riparian Habitat Management and Research, K. H. Morgan and M. A. Lashmar, Eds., Special Publication of the Fraser River Action Plan, Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, Canada, pp. 7–2127. Tarbill G.L., Manley P.N. & White A.M., (2015), Drill, baby, drill: the influence of woodpeckers on post-fire vertebrate communities through cavity excavation, Journal of Zoology, 296(2): 95-103.