Zoonotic viruses are defined as an infectious disease that can affect humans through animal contact. In most cases as humans don’t come into contact with wild animals we remain relatively close to our homes and avoid crossing the line towards wildlife and the same can go from creatures living outside. Now taking a look at loss of forest habitat due to the expansion of resources for humans can increase the interaction between animals and humans, therefore also increasing the chances of zoonotic viruses to occur. So by those connections we are mostly at fault for our illness due to the expanding population. A great example of this is swine flu and malaria, which are diseases that are passed down from contact with animals. By Reducing the loss of forest habitat we can also reduce the rate of zoonotic viruses exposure. Furthermore the loss of habitat can also affect the surrounding land’s biodiversity through urbanization. Since the population of the human race is increasing at an exponential rate we must cover more land to support the growth, hence removing forests to modernise causing the removal of habitats and increase the interaction with animals. Therefore zoonotic viruses increase when the overall biodiversity decreases through the loss of habitat, the link between these concepts just illustrates how majority of ideas in biology are interconnected with each other and have to rely on each other to have the most  outcome to occur, generally speaking these concepts are one the same and one must occur for the other to work.

According to the peer-reviewed article by Tilman, D., 2000, biodiversity is an essential factor in Earth’s productivity and ecosystem stability. Greater biodiversity leads to greater productivity in communities, especially in plant ecology. The author of the study was introducing the idea of biodiversity at the start of the 21^st century to the public. So, they provided many examples of how greater biodiversity in plants retained greater productivity and stability of the environment/ communities of that ecosystem. They argued that more biodiversity meant fewer chances of extinction or endangered species as many of these communities are very complex and rely on the complex diversity of their biological vectors to thrive.

They also argued how human intervention and domination of Earth’s resources and natural habitats is destroying this much-needed biodiversity. Humans usually love simplifying things, which doesn’t work for wildlife. With increased human intervention in natural processes, many habitats are losing important organisms to ensure their survivability. This will in turn affect humans, as when biological processes fail to run as they’re supposed to, that will also stop humans from thriving in the long run. Since we rely on many of these plants for our daily resources and food security.

They ended their argument by talking about trade-offs and how current advantages will turn into future catastrophic damage to the human population. They urge the public to listen to science instead of societal expectations and ethics (meaning capitalism and an economy-driven world).

I decided to use this paper that was published in my birth year because I believe it is very relevant to applied plant ecology and its goals. I also believe that it’s a very intriguing insight to see how scientists began to try and educate the general public about biodiversity loss, which is now a much widely known event.

References:

Tilman, D. (n.d.). Causes, consequences and ethics of Biodiversity. Nature News. Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://www.nature.com/articles/35012217

Viruses still pose as one of the most highly debated areas of modern science. Many scientists believe viruses are not alive themselves, but they are just microscopic bodies that carry genetic information encoded within with only one goal, and that is to produce more of that genetic information (meaning more viruses). However, if viruses are ‘alive’ or not is still considered a grey zone in modern science, simply because there’s not enough evidence to neither agree nor deny that they are alive. However, viruses are extremely diverse and abundant in the entire world, in fact, there are more viruses on Earth than there are stars in this universe.

Not all viruses are inherently bad, many viruses actually exist within living organisms, humans included, they help defend and/or assist in bodily processes of that organism. However, they do so in the means for them to thrive and populate, and that ‘helping’ is but a side effect of those actions. Recently, it has been hypothesized that our own mitochondria in our bodies were viruses themselves as they contain their own DNA.

This is discussed under the endosymbiotic theory, which suggests that early Eukaryotic cells engulfed these viruses, providing them a safe place to stay, and sugar molecules, which in response, the viruses provided them with ATP and energy to exert. Which over the years was able to push for further complex eukaryotic living organisms to form.

For example, chloroplasts in plants, where they now are able to capture energy from the sun. Were once believed to be viruses that were engulfed by early eukaryotic plant cells. Over the years they created a symbiotic relationship and now chloroplasts will actually die without their host cell, as it has no way to get their own energy anymore.

While this is a difficult subject to discuss, given the uncertainty within the scientific community around it. I believe that to be able to communicate it to the public, we need to educate furthermore about the origins of where viruses come from and how they can both ‘help’ and/or ‘destroy’ living organisms.

References:

Society, M. (n.d.). Are viruses alive? Microbiology Society. Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html

Villarreal, L. P. (2008, August 8). Are viruses alive? Scientific American. Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/

To understand the link between invasive species, and the covid-19 infection and spread worldwide. We first have to discuss how covid-19 is seen as a biological component in this blog. Many scientists believe that viruses can be regarded as ‘alive’ and ‘biological’. So when it comes to infection control, many of the same ways we control invasive plants in plant ecology can also be applied to viral infections and spread.

This is because viruses are not that different from invasive plants, the covid-19 virus was able to adapt and change hosts (believed to be from bats to humans but not certain), and doing so it allowed more space for itself to grow. Even now, it still thrives over the constant quick adaptation to our vaccination efforts and infection control policies by evolving into new variants that are able to capture more realized niches, for example, some variants are airborne while others aren’t.

This is quite similar to invasive species, especially invasive plant species because they use similar tactics to dominate habitats that are not capable of controlling their growth. One example is the Japanese knotweed, which is able to use and exploit the resources of temperate habitats that have never been exposed to the plant species before, so there’s not much ‘immunity’ or resistance for this invasive species to grow. To counter such measures, scientists demanded that importing services must have a more thorough screening for any pathogens or insects that live on these plants, to which local plants and animals have no immunity against.

The argument made by ecologists specializing in invasive species in response to covid-19 is to compare it to invasive species, whether plants or animals, however; plants are much easier to monitor as they are stationary for the most part. Since the efforts made to minimize invasive species seem to be somewhat working, why would it not work for covid-19 and viral infections in general if they are also viewed as a biological vector?

References:

Does covid-19 change our perception of ‘invasive species’? Property Care. (2020, June 25). Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://www.property-care.org/does-covid-19-change-our-perception-of-invasive-species/

The reason why the loss of biodiversity and the spike in viruses is and has been occurring for the last few decades is simply due to increased contact with wildlife in many areas around the world. With fewer habitats every year due to deforestation, means more wildlife will have to try and live in urban cities or become more prone to come into contact with human civilization since their homes were cut down.

In turn, That increases the chances of viral infections between plants, animals, and humans. Especially that a lot of the plants and animals that survive deforestation and loss of biodiversity are more likely to carry lots of pathogens and viruses with them that don’t affect them, and act as a transmission vector. Once these viruses are transferred to humans, they can have different and adverse effects on us.

In fact, the covid-19 pandemic can be and have been blamed on the wildlife trade center of China, since that’s where the first covid infections have appeared in early 2019. Due to increased contact with wildlife, livestock, and animals in general. More infections seem to be appearing worldwide, that includes Ebola, SARS, and the bird influenza. That spike has been seen in just the last few decades, which many ecologists warned us from in the late 20^th century but no one listened.

Another reason (although not as related to biodiversity) as to why more viruses are prone to keep appearing in the 21^st century is due to the melting ice caps. It is believed that there are ancient bacteria and viruses that are frozen in the arctic dating back to early Earth and they are now being exposed again to the world due to climate change and increasing temperatures.

References:

Tollefson, J. (2020, August 7). Why deforestation and extinctions make pandemics more likely. Nature News. Retrieved March 5, 2022, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02341-1

I nominated 3 movies for the applied plant ecology film festival. The first is the David Attenborough: A life on our planet (2020) which goes over the effects of climate change on the ecology of forests and natural habitats. However, I am writing this blog post is to explain why I chose Wall-E and Our planet as my second and third choices.

I decided to choose Wall-E because as a kid watching that movie I remember thinking how “real” this actually could be. The chances of humans extinguishing life on Earth are not low. I believe this movie does a good job of showing humans the consequences of our actions and what they could potentially lead to. However, on a realistic note, we wouldn’t be able to live in space on a ship for the rest of our existence like portrayed in the movie. Although, the part where the ship itself was programmed to erase the fact that a plant was found on Earth is something that a capitalistic society would try and push on us. Because the majority of billionaires don’t care about this planet, all they care about is their money and assets.

I chose our planet as my third choice as I found it to be an amazing show that uses the art of ‘storytelling’ to explain and capture ecological interactions between species. Many of which are plants and their ecology/ interactions. This show is also narrated by David Attenborough which makes it that much better, as he excels at wildlife commentaries. I personally love this show because it does a great job at capturing both funny, knowledgeable yet entertaining moments.  I would suggest this movie to anyone who is looking to have a nice time and to increase their general knowledge of ecological interactions, especially plant and aquatic-focused.

Plant ecology as a scientific field of study has been receiving a lot of attention, and there are many people who can be thanked for their contributions. But how did it all get started? Better yet, how did the field of ecology as a whole come into the picture? The first person to use the term “ecology” was Henry Thoreau in 1858, but he never defined the word and used it ambiguously. Ernst Haeckel on the other hand was the first person to define the term and did so 8 years later in 1866. He said that ecology was a “comprehensive science of the relationship of the organism to its environment”. Over the years, this term has been questioned and modified by others, but Haeckel put a lot of this into motion.

Haeckel was born in the Kingdom of Prussia in 1834. He studied medicine and attained his doctorate in 1857. From here, he began practicing medicine but soon realized that the field was not for him. He changed paths, went back to school, and 3 years later became a zoologist and taught as a university professor. Throughout his life, he met many scientists, most notably, Charles Darwin. This was great for Haeckel as his interests were in evolution and Darwin is the father of evolution. Shockingly, Haeckel did not support Darwin’s theory of natural selection but instead opted for believing in Lamarckism.

Haeckel married twice, outliving both his wives, and had 3 children. Haeckel retired from teaching and research in 1909, and shortly after this his second wife sadly passed. Following her passing, Haeckel grew weaker but lived for a few more years until he ultimately passed in 1919.

Sources:

Di Gregorio, Mario A. (2005). “1: Young Haeckel”. From Here to Eternity: Ernst Haeckel and Scientific Faith. Religion, Theologie Und Naturwissenschaft/Religion, Theology, And Natural Science. Vol 3: 26.

Kutschera, U., Levit, S., Hossfeld, U. (2019). “Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919): The German Darwin and his impact on modern biology”. Theory in Biosciences. 138 (1): 1–7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

Fill in the Blank: Covid 19 is a _______

1. Bacteria
2. Virus
3. Archaea
4. Protist

Fill in the Blank: Covid 19 is a _______

1. RNA-based virus that is transmitted via aerosols
2. DNA-based protist that is transmitted via direct contact with an infected person
3. Ribosome-based bacteria that is transmitted via bodily fluids
4. Protein-based Archaea that is transmitted via parasitism

Select the most efficient way of protecting yourself and others from Covid 19 via PPE:

1. Wear two cloth masks stacked on top of one another
2. Use one KN95/N95 mask and reuse it every day
3. Wear no mask at all because I have 3 doses of the vaccine
4. Have 3 KN95/N95 mask that you rotate between

The Covid 19 vaccine is a:

1. Mixture of proteins that has the ability to target DNA and change your genes making you less susceptible to infection
2. Serum that spreads along your skin and respiratory organs, waiting on their surface to interact with an airborne pathogen, which it will protect you from by immobilizing it.
3. mRNA-based vaccine that gives your body a blueprint to create proteins that will fight the virus in case of an infection
4. Fluid that circulates through your circulatory system, protecting your red blood cells from invading pathogens, making it less likely that you get infected by said pathogen.

Which of the following statements related to Covid 19 is false?

1. Covid 19 is no longer a worry to a person with 3 doses of the vaccine
2. Reinfection is not possible after contracting Covid 19
3. Kids cannot carry Covid 19
4. An individual that is asymptomatic cannot infect others
5. Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) are 100% accurate
6. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests for Covid 19 are 100% accurate
7. It is impossible to contract Covid 19 while standing outside
8. It is impossible to contract Covid 19 while inside a well-ventilated building/room
9. C and G are false
10. C, E, and D are false
11. C and D are false
12. All the options are false

York University’s Sound and Moving Image Library is a very fun and useful place to visit. Although we had a virtual tour, I actually visited the library when it was open 2 years ago. It was a place I would regularly go to study and relax. The library has a massive collection of films which students are able to rent. Although I never rented one due to not having a CD player, I always found myself browsing the shelves of endless films. There were enough films in one small area to satisfy my needs for an entire lifetime, let alone what their entire collection could do.

One thing that I discovered more recently though was the Criterion service provided by York and the Sound and Moving Image Library. This is a website that allows you to stream movies completely free of charge as long as you are a York student. It is similar to Netflix and has a vast collection of films to watch. Since discovering Criterion, I have used it many times. For example, I love Harry Potter but I never watched the films because couldn’t find a streaming service I have access to that has it available. That was until I remembered about Criterion, which happened to have all 8 films. 

I have actually used Criterion for this course’s film festival. I was looking at films available on the website and came across Interstellar. Interstellar touches on a few general ecology-related themes, but it also touches on some of the applied plant ecology themes mentioned at the beginning of the course, which is why I thought it would be a great nomination. 

As one of my film festival nominations, I chose Lost in Space which is a Netflix Original show created by Irwin Allen. Similar to the other two movies I nominated, Lost in space is a show that has individuals tasked with exploring planets. In Lost in Space, a boy named Will and his colony land on an Earth-like planet in the hopes to find a suitable place to live. Unlike earth however, there are advanced robots which are hostile towards the group but Will manages to find one of these robots very injured and nearly dead. Will helps him recover and this robot helps him and his family throughout the show. 

The reason I nominated this show is because it touches on a lot of applied plant ecology related ideas. In one of the episodes for example, Will and his colony come across a plant that used to be native to earth but had gone extinct centuries ago. The colony was shocked because the last time the plant was seen, advanced space travel hadn’t existed so there was no way humans could have planted them. 

They ended up recalling that centuries ago, a spaceship carrying said plant was launched from earth but unexpectedly exploded but there was no real news coverage on it so they had no clue what happened. In the episode, they ended up concluding that the robots had attacked and destroyed the ship but this plant had launched seed all over the place in the wreckage. These seeds travelled and latched onto the robots who then travelled back home. This explained how this plant was found thriving on another planet, even though it had gone extinct on earth due to growth conditions no longer being met.