So this seeming lack of ocean diversity is not just the bias of us land-based creatures, Vermeij and Grosberg argue-a bias that they as marine researchers are all too keenly aware of. “There are oodles and oodles of species in the sea, but to make up that difference would take an awful lot,” says Geerat Vermeij, a marine ecologist and paleoecologist who has written about the land-sea species discrepancy with his collaborator Rick Grosberg, another ecologist at the University of California, Davis. They do not think this difference is entirely an artifact of land being better explored. Scientists now estimate that 80 percent of Earth’s species live on land, 15 percent in the ocean, and the remaining 5 percent in freshwater. The question has held for the two decades since, even as humans have explored more and more of the deep ocean. Robert May, a ecologist at the University of Oxford, appears to be the first to put the conundrum down in writing in a 1994 article titled, “Biological Diversity: Differences between Land and Sea (and Discussion).” ![]() Why more species live on land than in the ocean has puzzled biologists for a long time. So how did biodiversity in the ocean-despite its head start, despite its larger share of the Earth’s surface area-come to fall so far behind biodiversity on land? By one estimate, there are five times as many terrestrial species as marine species today. In particular: flowering plants, fungi, and insects, so many damn insects. Most major animals groups that exist today originated in the sea at this time.įast forward to the present, and it is now the land that has a dizzying array of species. No plants, no animals, certainly nothing that even compared to the great diversity of life in the sea, which teemed with trilobites, crustaceans, bristly worms, and soft squid-like creatures. UK population Whole grain Whole grain intake.Half a billion years ago on Earth, after the Cambrian explosion had created an astonishing array of new species, there was still no life on land. Teenagers and younger adults may need targeting to help increase whole grain consumption. Favourable pricing with increased availability of whole-grain foods and education may help to increase whole grain intake in countries without whole-grain recommendations. The whole grain intake in the UK, although higher than in 2000/01, remains low and below that in the US and Danish recommendations in all age classes. Individuals from lower SES groups had a significantly lower whole grain intake than those from more advantaged classifications. Of the total study population, 18% of adults and 15% of children/teenagers did not consume any whole-grain foods. Whole grain intake (absolute and energy-adjusted) increased with age, but was lowest in teenagers (13-17 years) and younger adults up to the age of 34 years. The corresponding energy-adjusted whole grain intake was 27 g/10 MJ per d for adults and 20 g/10 MJ per d for children/teenagers. ![]() The median daily whole grain intake, calculated for each individual on a dry weight basis, was 20 g/d for adults and 13 g/d for children/teenagers. ![]() In the present study, 4 d diet diaries were completed by 3073 individuals between 20, along with details of socio-economic status (SES). The aim of the present study was to describe whole grain intakes in the most current dietary assessment of UK households using data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme 2008-11. Data from 1986//01 have shown that whole grain intake is low and declining in British adults. Countries including the USA, Canada, Denmark and Australia have specific dietary guidelines on whole grain intake but others, including the UK, do not. Increased whole grain intake has been shown to reduce the risk of many non-communicable diseases.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |