Ashley S.

When humans inevitably go extinct, plants and animals will not only continue to exist, they will thrive. Without our mass combustion of fossil fuels, our continuing evasion of natural ecosystems, our overall consumption of every discovery made and our astounding mounds of wastes, the Earth as an ecosystem would blossom.

Humans are most definitely not a keystone species. The removal of our species may determine the dramatic shift of an ecosystem, which is the partial definition of a keystone species, but we are most certainly not a species that plays a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community. We are merely a dot on a 4.5 billion year timeline. The Earth has existed and remained resilient well before us, when dinosaurs roamed the land. After we “leave”, the land will repair its wounds and forget us, just as we forgot it.

Angela K.

To be a keystone species, a species has to have a disappropriate effect on the ecosystem. As humans, I do believe that we are noted as a keystone species. Our existence on Earth has become a large part of it as a whole, and in many different ways. We use/deplete numerous resources that the Earth provides, and therefore affect the lives of the amount numerous amount of species that we coexist with. We play an important role in maintaining our ecological community, as well as constantly changing it. We have declared this dominance over the years, and through this authority we have caused the Earth to evolve, and this evolution has been directed to benefit us. However, Paine does provide an accountable point about plants and trees. Without them, we as humans, could not exist. There would be less animal habitat and supply of oxygen. Huge quantities of animals would have no way to survive. Therefore, yes we as humans are a keystone species, but I feel as if plants and trees, or even microbiological world effect us a great deal more.

Darryl Cato-Bishop

Humans are an example of keystone species. Humans has a great impact on the world today. We have the ability to change the environment as well. With the developement of technology it help us grow and use things like farms. As the environment changes, we change the environment to fit our needs and wants. As we change the environment for our needs and wants it kills other species. I think without humans the environment would be totally different. The species we kill will be here and the technology we use would not impact the ecosystem.

Aaron T.

A keystone species can be defined as one whose impacts on its community or ecosystem are large and greater than would be expected from its relative abundance or total biomass. Based upon scientific observation, certain species have such an impact on a biological community or ecosystem that the remove of that species from it's habitat can create an instability within that ecosystem changing the dynamics of which species becomes dominate. In other words the removal of a that species would allow other species to take over a given population because they are not longer checked by the keystone species. As this theory applies to humans and agriculture, humans may be seen as keystone species. Take for example many of the planted rice fields in Asia. Year after year, the same wetlands are continuously being planted with rich and maintained to maximize the total yield of crops from those areas. This maintenance includes the removal of invasive species competing for the resources that the rice plants do. If humans for some reason decided to not try and cultivate the rice, other species would then move in and compete for the rices resourses and may eventually even replace the rice plants as a dominate species. In this sense man is a keystone species in man maintained environments.

Humans a Keystone species- Sam Jones

In the dictionary it states that a keystone species is "a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically". After watching the documentary on this subject during last weeks class, it dawned on me how something so small as a movement or change in one species could trigger a huge domino affect of events. During the video, the narrorator gave an example of the starfish on a shoreline. The environmentalist removed some starfish and different consequences proceeded from this action. More mussels would cling to the shore and eat away this organism, and if they continued to eat so much of it the other organisms would not be eaten. I am sure i am more or less wrong in my example but the point was one change can affect the whole sea.
We as humans control allot of our environment and if we were eliminated the other species would not change. Humans are not a keystone species. if all our factories were shut down, all of the technology and other man made devices were suddenly removed from this earth, organisms and other species would still prosper. Except for the common household dog. the earth and species have existed before us and our contribution has done nothing but destroy and tarnish there existence. My only debate about this would be humans and hunting. In the US sometimes deer tend to overpopulate themselves and it is lawful to kill more than necessary. But at the same time if we were not here, then more deer means more food for coyotes and other wildlife who eat them.

Humans are an even greater example of keystone species than the ones listed in the paper. We have the ability to both increase and decrease populations seemingly on a whim. Fireants have made the exodus to North America by piggy backing on humans. We have almost eradicated turkeys and woodducks, yet decided it would be nice to help these species recover. The starfish and seals of the Pacific are only able to exert influence on other species by eating. Humans have monopolized the ability to move species around the globe as we see fit (or by accident), thereby affecting the entire planet.

Matt B

David Pate

The degree to which humans are a keystone species is proportional to the level of technologial developement, but with a twist at the end. In prehistoric times, humans were not keystone species. Their effect on the environment was limited due to the diverse nature of an omnivore. Then, as the humans' ability to use technology grew, humans started to greatly effect the enviroment with things like dams, pollution, farmland, and urban developement. This would certainly qualify humans as a keystone species. But now, by using new techonology to be more efficient, humans are able to do more with less, and our total biomass is increasing, making our effect on the enviroment more proportional to our biomass. So the degree to which humans are a keystone species is decreasing because our total biomass is increasing and our effect is decreasing (or will be soon) due to conservation efforts.