Greg D

One component of the keystone species hypothesis essentially says that any species whose impact on the environment is larger than its population would suggest it is a keystone species. In this regard, I feel that there is very little argument as to whether humans qualify as a keyston species or not. Our impact on the environment around us is much furhter reaching than any other organism on the planet. The amount of space and resources we use are very disproportionate to our population. The second component of the keystone species hypothesis focuses more on the degree to the effect of the removal of the species would have on the overall environment. In this regard there is much more room for debate. Initially huamns would not have been a keystone species in this regard because if we were removed from the planet at the earliest outset of human civilization the overall balance of ecosystems would have been small because we were able to adapt to many environments and no certain ecosystems relied on us for balance. Today however, we have disrupted the balance of many ecosystems for our benefit through technology, the elimination of certain species, and the introduction of others into environments in which they have no natural predators. Because of this, many species and ecosystems rely on humans to keep them in balance. If we were removed some populations would rise dramatically, while others would become extinct. Certain ecosystems would eventually fail. Due to this, modern humans must be considered a keystone species.