SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Layers of guano deposits on an Antarctic island have revealed that penguins there were impacted by periodic volcanic eruptions:
For thousands of years, the birds have nested on the Ardley outcrop where their poop, or guano, would collect at the bottom of a lake. But when scientists drilled into these sediments, they got quite a surprise. Interspersed with the layers of penguin waste were thick sections of volcanic ash, indicating the Ardley birds were frequently decimated by eruptions.
"What causes the biggest declines in the penguins is the volcanic activity on nearby Deception Island," explained Stephen Roberts from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). "Eruptions have gone off at regular intervals over the last 7,000 years. We found there were five phases when the penguin population grew quite significantly, and for three of these the population crashed. This was due to the volcano going off," he told BBC News.
Past penguin colony responses to explosive volcanism on the Antarctic Peninsula (open, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14914) (DX)
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:42PM (2 children)
Sadly, in most cases a disaster that kills off 90% of a population is great for the 10% that survives. That's a whole bunch of competition for space and resources that was removed. The next few generations can throw a baby boom and not sweat over diminishing opportunity. But it can't last. Doesn't take long for exponential population growth to refill the world. All too soon the party has to end. To me, one of the most striking things about American families up to the late 19th and early 20th century is their sheer size. Most couples who could were having lots of kids, not stopping at 4 or 5, but going for 8 or 10 or more.
One exception is if the population was already so small that genetic diversity is significantly reduced by the loss. Another is if the disaster was so destructive that the environment is ruined, and the survivors are all doomed to starve, freeze or die some other way.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:09PM (1 child)
> one of the most striking things about American families up to the late 19th and early 20th century is their sheer size.
> Most couples who could were having lots of kids, not stopping at 4 or 5, but going for 8 or 10 or more.
No efficient contraception, no TV or internet after dark, more farm hands needed, need for a few spares given the infant mortality rates, Religious duty to have more kids than the next sect/cult, and to top it off, ability to feed/clothe/care for all those kids from Dad's single income...
Also know as business as usual from the start of mankind to the late XXth.
"Happy feet (n+1): Penguin Pompeii"... How many weeks before that terrible script is funded?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:50PM
That's the view from the male perspective. Women are not so eager to have lots of children if circumstances do not look good. Sometimes women have shut down the male drive to overpopulate and reduce through war.
Sure can't do male business as usual any more, not with nuclear bombs in the mix.