APES 2-3 TEST Flashcards autotroph - MywallpapersMobi

APES 2-3 TEST Flashcards autotroph

Functional group (ecology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

A functional group is merely a set of species, or collection of organisms, that share alike characteristics within a community. Ideally, the lifeforms would perform equivalent tasks based on domain forces, rather than a common ancestor or evolutionary relationship. This could potentially lead to analogous structures that overrule the possibility of homology . More specifically, these beings produce resembling effects to external factors of an inhabiting system. [1] Due to the fact that a majority of these creatures share an ecological niche , it is practical to assume they require similar structures in order to achieve the greatest amount of fitness . This refers to such as the ability to successfully reproduce to create offspring, and furthermore sustain life by avoiding alike predators and sharing meals.

style=”display:none” />

Contents

  • 1 Scientific investigation
  • 2 Categories
  • 3 Diversity
  • 4 Redundancy
  • 5 Effects on conservation
    • 5.1 Challenges
  • 6 References

Scientific investigation[ edit ]

Rather than the idea of this concept based upon a set of theories, functional groups are directly observed and determined by research specialists. It is important that this information is witnessed first-hand in order to state as usable evidence. Behavior and overall contribution to others are common key points to look for. Individuals use the corresponding perceived traits to further link genetic profiles to one another. Although, the life-forms themselves are different, variables based upon overall function and performance are interchangeable. These groups share an indistinguishable part within their energy flow , providing a key position within food chains and relationships within environment(s). [2]

What is an ecosystem and why is that important? An ecosystem is the biological organization that defines and expands on various environment factors- abiotic and biotic , that relate to simultaneous interaction. [3] Whether it be a producer or relative consumer, each and every piece of life maintains a critical position in the ongoing survival rates of its own surroundings. As it pertains, a functional groups shares a very specific role within any given ecosystem and the process of cycling vitality.

Categories[ edit ]

There are generally two types of functional groups that range between flora and specific animal populations. Groups that relate to vegetation science, or flora, are known as plant functional types. Also referred to as PFT for short, those of such often share identical photosynthetic processes and require comparable nutrients. As an example, plants that undergo photosynthesis share an identical purpose in producing chemical energy for others. [4] In contrast, those within the animal science range are called guilds, typically sharing feeding types. This could be easily simplified when viewing trophic levels . Examples include primary consumers, secondary consumers, tertiary consumers, and quaternary consumers. [5]

Diversity[ edit ]

Functional diversity is often referred to as the “value and the range of those species and organismal traits that influence ecosystem functioning ”. [6] Traits of an organism that make it unique, for example, way it moves, gathers resources, reproduces, or the time of year it is active [7] add to the overall diversity of an entire ecosystem , and therefore enhance the overall function, or productivity, of that ecosystem. [8] Functional diversity increases the overall productivity of an ecosystem by allowing for an increase in niche occupation. Species have evolved to be more diverse through each epoch of time, [9] with plants and insects having some of the most diverse families discovered thus far. [10] The unique traits of an organism can allow a new niche to be occupied, allow for better defense against predators, and potentially lead to specialization. Organismal level functional diversity, which adds to the overall functional diversity of an ecosystem, is important for conservation efforts, especially in systems used for human consumption. [11] Functional diversity can be difficult to measure accurately, but when done correctly, it provides useful insight to the overall function and stability of an ecosystem. [12]

Redundancy[ edit ]

Functional redundancy refers to the phenomenon that species in the same ecosystem fill similar roles, which results in a sort of “insurance” in the ecosystem. Redundant species can easily do the job of a similar species from the same functional niche. [13] This is possible because similar species have adapted to fill the same niche overtime. Functional redundancy varies across ecosystems and can vary from year to year depending on multiple factors including habitat availability, overall species diversity, competition among species for resources, and anthropogenic influence. [14] This variation can lead to a fluctuation in overall ecosystem production. It is not always known how many species occupy a functional niche, and how much, if any, redundancy is occurring in each niche in an ecosystem. It is hypothesized that each important functional niche is filled by multiple species. Similar to functional diversity, there is no one clear method for calculating functional redundancy accurately, which can be problematic. One method is to account for the number of species occupying a functional niche, as well as the abundance of each species. This can indicate how many total individuals in an ecosystem are performing one function. [15]

Effects on conservation[ edit ]

Studies relating to functional diversity and redundancy occur in a large proportion of conservation and ecological research. As the human population increases, the need for ecosystem function subsequently increases. In addition, habitat destruction and modification continue to increase, and suitable habitat for many species continues to decrease, this research becomes more important. As the human population continues to expand, and urbanization is on the rise, native and natural landscapes are disappearing, being replaced with modified and managed land for human consumption. Alterations to landscapes are often accompanied with negative side effects including fragmentation, species losses, and nutrient runoff, which can effect the stability of an ecosystem, productivity of an ecosystem, and the functional diversity and functional redundancy by decreasing species diversity.

It has been shown that intense land use affects both the species diversity, and functional overlap, leaving the ecosystem and organisms in it vulnerable. [16] Specifically, bee species, which we rely on for pollination services, have both lower functional diversity and species diversity in managed landscapes when compared to natural habitats, indicating that anthropogenic change can be detrimental for organismal functional diversity, and therefore overall ecosystem functional diversity. [17] Additional research demonstrated that the functional redundancy of herbaceous insects in streams varies due to stream velocity, demonstrating that environmental factors can alter functional overlap. [18] When conservation efforts begin, it is still up for debate whether preserving specific species, or functional traits is a more beneficial approach for the preservation of ecosystem function. Higher species, diversity can lead to an increase in overall ecosystem productivity, but does not necessarily insure the security of functional overlap. In ecosystems with high redundancy, losing a species (which lowers overall functional diversity) will not always lower overall ecosystem function due to high functional overlap, and thus in this instance it is most important to conserve a group, rather than an individual. In ecosystems with dominant species, which contribute to a majority of the biomas s output, it may be more beneficial to conserve this single species, rather than a functional group.

. [19]

Challenges[ edit ]

Understanding functional diversity and redundancy, and the roles each play in conservation efforts is often hard to accomplish because the tools with which we measure diversity and redundancy cannot be used interchangeably. Due to this, recent empirical work most often analyzes the effects of either functional diversity or functional redundancy, but not both. This does not create a complete picture of the factors influencing ecosystem production. In ecosystems with similar and diverse vegetation, functional diversity is more important for overall ecosystem stability and productivity. [20] Yet, in contrast, functional diversity of native bee species in highly managed landscapes provided evidence for higher functional redundancy leading to higher fruit production, something humans rely heavily on for food consumption. [21] A recent paper has stated that until a more accurate measuring technique is universally used, it is too early to determine which species, or functional groups, are most vulnerable and susceptible to extinction. [22] Overall, understanding how extinction affects ecosystems, and which traits are most vulnerable can protect ecosystems as a whole. [23]

References[ edit ]

  1. ^ “Chapter 2: Functional Groups.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 9-25. Print.
  2. ^ Vassiliki, Markantonatou. “Marine Biodiversity Wiki.” Functional Groups –. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.
  3. ^ “Ecosystem.org.” Ecosystem. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2016.
  4. ^ “The Ecosystem and How It Relates to Sustainability.” The Concept of the Ecosystem. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2016.
  5. ^ “Chapter 2: Functional Groups.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 9-25. Print.
  6. ^ Tilman, David (2001). Functional Diversity (3 ed.). New York: Academic Press. pp. 109–120. ISBN   9780122268656 .

  7. ^ Fetzer, Ingo; Johst, Karin; Schäwe, Robert; Banitz, Thomas; Harms, Hauke; Chatzinotas, Antonis (2015-12-01). “The extent of functional redundancy changes as species’ roles shift in different environments” . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (48): 14888–14893. doi : 10.1073/pnas.1505587112 . ISSN   0027-8424 . PMC   4672811 . PMID   26578806 .
  8. ^ Tilman, David (2001). “Diversity and Productivity in a Long-Term Grassland Experiment”. Science. 294 (843): 843–845.
  9. ^ BENTON, MICHAEL J.; EMERSON, BRENT C. (2007-01-01). “HOW DID LIFE BECOME SO DIVERSE? THE DYNAMICS OF DIVERSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE FOSSIL RECORD AND MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS”. Palaeontology. 50 (1): 23–40. doi : 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00612.x . ISSN   1475-4983 .
  10. ^ “Re-thinking plant and insect diversity” . ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2018-04-02.
  11. ^ Walker, B (1992). “Biodiversity and ecological redundancy”. Conservation Biology. 6 (1): 18–23.
  12. ^ Petchey, O.L; Gaston, K.J (2002). “Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community composition”. Ecology Letters. 5: 402–411.
  13. ^ Rosenfeld, Jordan (2002). “Functional redundancy in ecology and conservation”. Synthesizing Ecology. 98 (1): 156–162.
  14. ^ Naeem, S (1998). “Species redundancy and ecosystem reliability”. Conservation Biology. 12 (1): 39–45.
  15. ^ Ricotta, C.; et al. (2016). “Measuring the functional redundancy of biological communities: A quantitative guide”. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 8: 1–4.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
  16. ^ Labierte, E.; et al. (2010). “. Land use intensification reduces functional redundancy and response diversity in plant communities”. Ecology Letters. 13 (1): 76–86. doi : 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01403.x . PMID   19917052 .CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
  17. ^ Forrest, J.R; Thorp, R. W; Kremen, C; Williams, N.M (2015). “Contrasting patterns in species and functional trait diversity of bees in an agricultural landscape”. Journal of Applied Ecology. 52: 706–715.
  18. ^ Poff, N.L; et al. (2002). “Redundancy among three herbivorous insects across an experimental current velocity gradient”. Community Ecology. 134 (4): 262–269.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
  19. ^ Jaksic, F.M (2003). “How much functional redundancy is out there, or are we willing to do away with potential back up species?”. How Landscapes Change. 162: 255–262.
  20. ^ TIlman, David; et al. (1997). “The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem proceeses”. Science. 277 (5330): 1300–1302.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
  21. ^ Sydenham, M.A; et al. (2016). “The effects of habitat management on the species: phylogenetic and functional diversity of bees are modified by the environmental context”. Ecology and Evolution. 6 (4): 961–973.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
  22. ^ Mouchet, M.A; Villeger, S; Mason, N.W; Mouillot, D (2010). “Functional diversity measures: an overview of their redundancy and their ability to discriminate community assembly rules”. Functional Ecology. 24: 867–876.
  23. ^ Petchey, O.L.; Gaston, K.J (2002). “Extinction and the loss of functional diversity”. The Royal Society. 25: 1721–1729.

Retrieved from ” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_group_(ecology)&oldid=856896443 ”
Categories :

  • Ecology
Hidden categories:

  • CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al.

Navigation menu

Personal tools

  • Not logged in
  • Talk
  • Contributions
  • Create account
  • Log in

Namespaces

  • Article
  • Talk

Variants

    Views

    • Read
    • Edit
    • View history

    More


      Navigation

      • Main page
      • Contents
      • Featured content
      • Current events
      • Random article
      • Donate to Wikipedia
      • Wikipedia store

      Interaction

      • Help
      • About Wikipedia
      • Community portal
      • Recent changes
      • Contact page

      Tools

      • What links here
      • Related changes
      • Upload file
      • Special pages
      • Permanent link
      • Page information
      • Wikidata item
      • Cite this page

      Print/export

      • Create a book
      • Download as PDF
      • Printable version

      Languages

        Add links

        • This page was last edited on 28 August 2018, at 07:11 (UTC).
        • Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ;
          additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy . Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. , a non-profit organization.
        • Privacy policy
        • About Wikipedia
        • Disclaimers
        • Contact Wikipedia
        • Developers
        • Cookie statement
        • Mobile view
        • Wikimedia Foundation
        • Powered by MediaWiki

        Functional group (ecology)

        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Jump to navigation
        Jump to search

        A functional group is merely a set of species, or collection of organisms, that share alike characteristics within a community. Ideally, the lifeforms would perform equivalent tasks based on domain forces, rather than a common ancestor or evolutionary relationship. This could potentially lead to analogous structures that overrule the possibility of homology . More specifically, these beings produce resembling effects to external factors of an inhabiting system. [1] Due to the fact that a majority of these creatures share an ecological niche , it is practical to assume they require similar structures in order to achieve the greatest amount of fitness . This refers to such as the ability to successfully reproduce to create offspring, and furthermore sustain life by avoiding alike predators and sharing meals.

        Contents

        • 1 Scientific investigation
        • 2 Categories
        • 3 Diversity
        • 4 Redundancy
        • 5 Effects on conservation
          • 5.1 Challenges
        • 6 References

        Scientific investigation[ edit ]

        Rather than the idea of this concept based upon a set of theories, functional groups are directly observed and determined by research specialists. It is important that this information is witnessed first-hand in order to state as usable evidence. Behavior and overall contribution to others are common key points to look for. Individuals use the corresponding perceived traits to further link genetic profiles to one another. Although, the life-forms themselves are different, variables based upon overall function and performance are interchangeable. These groups share an indistinguishable part within their energy flow , providing a key position within food chains and relationships within environment(s). [2]

        What is an ecosystem and why is that important? An ecosystem is the biological organization that defines and expands on various environment factors- abiotic and biotic , that relate to simultaneous interaction. [3] Whether it be a producer or relative consumer, each and every piece of life maintains a critical position in the ongoing survival rates of its own surroundings. As it pertains, a functional groups shares a very specific role within any given ecosystem and the process of cycling vitality.

        Categories[ edit ]

        There are generally two types of functional groups that range between flora and specific animal populations. Groups that relate to vegetation science, or flora, are known as plant functional types. Also referred to as PFT for short, those of such often share identical photosynthetic processes and require comparable nutrients. As an example, plants that undergo photosynthesis share an identical purpose in producing chemical energy for others. [4] In contrast, those within the animal science range are called guilds, typically sharing feeding types. This could be easily simplified when viewing trophic levels . Examples include primary consumers, secondary consumers, tertiary consumers, and quaternary consumers. [5]

        Diversity[ edit ]

        Functional diversity is often referred to as the “value and the range of those species and organismal traits that influence ecosystem functioning ”. [6] Traits of an organism that make it unique, for example, way it moves, gathers resources, reproduces, or the time of year it is active [7] add to the overall diversity of an entire ecosystem , and therefore enhance the overall function, or productivity, of that ecosystem. [8] Functional diversity increases the overall productivity of an ecosystem by allowing for an increase in niche occupation. Species have evolved to be more diverse through each epoch of time, [9] with plants and insects having some of the most diverse families discovered thus far. [10] The unique traits of an organism can allow a new niche to be occupied, allow for better defense against predators, and potentially lead to specialization. Organismal level functional diversity, which adds to the overall functional diversity of an ecosystem, is important for conservation efforts, especially in systems used for human consumption. [11] Functional diversity can be difficult to measure accurately, but when done correctly, it provides useful insight to the overall function and stability of an ecosystem. [12]

        Redundancy[ edit ]

        Functional redundancy refers to the phenomenon that species in the same ecosystem fill similar roles, which results in a sort of “insurance” in the ecosystem. Redundant species can easily do the job of a similar species from the same functional niche. [13] This is possible because similar species have adapted to fill the same niche overtime. Functional redundancy varies across ecosystems and can vary from year to year depending on multiple factors including habitat availability, overall species diversity, competition among species for resources, and anthropogenic influence. [14] This variation can lead to a fluctuation in overall ecosystem production. It is not always known how many species occupy a functional niche, and how much, if any, redundancy is occurring in each niche in an ecosystem. It is hypothesized that each important functional niche is filled by multiple species. Similar to functional diversity, there is no one clear method for calculating functional redundancy accurately, which can be problematic. One method is to account for the number of species occupying a functional niche, as well as the abundance of each species. This can indicate how many total individuals in an ecosystem are performing one function. [15]

        Effects on conservation[ edit ]

        Studies relating to functional diversity and redundancy occur in a large proportion of conservation and ecological research. As the human population increases, the need for ecosystem function subsequently increases. In addition, habitat destruction and modification continue to increase, and suitable habitat for many species continues to decrease, this research becomes more important. As the human population continues to expand, and urbanization is on the rise, native and natural landscapes are disappearing, being replaced with modified and managed land for human consumption. Alterations to landscapes are often accompanied with negative side effects including fragmentation, species losses, and nutrient runoff, which can effect the stability of an ecosystem, productivity of an ecosystem, and the functional diversity and functional redundancy by decreasing species diversity.

        It has been shown that intense land use affects both the species diversity, and functional overlap, leaving the ecosystem and organisms in it vulnerable. [16] Specifically, bee species, which we rely on for pollination services, have both lower functional diversity and species diversity in managed landscapes when compared to natural habitats, indicating that anthropogenic change can be detrimental for organismal functional diversity, and therefore overall ecosystem functional diversity. [17] Additional research demonstrated that the functional redundancy of herbaceous insects in streams varies due to stream velocity, demonstrating that environmental factors can alter functional overlap. [18] When conservation efforts begin, it is still up for debate whether preserving specific species, or functional traits is a more beneficial approach for the preservation of ecosystem function. Higher species, diversity can lead to an increase in overall ecosystem productivity, but does not necessarily insure the security of functional overlap. In ecosystems with high redundancy, losing a species (which lowers overall functional diversity) will not always lower overall ecosystem function due to high functional overlap, and thus in this instance it is most important to conserve a group, rather than an individual. In ecosystems with dominant species, which contribute to a majority of the biomas s output, it may be more beneficial to conserve this single species, rather than a functional group.

        . [19]

        Challenges[ edit ]

        Understanding functional diversity and redundancy, and the roles each play in conservation efforts is often hard to accomplish because the tools with which we measure diversity and redundancy cannot be used interchangeably. Due to this, recent empirical work most often analyzes the effects of either functional diversity or functional redundancy, but not both. This does not create a complete picture of the factors influencing ecosystem production. In ecosystems with similar and diverse vegetation, functional diversity is more important for overall ecosystem stability and productivity. [20] Yet, in contrast, functional diversity of native bee species in highly managed landscapes provided evidence for higher functional redundancy leading to higher fruit production, something humans rely heavily on for food consumption. [21] A recent paper has stated that until a more accurate measuring technique is universally used, it is too early to determine which species, or functional groups, are most vulnerable and susceptible to extinction. [22] Overall, understanding how extinction affects ecosystems, and which traits are most vulnerable can protect ecosystems as a whole. [23]

        References[ edit ]

        1. ^ “Chapter 2: Functional Groups.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 9-25. Print.
        2. ^ Vassiliki, Markantonatou. “Marine Biodiversity Wiki.” Functional Groups –. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.
        3. ^ “Ecosystem.org.” Ecosystem. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2016.
        4. ^ “The Ecosystem and How It Relates to Sustainability.” The Concept of the Ecosystem. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2016.
        5. ^ “Chapter 2: Functional Groups.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 9-25. Print.
        6. ^ Tilman, David (2001). Functional Diversity (3 ed.). New York: Academic Press. pp. 109–120. ISBN   9780122268656 .

        7. ^ Fetzer, Ingo; Johst, Karin; Schäwe, Robert; Banitz, Thomas; Harms, Hauke; Chatzinotas, Antonis (2015-12-01). “The extent of functional redundancy changes as species’ roles shift in different environments” . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (48): 14888–14893. doi : 10.1073/pnas.1505587112 . ISSN   0027-8424 . PMC   4672811 . PMID   26578806 .
        8. ^ Tilman, David (2001). “Diversity and Productivity in a Long-Term Grassland Experiment”. Science. 294 (843): 843–845.
        9. ^ BENTON, MICHAEL J.; EMERSON, BRENT C. (2007-01-01). “HOW DID LIFE BECOME SO DIVERSE? THE DYNAMICS OF DIVERSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE FOSSIL RECORD AND MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS”. Palaeontology. 50 (1): 23–40. doi : 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00612.x . ISSN   1475-4983 .
        10. ^ “Re-thinking plant and insect diversity” . ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2018-04-02.
        11. ^ Walker, B (1992). “Biodiversity and ecological redundancy”. Conservation Biology. 6 (1): 18–23.
        12. ^ Petchey, O.L; Gaston, K.J (2002). “Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community composition”. Ecology Letters. 5: 402–411.
        13. ^ Rosenfeld, Jordan (2002). “Functional redundancy in ecology and conservation”. Synthesizing Ecology. 98 (1): 156–162.
        14. ^ Naeem, S (1998). “Species redundancy and ecosystem reliability”. Conservation Biology. 12 (1): 39–45.
        15. ^ Ricotta, C.; et al. (2016). “Measuring the functional redundancy of biological communities: A quantitative guide”. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 8: 1–4.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
        16. ^ Labierte, E.; et al. (2010). “. Land use intensification reduces functional redundancy and response diversity in plant communities”. Ecology Letters. 13 (1): 76–86. doi : 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01403.x . PMID   19917052 .CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
        17. ^ Forrest, J.R; Thorp, R. W; Kremen, C; Williams, N.M (2015). “Contrasting patterns in species and functional trait diversity of bees in an agricultural landscape”. Journal of Applied Ecology. 52: 706–715.
        18. ^ Poff, N.L; et al. (2002). “Redundancy among three herbivorous insects across an experimental current velocity gradient”. Community Ecology. 134 (4): 262–269.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
        19. ^ Jaksic, F.M (2003). “How much functional redundancy is out there, or are we willing to do away with potential back up species?”. How Landscapes Change. 162: 255–262.
        20. ^ TIlman, David; et al. (1997). “The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem proceeses”. Science. 277 (5330): 1300–1302.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
        21. ^ Sydenham, M.A; et al. (2016). “The effects of habitat management on the species: phylogenetic and functional diversity of bees are modified by the environmental context”. Ecology and Evolution. 6 (4): 961–973.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ( link )
        22. ^ Mouchet, M.A; Villeger, S; Mason, N.W; Mouillot, D (2010). “Functional diversity measures: an overview of their redundancy and their ability to discriminate community assembly rules”. Functional Ecology. 24: 867–876.
        23. ^ Petchey, O.L.; Gaston, K.J (2002). “Extinction and the loss of functional diversity”. The Royal Society. 25: 1721–1729.

        Retrieved from ” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_group_(ecology)&oldid=856896443 ”
        Categories :

        • Ecology
        Hidden categories:

        • CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al.

        Navigation menu

        Personal tools

        • Not logged in
        • Talk
        • Contributions
        • Create account
        • Log in

        Namespaces

        • Article
        • Talk

        Variants

          Views

          • Read
          • Edit
          • View history

          More


            Navigation

            • Main page
            • Contents
            • Featured content
            • Current events
            • Random article
            • Donate to Wikipedia
            • Wikipedia store

            Interaction

            • Help
            • About Wikipedia
            • Community portal
            • Recent changes
            • Contact page

            Tools

            • What links here
            • Related changes
            • Upload file
            • Special pages
            • Permanent link
            • Page information
            • Wikidata item
            • Cite this page

            Print/export

            • Create a book
            • Download as PDF
            • Printable version

            Languages

              Add links

              • This page was last edited on 28 August 2018, at 07:11 (UTC).
              • Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ;
                additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy . Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. , a non-profit organization.
              • Privacy policy
              • About Wikipedia
              • Disclaimers
              • Contact Wikipedia
              • Developers
              • Cookie statement
              • Mobile view
              • Wikimedia Foundation
              • Powered by MediaWiki

              National Geographic
              DONATE

              Who We Are

              About Us Our Explorers Our History Our Leadership Our Newsroom

              What We Do

              Projects
              HOME Beyond Yellowstone Big Cats Initiative Okavango Wilderness Project Out of Eden Walk Photo Ark Photo Camp Pristine Seas Space Archaeology Sumatran Rhino Rescue Year of the Bird All Impact Programs
              Education
              HOME Classroom Resources Professional Development Student Experiences Blog
              Grant Programs Technology and Innovation D.C. Events & Exhibitions Our Impact Our Awards Our Blog

              Get Involved

              Give to the Society Attend an Event or Exhibition Apply for a Grant Get Updates

              FOLLOW US

              • Education

              • Classroom Resources
                • Resource Library
                • Mapping
                • Explorer Magazine
              • Professional Development
                • Online Courses
                • Educator Network
                • Grants for Educators
                • Grosvenor Teacher Fellowship
              • Student Experiences
                • GeoBee
                • GeoChallenge
                • Explorer Classroom
                • Student Matinees
              • Blog
              National Geographic

              • Home
              • Classroom Resources
              • Professional Development
              • Student Experiences
              • Blog
              Donate

              Who We Are

              About Us Our Explorers Our History Our Leadership Our Newsroom

              What We Do

              Projects
              HOME Beyond Yellowstone Big Cats Initiative Okavango Wilderness Project Out of Eden Walk Photo Ark Photo Camp Pristine Seas Space Archaeology Sumatran Rhino Rescue Year of the Bird All Impact Programs
              Education
              HOME Classroom Resources Professional Development Student Experiences Blog
              Grant Programs Technology and Innovation D.C. Events & Exhibitions Our Impact Our Awards Our Blog

              Get Involved

              Give to the Society Attend an Event or Exhibition Apply for a Grant Get Updates

              FOLLOW US
              National Geographic
              DONATE DONATE