what organism do you think has the most significant effect on our enviroment?why?
85908
Humans, because we tend to be the most arrogant.\nAfter that, micro organisms, because they mutate so rapidly.
628242
Plants.\n\nThey breathe in CO2 and breathe out Oxygen
789585
A human baby. And I'm as liberal as they come. Trees are of course important, whales less so - but they play a vital role. However; humans have rights, animals and plants (largely) do not.
376903
the first answer is definitely "bacteria" and the second has to be "cyanobacteria"
394778
animal\nplant\nbacteria\nalgae\nmicro-organisms
127317
Yes, and the bigger the thing we do, the bigger the impact. Our ecosystem means the whole of everything that exists around us. We strip mine, we pour chemicals and heated water into waterways and oceans, we trap and kill animals to extinctions, we pump oil out of the ground and burn it letting off a chemical reaction into the atmosphere, we have had nuclear accidents that have impacted the land and air for HUNDREDS of years. Iceland is melting.\n\nWe, meaning all humans, have an incredible impact on the ecosystem that we share with all life on earth.\n\nBut then again, the flapping of a butterflies wing has an effect on the ecosytem.
1327
There is this really great book called EXTINCTION by the Ehrlichs(?)...which starts out with a beautiful analogy about the environment. It starts off with this guy who removes rivets (screws) from an airplane wing so that he could sell them for profit. Each rivet/screw represents a unique species that plays an important role in our ecosystem. The loss of each one has an adverse effect on the whole structure. It is true that such effects may or may not have an immediate recognizable effect on us but that does not mean that it is not happening. Also, we humans, have proven that we are really self centered that we do not recognize the damage that we are doing unless it hits us in the face. There are countless examples of chain reactions in the ecosystem due to a loss of an integral species. For example, (although I am no longer certain about the details) due to the misuse of a pesticide by farmers in rural Peru, an outbreak of more resistant  pests evolved. The farmers in reaction started to use more pesticides which affected the other species that naturally feed on and control these pests. The situation got so bad that it escalated to such an extent that cats which controlled the rat population died out because they got the higher dose of the poisonous pesticide in their system. Finally, (believe it or not) they had to fly cats to the area and dropped them from helicopters...thus it did rain cats that day in Peru.
613456
When the place in which organisms live is destroyed.
969461
The biggest problem is probably global warming. Global warming disrupts and alters the natural currents in our oceans. Cold water is more dense than warm water and rises. So if we mess up the currents, the living things within the water is disrupted.
247868
Not only biologists but everybody must feel concerned about the vanishing species on earth.This is  because nobody lives in isolation.We are all ( The plants,animals and man) related and dependent upon each other.)\n With every extinction an important link in the life on the earth is broken and gone. It has a cascading effect.\n In Australia, with the disappearance of Dodo ( A bird since extinct) the trees that were dependent on Dodo for germination of their seeds also disappeared. It was established that the seeds must pass through the digestive system of the bird before germination as the hard cover used to get digested by the bird.Scores of insects and bees bring about pollination in plants.Disappearance of these bees due to indiscriminate use of the pesticides will undoubtedly affects those plants.\nLife on this planet is like an intricate web, damage to any of its part will destroy the web and even man will not be spared.
1170225
There's lots of different effects of pollution. Very few pollutants directly kill creatures in the water, unless they're released in huge amounts because they're simply not strong enough. What they usually do is disrupt the ecosystem that then kills most of the creatures.\nExamples:\nOil - creates a film on the water which blocks the passage of gasses in and out of the water. CO2 builds up in the water and kills most of the marine fauna. (this can also kill the terra life, birds and animals which also add to the pollution of the water) These rotting creatures increase the amount of nitrogen and nutrient in the water which encourage bacterial and algae blooms in the water. These particles in the water then block the light which kills the water flora. If the pollutants stay in the water and can not be flushed out then they encourage the build up even more organic matter around the waterway, and this restricts the flow of the water even more. The natural disruption of this cycle is flooding, which breaks up and washes away the toxins and debris to the ocean, which is much better able to recover from these processes. This process is less common now due to wide spread control of waterways with damming and irrigation. Many first world countries artifically recreate this process artifically by periodically flushing the river.\n\n(although our oceans are now getting in trouble too because many of the toxins we use don't break down, so over time they gradually build up and litterally have nowhere to go)\n\nAnother example is nitrogen pollution (cleaning products) which do a similar process, but they directly encourage bacterial and algae blooms... then you can take it from there.\n\nHeavy metals pollution is a little different. It builds up in a system and as it's heavier, it mostly sinks to the bottom of the river and is difficult to flush out, remaining for many generations. Smaller particles are consumed by the ocean life (eg, fish eating worms that each have a small amount in their system, then birds/humans/other animals eat the fish and the toxins are transported to the land.) This usually makes everything very sick, putting strains on any already stressed populations. This has a less dramatic effect, but much longer lasting results.\n\nI hope this helped.
282995
Pollution: Possibly adding to the global warming theory, especially prolifent during times of early scientific advancement I.E. Industrial Revolution and The Roman Industrialisation which created the second largest period of pollution.\n\nEthical Issues: Scientific advancemnts mainly pioneered by medical, military and the government have led to ethical problems. Obvious flash point include cloning, bioweapons etc.\n\nSurvival Of the fittest: This has been to a large extent diminshed due to mankinds medical wish to extend or protect the lifes of weaker members of society who in the natural world would have expired. This in turn leads to a burden on society. \n\nEscalation: This can be viewed as a negative effect. Whilst it does push the boundaries of science and engineering, such example as the space race can be positive. However, as far as creation of bigger and bigger weapons to out-arsenal the apponent goes, it cannot be presumed a good thing as it leads to problems with management, global security and worldwide relations.\n\nEnlightenment: Whilst in most cases there is no problem with the human race opening its eyes, there is the argument that humans are moving beyond their power to understand and comprehend. There is the argument that ignorance in our species is one of the things that leads to happiness. That by finding out all the most spiritual aspects of our lives are indeed scientific equations and chemical impulses that the human race loses part of what actually makes it human.\n\nI hope I have argued points correctly.\nCheers,\nDaniel.
130954
Yes the entire planet is a giant ecosystem....like the rest of the universe, there is a cause and effect for everything.  So there will always be consequences for any activity or action...I wonder what activity you're referring to though??  \n\nTo give an example- in Florida, they keep developing the land.  These real estate moguls have reclaimed swamp land to build pricey sub-divisions, etc...this has obviously destroyed some, if not all, of the habitat where many animals lived.  Some animals can only survive in very specific conditions, and therefore become endangered, and face extinction.  Some may think, who cares about the little fly that died out...well, maybe that fly was the main source of food for a frog that was native to that area-that puts the frog in the same situation...these animals keep the balance in the various ecosystems in that region...if this balance is upset, it ultimately has an impact on humans and their living conditions as well; because each of us, animal or human has a specific role in the life.  If we fail at our role, we are letting others down...and others will suffer to some extent, great or small, because of our failure.
1017025
~None of the above.  I'd reduce human population by something just over 99.9% and save the planet.  But that solution has already been taken and we're well on the way.  People posting such trite questions on this site and wasting the energy (and burning the hydro-carbons to do it) as well as people doing the same to answer (yes, I include me in that) are a waste of oxygen anyway.\nNot to worry.  The planet, the ants and the cockroaches, and probably the sharks, will survive.
676046
The interaction between an organism and its enviroment is dynamic. It is impossible to separate the "nature" from the "nurture" because they are intertwined. Unfortunately, many people including scientists are too caught up in this false dichotomy.
552015
The only thing that comes to mind is population growth.  The more people (or whatever organisms) there are, the faster their population grows.
827983
B - Habitat degradation would be the closest I would say. \n\nBut, environmental degradation would be a better answer:\nIt is related to the deterioration of the environment both in terms of quantity and extinction of some wildlife species and quality like air, water or land pollution.