Food demand influences agricultural production. Modern agricultural practices have resulted in polluted soil, air, and water; eroded soil; dependence on imported oil; and loss of biodiversity. The goal of this research was to compare the environmental effect of a vegetarian and nonvegetarian diet in California in terms of agricultural production inputs, including pesticides and fertilizers, water, and energy used to produce commodities. The working assumption was that a greater number and amount of inputs were associated with a greater environmental effect. The literature supported this notion. To accomplish this goal, dietary preferences were quantified with the Adventist Health Study, and California state agricultural data were collected and applied to state commodity production statistics. These data were used to calculate different dietary consumption patterns and indexes to compare the environmental effect associated with dietary preference. Results show that, for the combined differential production of 11 food items for which consumption differs among vegetarians and nonvegetarians, the nonvegetarian diet required 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticides than did the vegetarian diet. The greatest contribution to the differences came from the consumption of beef in the diet. We found that a nonvegetarian diet exacts a higher cost on the environment relative to a vegetarian diet. From an environmental perspective, what a person chooses to eat makes a difference.

Confusion has afflicted the definition of symbiosis for over 130 years. Despite the lack of discussion in recent times, the usage of symbiosis has evolved and appears to be stabilizing to broader interpretations. Current usage of symbiosis and its associated terminology in 10 current general biology (GB) and 10 general ecology (GE) textbooks is presented. The restrictive definition (i.e. symbiosis = mutualism) has essentially disappeared. All GB textbooks (100%) surveyed used an explicit or implicit "de Bary" definition of symbiosis (i.e. mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism), while only 40% of GE textbooks did the same. General ecology textbooks also included 30% defining symbiosis to constitute all species interactions and 30% that completely avoided usage of the term. When combining GB and GE textbooks to analyze symbiotic usage, 85% defined mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism as symbiotic interactions. Also, 70% considered a symbiosis to be a species interaction that is "intimate," with 45% of those both "intimate and constant." Unfortunately, only 5% used the terms ecto-/endosymbiosis, which help discern intimacy and constancy in species interactions. Usage of symbiont (55%) was preferred over symbiote (0%). Predator and prey were defined as organisms (vs. animals) in 90% of GB and GE textbooks, while 55% and 75% described carnivores and herbivores as organisms, respectively. Only 25% discussed predation, parasitism, parasitoidism, and grazing/herbivory, with only one (5%) integrating these +/-agonistic interactions in relation to intimacy and lethality. Data reveals trend of biologists/ecologists using broader definitions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract