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.

No abstract

Understanding the origin and maintenance of phenotypic variation, particularly across a continuous spatial distribution, represents a key challenge in evolutionary biology. For this, animal venoms represent ideal study systems: they are complex, variable, yet easily quantifiable molecular phenotypes with a clear function. Rattlesnakes display tremendous variation in their venom composition, mostly through strongly dichotomous venom strategies, which may even coexist within a single species. Here, through dense, widespread population-level sampling of the Mojave rattlesnake, Crotalus scutulatus , we show that genomic structural variation at multiple loci underlies extreme geographical variation in venom composition, which is maintained despite extensive gene flow. Unexpectedly, neither diet composition nor neutral population structure explain venom variation. Instead, venom divergence is strongly correlated with environmental conditions. Individual toxin genes correlate with distinct environmental factors, suggesting that different selective pressures can act on individual loci independently of their co-expression patterns or genomic proximity. Our results challenge common assumptions about diet composition as the key selective driver of snake venom evolution and emphasize how the interplay between genomic architecture and local-scale spatial heterogeneity in selective pressures may facilitate the retention of adaptive functional polymorphisms across a continuous space.

Despite extensive study of poisonous and venomous organisms and the toxins they produce, a review of the literature reveals inconsistency and ambiguity in the definitions of 'poison' and 'venom'. These two terms are frequently conflated with one another, and with the more general term, 'toxin.' We therefore clarify distinctions among three major classes of toxins (biological, environmental, and anthropogenic or man-made), evaluate prior definitions of venom which differentiate it from poison, and propose more rigorous definitions for poison and venom based on differences in mechanism of delivery. We also introduce a new term, 'toxungen', thereby partitioning toxic biological secretions into three categories: poisons lacking a delivery mechanism, i.e. ingested, inhaled, or absorbed across the body surface; toxungens delivered to the body surface without an accompanying wound; and venoms, delivered to internal tissues via creation of a wound. We further propose a system to classify toxic organisms with respect to delivery mechanism (absent versus present), source (autogenous versus heterogenous), and storage of toxins (aglandular versus glandular). As examples, a frog that acquires toxins from its diet, stores the secretion within cutaneous glands, and transfers the secretion upon contact or ingestion would be heteroglandular-poisonous; an ant that produces its own toxins, stores the secretion in a gland, and sprays it for defence would be autoglandular-toxungenous; and an anemone that produces its own toxins within specialized cells that deliver the secretion via a penetrating wound would be autoaglandular-venomous. Adoption of our scheme should benefit our understanding of both proximate and ultimate causes in the evolution of these toxins.

No abstract