north v. south

[Phil Henshaw-2]

so... I'm in south Florida with my son for a week enjoying the Keys
and the Everglades (just a little more interesting than the subway!)
and it came to me that the northern oceans there is lots more biomass
and in the southern, lots more species.   Anyone know if there's a
model for that?   All my notes are home, but I remember some stocks &
flows model theorists talking about maximizing systems by something
like internal recycling.   Does that connect?
--
Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~        
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: sy at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com

[Marko Rodriguez]

I recently saw a documentary on Encephalopods on PBS (encephalopods:  
marine creatures belonging to the same family as squid). If I  
remember correctly, encephalopods are larger in the North Pacific  
because the water is more oxygenated then in the south. Thus, the  
creatures in the north grow larger for whatever reason that  
oxygenated water causes larger growth--I assume for similar reasons  
as to why farming works better at lower altitudes. However, this  
explanation doesn't explain why there is more diversity in the south.  
But don't take my word for it--I'm no cardiologist :).

Marko A. Rodriguez
Los Alamos National Laboratory (P362-proto)
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Phone [phone]
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram


On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote:

> so... I'm in south Florida with my son for a week enjoying the Keys
> and the Everglades (just a little more interesting than the subway!)
> and it came to me that the northern oceans there is lots more biomass
> and in the southern, lots more species.   Anyone know if there's a
> model for that?   All my notes are home, but I remember some stocks &
> flows model theorists talking about maximizing systems by something
> like internal recycling.   Does that connect?
> --
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> tel: [phone]
> e-mail: sy at synapse9.com
> explorations: www.synapse9.com
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061221/1db28e01/attachment.html

[Robert Howard-2-3]

Here?s an armchair hypothesis:

Large creatures take longer to grow and more food to do so; hence: longer
reproductive periods and fewer numbers of organisms.

Smaller creatures have more numbers and more children; so probably shorter
lifetimes.

I?d expect that any species with higher population numbers and faster
evolution periods would split (or differentiate) more frequently into newer
species; i.e. more diversity.

The creatures that evolved in the south would have greater diversity, but
would also have adapted to that region, and would want to stay there.

 

As for the oxygen thing, maybe it has to do with volume to surface area. Big
creatures need more oxygen density because they burn more energy moving one
meter per kilogram; that is, because of surface area (square law friction)
in the liquid as they hunt for food. That?s a guess!

 

  _____  

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Marko A. Rodriguez
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 8:28 AM
To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] north v. south

 

I recently saw a documentary on Encephalopods on PBS (encephalopods: marine
creatures belonging to the same family as squid). If I remember correctly,
encephalopods are larger in the North Pacific because the water is more
oxygenated then in the south. Thus, the creatures in the north grow larger
for whatever reason that oxygenated water causes larger growth--I assume for
similar reasons as to why farming works better at lower altitudes. However,
this explanation doesn't explain why there is more diversity in the south.
But don't take my word for it--I'm no cardiologist :).

 

Marko A. Rodriguez

Los Alamos National Laboratory (P362-proto)

Los Alamos, NM 87545

Phone [phone]

http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram

 

 

On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote:





so... I'm in south Florida with my son for a week enjoying the Keys

and the Everglades (just a little more interesting than the subway!)

and it came to me that the northern oceans there is lots more biomass

and in the southern, lots more species.   Anyone know if there's a

model for that?   All my notes are home, but I remember some stocks &

flows model theorists talking about maximizing systems by something

like internal recycling.   Does that connect?

--

Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~        

tel: [phone]                

e-mail: sy at synapse9.com          

explorations: www.synapse9.com

 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

 





 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20061221/95e2f9cd/attachment.html