• UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Halftime stats for UCSB/Clemson (tied 1-1) Shots: 8/5 Shots on Goal: 3/4 Corners: 3/2 Fouls: 13/8 Yellow cards: 1/0
    47 min 45 sec ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Clemson equalizes late in the first half through an Aaron Jones strike. It's 1-1 heading into halftime.
    54 min 40 sec ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Gooooaaaaaal!!!! Seo-In Kim with the goal to put @UCSBMensSoccer up 1-0 with 6 left in opening half.
    1 hour 1 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    @UCSBMensSoccer Sam Strong in for Nick DePuy with 12 left in 1st half
    1 hour 6 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    30' - Long range effort from DePuy goes way wide. Both teams have a harder time creating chances.
    1 hour 11 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    24' - shot from the left side from Acheampong, save Tarbell
    1 hour 17 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    '21 - Kevin Feucht has a point blank look at net, but his redirection goes just over the crossbar.
    1 hour 20 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Big save from Vom Steeg, diving low to his left to stop a Tasner shot in the 20th min
    1 hour 21 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Ish Jome unleashes a 35 yd laser for UCSB's first shot on goal, requiring a save from Clemson keeper Andrew Tarbell. 25 mins left in the 1st
    1 hour 22 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Gauchos enjoying the run of play so far, but havent recorded a shot yet. 35 mins to go in the first.
    1 hour 31 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Yellow card for UCSB: Randy Mendoza in the 7th min.
    1 hour 33 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Justin Vom Steeg coming up big early for UCSB, making a pair of saves on T.J. Cashner (10 goals for Clemson). 38:00 left in the 1st half.
    1 hour 35 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Duncan Backus knocks home a Geoffrey Acheampong free kick from 30 yds out, but a late offside whistle negates an early goal for UCSB
    1 hour 37 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    And we're underway here in Clemson! Here's that @ESPN3 link one more time: https://t.co/R9FRG70Get
    1 hour 43 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    @UCSBMensSoccer about to take on #2 Clemson https://t.co/q5HJrSMQtM
    1 hour 46 min ago


Monday, August 26, 2002 - 17:00
Santa Barbara, CA

Extinction rates of native California plants have been studied by three researchers who found that previously designed mathematical and computer models were biased because they left out the human element in their predictions, according to an article published in the August 20 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They conclude with the key concern that "understanding the relationship between habitat loss and loss of biodiversity is central to the development of sound conservation policy."

The authors are: Eric Seabloom, a postdoctoral fellow at UC Santa Barbara's National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS); Andy Dobson, professor in the Department of Ecology at Princeton; and David M. Stoms, researcher at the Institute for Computational Earth System Science at UC Santa Barbara. The researchers used a public data set that lists the native plant species in 93 regions of California.

These data are particularly interesting, because of the high plant diversity in California. According to the article, California contains more than 20 percent of all the vascular plant species in the U.S. and 4 percent of the worldwide total.

Mathematical and computer models are important tools to study potential extinctions and find ways -- such as reserves -- to preserve biodiversity. Typically, these assume that development in California is random.

"The random model of species loss is overly optimistic," explained Seabloom. "It doesn't take into account the fact that urban and agricultural development are concentrated in specific types of areas and can wipe out whole species. When there is contiguous human development of the land, the likelihood of losing whole species is greater."

Water is one magnet for development by humans. The article states that "humans have clear habitat preference for coastal or other low-lying lands with adequate supplies of water." It goes on to say that the rate of habitat conversion (the most important cause of extinction) is significantly faster in these areas than in areas less suitable for agriculture."

The authors point out that in spite of attempts to conserve global biological diversity, habitat conversion rates are accelerating, particularly in tropical countries. They caution that policies for the preservation of global biodiversity must be based on accurate predictions of "the effects of habitat conversion on species distributions."

They conclude with the concern that, "The biggest challenge now facing conservation biology is to conserve the 90 percent of biodiversity now residing on low-lying lands that are often privately owned. It is here that rates of habitat loss are increasing most rapidly."

After reading this article I feel