Creative_soja OP t1_j1p5zxs wrote
Reply to comment by seriousofficialname in Logged forest compared with an unlogged forest could be better for climate change. A detailed assessment of vegetation growth, bird and mammal numbers, and energy flows in logged and unlogged forests offers some surprising findings. by Creative_soja
That is a good question. As per my understanding, the researchers selected a logged area and adjoining unlogged area within the same forest. So, it is difficult to say how the impacts of logging one section affect the biodiversity of the unlogged section.
nanoatzin t1_j1qpyz5 wrote
Scientist: “clear cutting trees good for climate change and wildlife diversity”.
> Wildfires, logging turn protected forests into carbon emitters -report
I think we can safely say that if a toilet paper company can give a 65 year old semi-retired scientist $5 million to conduct research explains how “clear cutting old growth forest is a good thing”, then we would expect that scientist to study how wildlife diversity increases after wildlife migrated from the logged area from the unlogged area, with a bonus that toilet paper is a “carbon sink”, therefore “proving” the claim that global desertification by clear cutting all of the trees is the solution to climate change and habitat loss.
Problem: trees are where quite a bit of our oxygen comes from, most of the wildlife is now gone, so flushing all of our trees down the toilet may not be the best way to remove carbon from the atmosphere and improve the environment.
The fossil fuel industry has shown us how to conduct this kind of fraudulent scientific research for over half a century by making old scientists wealthy.
CBXER t1_j1qv5pj wrote
Riding offroad in British Columbia in the heatwaves there is a very noticeable temperature rise in clearcuts. Zero shade, species are going extinct as tematures rise. This report is creative fiction.
nanoatzin t1_j1r69c0 wrote
Obviously so. Trees evaporate hundreds of gallons of water each day into the atmosphere.
Leemcardhold t1_j1r946v wrote
Immature trees grow faster then mature trees locking in more carbon. Good for climate change. Immature trees offer more food for wildlife, buds are reachable, etc. You can only grow immature trees by creating space by cutting mature trees.
It’s not a conspiracy by paper companies it’s standard knowledge in forestry/environmental science.
seriousofficialname t1_j1p7822 wrote
And I wonder if some of the species in the unlogged forests can't be found in the logged forests.
That would certainly complicate the idea of logging unlogged forests in order to promote diversity.
Creative_soja OP t1_j1p7n1q wrote
It is definitely true for insects and other earth species. And that is a limitation of such studies. For birds and mammals, it is difficult to validate with one study.
seriousofficialname t1_j1p8khw wrote
Maybe the relatively recent logging of the vast majority of Malaysian Borneo's forests might have pushed some species that depend on unlogged ecosystem deeper inland where old forests remain. The old growth forests left in Malaysian Borneo are really the periphery of unlogged forests in Borneo at this point.
I'm still surprised by the results of the study though. I normally think of ecological transition zones as being more diverse.
Cryptid_Chaser t1_j1p8jvd wrote
It’s almost certainly true that at least one species can only thrive in those unlogged spaces, even if a lot of other species can thrive in the second-growth forest.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments