AnOrneryOrca t1_j1p7f0m wrote
I wonder whether this accounts for biodiversity that isn't moving around - ex. Fungi and other life that depends on the original ecosystem but isn't easy to count due to where it lives, being microscopic, etc. How much of that life is needed to maintain the original biodiversity and is then replaced by species that wouldn't otherwise be present in the pre-logging ecosystem?
Also is biodiversity the only key metric here, and how is say carbon capture / oxygen emissions impacted?
Either way I know there's an argument for limited logging - limited being the key word.
Creative_soja OP t1_j1p7zt0 wrote
Yes. Only limited logging may have some macro level benefits for the short term.
You are absolutely correct to point out that fungi and microorganism may be difficult to count. So, we dont know whether limited logging will continue to produce the same benefits in the long-term, meaning over centuries, as compared to the old growth.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments