Cryptid_Chaser t1_j1p84ue wrote
Reply to comment by Creative_soja 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
Thanks for the link! Open access FTW!!
Looks like the relevant part from the methodology is: >“in four old-growth forest 1-ha plots in the Maliau Basin Conservation Area (two plots, 4 years of data) and Danum Valley Conservation Area (two plots, 2 years of data)14,16, and one 0.36-ha mature oil palm plot”
So not very large. That’s disappointing, really. I wish they had been in miles-long tracts.
Creative_soja OP t1_j1paast wrote
I agree but it was only research. For them, documenting the biodiversity of a small plot was challenging in itself. Measuring miles of tracts is nearly impossible for a single study. I support huge government efforts to monitor the biodiversity of an entire ecosystem onna regular basis.
Cryptid_Chaser t1_j1pc5gk wrote
True. I’d hate to research an area even that big and try to be comprehensive. And they tracked a lot of different species. No doubt it was a complex project.
I just always think about what the takeaways might be. And I don’t want the takeaway to be “oh let’s log ALL the forests, since we value having a lot of species, so forget about that one frog that only grows here.” If we had even 50/50 old growth and second growth, then it wouldn’t feel so precarious.
Darwins_Dog t1_j1pvbi7 wrote
Given the scope if what they were measuring, this is huge. More or bigger sites would have taken an army to process the images and check all the traps.
Greypilgrem t1_j1pvc4q wrote
In an ideal world sure. However, that would be an unimaginable amount of field work and data analysis. Imagine how many photos are taken by motion activated cameras when the wind blows, not to mention changing out the batteries.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments