Fractured Forests Are Endangering Wildlife, Scientists Find (nytimes.com) 38
The world's forests are being carved into pieces. In tropical regions, animals are likely to pay a heavy price. From a report: Around the world, humans are fracturing vast forests. Highways snake through the Amazon's rain forests, and Indonesia plans an ambitious transportation grid in Borneo, through some of the largest untouched expanses of tropical forests. If you were to parachute at random into any of the planet's forests, you'd probably land a mile or less from its edge, according to a recent study. Conservation biologists have intensely debated the dangers that the fracturing of woodlands poses to animals. While many studies have shown that extinctions are more common in fragmented environments, others haven't documented much effect.
A study published on Thursday may help resolve what has been a strident debate, showing why many species are vulnerable to the fragmenting of forests while others are not. Animals in places with a long history of disturbances are relatively resilient, the researchers found. Species that have existed in stable habitats for thousands of years are far more sensitive. "They are taking a new approach on a global scale," said Anna Hargreaves, an evolutionary ecologist at McGill University in Montreal, said of the scientists. "I find it compelling." The first hints of this risk to biodiversity came in the 1960s, when researchers found that bigger islands tended to host more species than smaller ones. Ecologists began to think of forests as islands, too: When a logging company splits what had been continuous belt of trees, two smaller islands may be formed, each of which might support fewer species than the undisturbed tract had.
A study published on Thursday may help resolve what has been a strident debate, showing why many species are vulnerable to the fragmenting of forests while others are not. Animals in places with a long history of disturbances are relatively resilient, the researchers found. Species that have existed in stable habitats for thousands of years are far more sensitive. "They are taking a new approach on a global scale," said Anna Hargreaves, an evolutionary ecologist at McGill University in Montreal, said of the scientists. "I find it compelling." The first hints of this risk to biodiversity came in the 1960s, when researchers found that bigger islands tended to host more species than smaller ones. Ecologists began to think of forests as islands, too: When a logging company splits what had been continuous belt of trees, two smaller islands may be formed, each of which might support fewer species than the undisturbed tract had.
The real problem with global climate change (Score:2)
The problem with climate change, whether you believe it's caused by humans or is a natural cycle, is that the one unarguable thing humans have done is partition the environment into brittle unmovable barriers that don't work if the clamate changes. Wet lands or farmaland or forest could in principle move north if the mid lattitudes warm. But they can't. We've put rivers and wetlands in to boxes. Cities define where forest can't go. And national borders mean the harvestable land can exit your own boundar
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the fact that there are no solar panel parks that clear cut acres of forests, you're right.
There's no way around it. (Score:2, Insightful)
We are consuming the planet right out from under our feet.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we aren't. The biosphere is practically a thin film phenomenon compared to the size of the Earth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The biosphere is practically a thin film phenomenon compared to the size of the Earth.
For all intents and purposes, to us the Earth = biosphere + a very thin film of lithosphere. Both of which we are currently depleting and depriving of the means of regeneration
We need to get off Earth. (Score:2)
But we're still limited to get far. :(
Re: (Score:2)
It would be best to just slaughter all of the farm animals. Their pasture and fields to grow feed for them are destroying the planet. Farm animals contribute about 25% of all greenhouse gasses. Their feed and pasture occupies 60% of farmland which has destroyed forests. Get rid of the farm animals and the earth will be a healthier place for humans.
Sustainability (Score:2)
I just want these trees.
Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."
--Thomas 19
Feel free to apply current biological descent metaphors of a "tree" for clarification.
and water is wet... (Score:1)
How does this lead to a conclusion? (Score:1)
Bigger areas host more species than smaller ones....
It seems strange to draw any conclusion from something like that. How could a larger sample ever have a smaller number of species?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What thinking? That a big sample contains more different items than a small one? That barely qualifies as thinking. It's weird to draw conclusions from something so tautologically obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
You measure big area A and count the number of species. You then split the area A into two seperate areas B and C. You then count the number of species total between B and C. You will find that numspecies(B)+numspecied(C) numspecied(A). This can be proven by examining areas before and after their division. This has been known for a while.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To use an analogy. It's divide and conquer or defeat in detail. [wikipedia.org]
Islands of a threatened species are more susceptible to additional pressures that normally could be handled via migration to access other sources of food.
Basically, habitat loss is driving the current mass extinction and islands of preserves may not be enough to offset it because it's not enough to overcome unintended consequences of "solutions".
No thanks news media (Score:2)
If science is like an orange, news media reporting on science is like orange soda.
Part BS (Score:2)
"If you were to parachute at random into any of the planet's forests, you'd probably land a mile or less from its edge, according to a recent study."
BS. I can find much forest in the State of Maine where you can find miles and miles of uninterrupted forest in every direction. No paved road, no gravel road, not even logging scars from skidders. Now go and redefine 'forest'. Or 'edge'. Or not.
Overstating the problem doesn't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Citing exceptions in thinly populated areas and failing to understand the meaning of "at random" and "probably" doesn't help either.
The world is more than backwoods Maine. But don't fret, it's coming there too [bostonglobe.com].
Re: Part BS (Score:2)
Not thinly populated. Not populated. Moose, deer, raccoons, not people. Backwoods forests are forests...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the linked article disagrees with you and it's trivially easy to show that people live there...
But you do you.
Re: Part BS (Score:2)
The article's point wasn't habitation, it was that forests had been fractured, that they were interrupted, so frequently that you could not go more than a few miles without finding an 'edge'.
Labrador is one example that probably disproves this, but even the Allagash in northern Maine does. It's just bs, trying to extend the damage done in the Amazon to a global problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey genius, "Not populated." That's what you wrote. If you want to keep jumping from one concept to another, I can work with that too. Those black lines are roads [northmainewoods.org] that fracture the forest.
No, I'm only feeling like dispro
Those darn logging companies! (Score:2)
Makes me wonder how much research goes or will go extinct from being published in the paywalled and fragmented forests of traditional academic journals...
Well, duh (Score:2)
Of course. Many types of animals need to move around within a forest to forage. Others migrate between different sites at different times of year. This is all well known.
If you create a road right through a rain-forest, you will also provide access for illegal loggers and illegal farmers etc.
The US is Deforested (Score:2)
Take a boring drive from from St. Louis to Colorado (I-70). This land was mostly forest back in the day (before humans, actually Europeans). There are patches of trees around houses, some areas for hunting, but it's all farm land otherwise.
It's hypocritical for anyone in the US to complain about deforestation in another country, we deforested our country over 100 years ago.
And the highway system, it redefined natural ecosystem borders. Almost 100 years ago in the US.
Regarding the US:
Grassland regrowth ef
Re: (Score:2)
There US has more forest now than it did 100 years ago [fao.org], and about 70% of the forest it had in 1600.
If you just count "trees", there are flat out more trees now than there were in 1600.
The move to sustainable timber industries has been underway for generations, and at this point it is pretty sustainable with current practices. The biggest threat to forests in the US is the expansion of urban centers of 100,000 or more people, rather than industry.
hypocrisy (Score:4, Funny)
It's not hypocritical if the person doing the complaining is mortal.
I'm a vampire and have been alive hundreds of years, and I'll admit: yes, I did participate in the deforestation of the US, so it would be hypocritical of me to complain.
But you were born just last century, and there is no way you are in any way responsible for what happened 200 years ago, so you can complain about any deforestation all you like, without the slightest hypocrisy. That is, unless you have a dark secret like I do?
(This post contains an exaggeration, well really, a lie. But I'm not going to tell you which part.)
This was done long ago in the US and Europe ... (Score:1)
I think begrudging them opening up their natural resources and interconnect their nation is rather petty. We aren't going to pay them the trillions that is worth to not do it and we live in countries made wealthy by doing all this long ago. The United States and especially Europe build vast road and rail networks and used natural resources anywhere they pleased on a scale Amazon basin nations haven't begun to replicate.
It's simply unjust to force them to be holier than us, unless you're an open border propo
As a biologist... (Score:2)
Animal bridges (Score:1)
If you don't know what they are, check them out:
https://allthatsinteresting.co... [allthatsinteresting.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Not much interest ?? (Score:2)
So fecking Slashdotters have no interest in trees.
Trees and re-forestation are 1/3rd of the answer to us and our planet surviving.
We need to get planting forests on an industrial scale to start reversing the damage man has caused for centuries.
Not just the damage since the industrial revolution, although this is when things really accelerated.
The damage started with the agrarian revolution eons ago when we climbed out of the trees and started growing crops.