You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_ivwlqf7 wrote



[deleted] t1_ivx09pv wrote



foxmetropolis t1_ivx4w3o wrote

It is, though it's really important to note that forest replanting (or, really, any other kind of restoration) is not a holistic fix to habitat destruction. It's important, but also pales in comparison to pre-destruction habitat. Saving established habitat is incredibly important.

Each time you scour a habitat, you risk losing a proportion of it's most sensitive species semi-permanently or permanently. Some groups of organisms are very slow-growing and slow spreading, exhibit very limited mobility, or can only establish in the presence of multiple other species with which they are symbiotic. Truly rare and endangered species often fall into this camp, and habitat destruction may drastically reduce the likelihood of their re-establishment.

Conversely, habitat regeneration promotes the re-establishment of low-sensitivity common species first and foremost. forest planting initiatives mostly cater to only a subset of those low-sensitivity species, often one or two dozen woody species, at best, with little to no regard for rare or herbaceous plants (beyond, possibly, a basic seed mix with no guarantees of establishment, that often includes meadow species rather than forest species). Other kingdoms of life (like animals or fungi) at almost ignored. Regenerated forests have potential to slowly incorporate mature and old growth forest species elements if they occur near to such mature systems, but on an increasingly fragmented world landscape, this is also fraught with problems.

As a result, truly rich habitats remain in decline, and certainly this does not help with the decline of rare species. forest planting and restoration are important but imperfect fixes, and it's always important to prioritize existing features.


StaleCanole t1_ivzf48d wrote

I think grasslands development flies more under the radar. Here in colorado people call it “empty space”


EasterBunnyArt t1_ivzlp2l wrote

As long as it allows for biodiversity a d is being left alone I am all for it as well. But you are right it tends to be ignored. Actually now that I think of it, why do we focus on forests and not all types of environments?


Plant__Eater t1_ivwpm70 wrote

From the study:

>We have shown clearly that land/sea use change mainly in the form of rapid expansion and intensifying management of land used for cropping or animal husbandry (9)—and direct exploitation mostly through fishing, logging, hunting, and wildlife trade (9)—have been the two dominant drivers of global biodiversity loss overall over recent decades (Fig. 1A).[1]


AutoModerator t1_ivvc707 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.