Scientists in Europe have concluded that plant biodiversity in forests is decreasing due to a number of varying factors. They deduced that the rate of decline for forest biodiversity is not constant, because of local climate variables such as the animals in the forest, forest lighting, and the amount of nitrogen that is in the forest. Because of these varying factors, data from the study shows that the plant populations of some plants, such as ones that need little light, are increasing, while plants that need a good bit of light are on the decline. Because there are so many variables in collecting this data, it is difficult to gather, but scientists say that the major trend is a decline in forest biodiversity.
Solutions to this problem include slowing climate change by reducing our carbon footprints and greenhouse gas emissions. Barriers to this solution include a lack of knowledge, many are not even aware that our forests are changing. Personally, I feel that the forest habit is a vital one and it should be protected.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150727092805.htm
After reading the article, I got a completely different impression than Ginny. I feel like this article was a very positive one because it shows that biodiversity is largely controlled by local factors. In the study areas of Europe, according to the article cited above on sciencedaily.com, “on average – the biodiversity in the herb layer has not changed in recent decades.” I think this reflects that the forests that are still alive are flourishing. Even though much is controlled by local factors, that means that humans can largely control local diversity.
ReplyDeleteI believe Ginny’s ideas to minimize the human footprint are all-around great ideas to sustain a healthier planet. However, I believe that in regards to this topic specifically, this would support a locally run system to conserve forests. If we truly want to promote the best environment possible, we need to leave the organization up to people who can give it the attention it deserves. As this article alludes to, there are so many factors that go into the health of a specific places biodiversity that one organization on the global or even national scale would be ineffective.
Moreover some questions to further this conversation are: which perspective is correct in regards to what is happening to biodiversity in Europe? In addition, what is happening to biodiversity across the globe?
You're right Bonnie, I may have misread the article. I thought it said that despite the increasing biodiversity of some plant species in the European forests, the overall trend on Earth is that the biodiversity in forests is generally decreasing. I think I got this impression because the article states, in reference to the unchanging herb layer, “This initially surprising result however doesn't mean that all is well in terms of biodiversity,” and “In some areas, biodiversity has clearly been on the decrease, while at the same time it has been increasing in others.” I thought that this meant that even though some levels of the forest are diversifying, the overall trend is a decrease in biodiversity.
Delete