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.
AnOrneryOrca t1_j1p7f0m wrote
Reply to 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
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.