News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago by marcus_holmes on Thursday August 23, 2018 @07:59AM (#17826459)
but that's not the situation. Biodiversity loss is measured in loss of habitat. More trees = more habitat.
Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago by monkeybutt on Friday August 24, 2018 @01:24AM (#17832968)
What? They are planting "genetic deserts" of hundreds of acres ofof industrial trees. Biodiversity is lost, habitat is lost because these are not the age, type and woodland mix of plants that made an aan actual habitat. Rows as far as the eye can see of lumber pine trees are no more of a proper habitat than mile after mile of cotton or rice or almonds in the CA central valleyvalley are a reasonable replacement for the habitat and biodiversity that was there previously, not to mention the critical loss of micro wetlands.
Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago by 3x on Thursday August 23, 2018 @10:35AM (#17827599)
Biodiversity loss would be measured in loss of biodiversity, I would think.
Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago by marcus_holmes on Friday August 24, 2018 @01:52AM (#17833057)
yeah you'd think so. But that's not how it works. Ecologists estimate species loss by habitat loss. If a million-hectare forest contains a thousand species, and half of it is cut down, then 500 species are assumed to be lost.