Farmland cannot be turned back into natural wilderness.
Sure it can't be turned back into the exact same type of wilderness that it used to be. It can still be turned back into some type of wilderness though.
The Chinese are turning literal sand dunes into forested green land, there's no way that farmland is harder to work with.
New (or secondary) woodland can be okay for wildlife, but it’s usually far less biodiverse than primary/ ancient woodland.
Of course, biodiversity that was lost overnight can't be restored overnight. The point is that by restoring farmland into forests, you're creating a setting where biodiversity even has a chance to reach former levels. This is just letting perfect be the enemy of "really fucking good"
I'm also not convinced that biodiversity has any inherent environmental relevance on it's own. It obviously makes for very interesting science and study, and I definitely don't want more species to go extinct, but I think biomass and allocation of biomass is far more important. Otherwise you get weird conclusions like that cutting down part of the Amazon is 3x worse than cutting down the same area in boreal forests.
LOSING biodiversity is obviously bad, because you're losing something that was being done automatically. But there's no reason to try to GAIN biodiversity for its own sake. The goal is restoring the environment, biodiversity just follows naturally.
If extrapolated to its logical conclusion, a single hectare of Amazonian rainforest would be worth more than the entire African Savannah.
I think the proper comparison is Amazon rainforest to boreal rainforests, like in Canada. Rainforest:Savannah isn't really equal because trees act as carbon sinks, and savannahs are just basically steppes filled with bovids.
I think in terms of CO2, you can make a very broad value judgement, that forests > grasslands > deserts. Not only in terms of value to climate, but also in temporal sequence--forests must become grasslands before they become deserts.
The problem is that in terms of human value, grasslands > forests > deserts. Forests become grasslands (through human deforestation) to provide value, and then grasslands become deserts (through lack of careful maintenance).
I agree, biodiversity is an insurance policy. I just think that it's an almost entirely irrelevant thing to focus on, because it's a lagging effect. In the situations where you need a certain role (like a predator) that can be done, like you said with the Great White Shark case, by introducing a predator into the environment. Which is technically adding biodiversity, but without this inane focus on it for its own sake
Also it leads to fun paradoxes like lions are bad. Because if you could cull the entire biomass of lions/leopards/cheetahs, and instead replace them with smaller cats, and then ALSO replace their prey with smaller pygmy elephants and tapirs instead of African elephants and rhinos, then you could triple the biodiversity.
Actually, as I type this comment I'm beginning to realize that the forest > grassland > desert trichotomy probably causes decreased BD. BD is high in forests because largeness is disadvantageous. Grasslands are desirable to humans (but not ONLY to humans, also to lions, elephants) because they are easy to live in and traverse. Exploit them too much and they become deserts.
Elephants and lions are big because they live in privileged easy grassland habitats, kind of like us. The big animals all outcompeted the small animals, decreasing BD. In a forested area BD is inherently guaranteed because it pays to be small, so there can be a greater variety of species. So forests are the best, because not only carbon sinks, but also biodiversity.
To turn a brand new woodland into a good habitat would either require very careful and considered management, or you’d have to leave it for another 100 or so years to happen naturally
Yeah, that's my point. Reclaim the farmland, then flood it with a bunch of shit to jumpstart the process, then don't touch. A century later, new wilderness
deleted by creator
Sure it can't be turned back into the exact same type of wilderness that it used to be. It can still be turned back into some type of wilderness though.
The Chinese are turning literal sand dunes into forested green land, there's no way that farmland is harder to work with.
deleted by creator
Of course, biodiversity that was lost overnight can't be restored overnight. The point is that by restoring farmland into forests, you're creating a setting where biodiversity even has a chance to reach former levels. This is just letting perfect be the enemy of "really fucking good"
I'm also not convinced that biodiversity has any inherent environmental relevance on it's own. It obviously makes for very interesting science and study, and I definitely don't want more species to go extinct, but I think biomass and allocation of biomass is far more important. Otherwise you get weird conclusions like that cutting down part of the Amazon is 3x worse than cutting down the same area in boreal forests.
LOSING biodiversity is obviously bad, because you're losing something that was being done automatically. But there's no reason to try to GAIN biodiversity for its own sake. The goal is restoring the environment, biodiversity just follows naturally.
deleted by creator
I think the proper comparison is Amazon rainforest to boreal rainforests, like in Canada. Rainforest:Savannah isn't really equal because trees act as carbon sinks, and savannahs are just basically steppes filled with bovids.
I think in terms of CO2, you can make a very broad value judgement, that forests > grasslands > deserts. Not only in terms of value to climate, but also in temporal sequence--forests must become grasslands before they become deserts.
The problem is that in terms of human value, grasslands > forests > deserts. Forests become grasslands (through human deforestation) to provide value, and then grasslands become deserts (through lack of careful maintenance).
I agree, biodiversity is an insurance policy. I just think that it's an almost entirely irrelevant thing to focus on, because it's a lagging effect. In the situations where you need a certain role (like a predator) that can be done, like you said with the Great White Shark case, by introducing a predator into the environment. Which is technically adding biodiversity, but without this inane focus on it for its own sake
Also it leads to fun paradoxes like lions are bad. Because if you could cull the entire biomass of lions/leopards/cheetahs, and instead replace them with smaller cats, and then ALSO replace their prey with smaller pygmy elephants and tapirs instead of African elephants and rhinos, then you could triple the biodiversity.
Actually, as I type this comment I'm beginning to realize that the forest > grassland > desert trichotomy probably causes decreased BD. BD is high in forests because largeness is disadvantageous. Grasslands are desirable to humans (but not ONLY to humans, also to lions, elephants) because they are easy to live in and traverse. Exploit them too much and they become deserts.
Elephants and lions are big because they live in privileged easy grassland habitats, kind of like us. The big animals all outcompeted the small animals, decreasing BD. In a forested area BD is inherently guaranteed because it pays to be small, so there can be a greater variety of species. So forests are the best, because not only carbon sinks, but also biodiversity.
Yeah, that's my point. Reclaim the farmland, then flood it with a bunch of shit to jumpstart the process, then don't touch. A century later, new wilderness
deleted by creator
deleted by creator