Freshwater fish diversity is harmed as much by selective logging in rainforests as they are by complete deforestation, according to a new study.
Researchers had expected the level of damage would rise depending on the amount of logging and were surprised to discover the impact of removing relatively few trees.
[...] Lead author Clare Wilkinson, from the Department of Life Sciences at Imperial, said: "That such a small change can impact fish biodiversity is shocking and worrying. We expected to see a gradient from least affected in the selectively logged areas, to heavily impacted for the streams in oil palm plantations. Instead, we saw almost the same level of fish biodiversity loss in all altered environments."
[...] Researchers believe the reasons for these dramatic changes are likely to be down to a range of factors that affect stream habitats when trees are lost. Trees provide shade, creating cooler patches of stream that many fish need to spawn. Older, taller trees provide more of this shade, but they are the ones usually removed in selective logging. Leaf litter from these trees also helps to keep the streams cool and to concentrate food sources.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 22 2018, @10:26AM
Yes, and if shade disappears in one area, the fish will move to an area in the river where it hasn't. Which was the point of my original post. Any study that doesn't take into account the fact that fish can and will move around according to changing conditions isn't worth the time it took to type it. I've nothing against being good stewards of the environment, quite the opposite, but it has to be done honestly and thoroughly rather than based on knee-jerk emotional reactions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.