Timeline for Does leaving land alone actually help nature conservation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sep 17, 2016 at 17:15 | answer | added | Isaacson | timeline score: 1 | |
Sep 17, 2016 at 8:38 | comment | added | WYSIWYG | This may be a better fit in Gardening & Landscaping | |
Sep 16, 2016 at 9:54 | answer | added | Florian Neiss | timeline score: 0 | |
Sep 16, 2016 at 9:31 | answer | added | Malhar Khushu | timeline score: 3 | |
Sep 16, 2016 at 8:41 | comment | added | Kozuch | Rephrased to "raise the natural value of land" - is that better? | |
Sep 16, 2016 at 8:41 | history | edited | Kozuch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
raise the natural value
|
Sep 16, 2016 at 8:37 | comment | added | bshane | It removes the reference to a 'correct' wilderness. There is no such thing: natural areas may be managed towards specific goals, like maintaining the number of species present in the area, providing habitat for a key high-value species, or protecting key ecosystem services such as water retention. None of these are 'correct', but each outcome is measurable, and a 'desired' outcome can be defined in each case. | |
Sep 16, 2016 at 7:26 | comment | added | Kozuch | Your question seems to ask exactly the same so what is the reason for rephrasement? | |
Sep 16, 2016 at 3:38 | comment | added | bshane | I think the concept of a 'correct' wilderness is unclear. There are some landscapes which have been suddenly 'left alone' by humans, and a meaningful answer could consider the general ecological trends of being 'left alone' in this way. Examples include the landscape around the Chernobyl, or abandoned farms. But then the question would be 'in the absence of deliberate conservation interventions, what measurable ecological benefits (e.g., changes in invasive-species populations) arise from simply leaving land alone?' Would you be happy to edit your question into that form? | |
Sep 15, 2016 at 21:39 | history | asked | Kozuch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |