tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6537965748256551796.post8582396497515984419..comments2023-09-24T10:19:01.383+01:00Comments on John's Green Issues: Why big trees?Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14197399895034972279noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6537965748256551796.post-83569156685930261922005-06-09T18:37:00.000+01:002005-06-09T18:37:00.000+01:00I am not sure about the idea of removing large tre...I am not sure about the idea of removing large trees not having much impact on the species diversity. Your examples are drawn from the birds and mammals ? the 'sexy species' and ignore the 'unconsidered trifles'.<br><br>The WWF recently published a report Deadwood ? Living Forests which showed that a THIRD of forest-dwelling species depend on dead or dying trees. It seems also that forests with dead and dying trees are healthier. And the dead trees release nutrients, prevent erosion and lock up carbon. So large trees should not only be left unlogged but allowed to die and rot. <br><br>Dead and dying timber is particularly valuable for such groups as beetles, hoverflies, lichens, fungi and there are fascinating foodwebs and amazing adaptations to be found among the wildlife of logs.<br><br>I am not sure of my facts, never having been to a tropical forest, but are not old forests fairly open due to dead trees crashing down to make the species-rich glades (i.e. forest edges occur *inside* forests? <br><br>As you say, what is the science? But I would be cautious about relying on birdwatching for assessing species diversity!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com