Artificial refuges are a popular stopgap for habitat destruction, but the science isn’t up to scratch

Tue, 3 Aug 2021 05:41:53 +1000

Andrew Pam <xanni [at] glasswings.com.au>

Andrew Pam
<https://theconversation.com/artificial-refuges-are-a-popular-stopgap-for-habitat-destruction-but-the-science-isnt-up-to-scratch-164401>

"Wildlife worldwide is facing a housing crisis. When land is cleared for
agriculture, mining, and urbanisation, habitats and natural refuges go with it,
such as tree hollows, rock piles and large logs.

The ideal solution is to tackle the threats that cause habitat loss. But some
refuges take hundreds of years to recover once destroyed, and some may never
recover without help. Tree hollows, for example, can take 180 years to develop.

As a result, conservationists have increasingly looked to human-made solutions
as a stopgap. That’s where artificial refuges come in.

If the goal of artificial refuges is to replace lost or degraded habitat, then
it is important we have a good understanding of how well they perform. Our new
research reviewed artificial refuges worldwide — and we found the science
underpinning them is often not up to scratch."

Cheers,
       *** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net               Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/                 Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/            Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/               Manager, Serious Cybernetics

Comment via email

Home E-Mail Sponsors Index Search About Us