Biodiversity is a widely used term. What does it mean in the context of preserving natural assets? The conservation biologists are concerned over its misuse in these assessment. Its time to explore the pros and cons and look at some of the trending themes around biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural capital.
Biodiversity can be used for natural asset assessment, because biodiversity means more species and renew resources.
@Muawya Ahmed Hussein, the pros and cons of such approach has become debatable in this world where biodiversity is challenged by economic prosperity. Thanks for your comment!.
I believe in a general sense, biodiversity positively correlates with natural asset assessment. Intrinsically, higher biodiversity provides greater ecosystem services that are considered priceless, such as filtration of water, resilience to natural disasters, or pollination of our crop plants. Another point, such that decreased biodiversity can give us a greater economic benefit is arguably flawed - something like plantations or monoculture letting us reap greater economic prosperity than an ecosystem left untouched. I believe this ideology holds more cons than pros, and that we should assume greater biodiversity is overall better for economic prosperity (ecosystem services providing us billions, trillions of dollars in critical functions).
Thanks for your comment, Dr. Hannah Moran-MacDonald. Biodiversity is welcome to restore our healthy ecosystem. There is no place of compromising natural assets in the name of economic prosperity. Isn't it?
Yes, Dr. Ozobek Abduraimov, it is so important and sometimes feel far fetched! We have to work together and get the voice out in order to get a good balance if a "perfect" is not achievable. Keep the conversation going!
If you want to cultivate in future, plant at least 20 saplings per acre in the field this year. Otherwise, agriculture will be ruined due to climate change. A tree prevents air pollution worth Rs 35 lakh in 50 years. One tree produces oxygen worth Rs. 15 lakhs. One tree recycles water worth Rs. 40 lakhs. One tree destroys 3 kg of carbon dioxide in 1 year. A perfect tree is useful for cooking food for 1000 people. A tree reduces the temperature of the surrounding area by 2 * degrees. One tree is useful for 12 students to make books. A tree is used to make wooden furniture for the family. 100 birds can build their nests on a tree and 25 generations are born on it and if there are bee hives on a tree, the same number goes up to lakhs. One tree stops soil erosion worth Rs 18 lakh. A tree accompanies a person from the cradle of childhood to the armchair and from the stick in the hand of old age to the wood in the graveyard. A tree increases the fertility of the soil by adding its mulch. A tree gives you fruits, flowers, seeds. We are deliberately presenting an account of what a tree has been doing for 50 years and what we humans do so that everyone can think about it. If not now then never. Think about how our children will look when they carry an oxygen cylinder on their backs. Even if you put all the money in the world together, you have 6 months. You can't make enough oxygen. Then friends tell us one of the sources through which we can produce the oxygen we need. We consider doctors who buy oxygen for an hour to be gods, but we cut down trees that provide free oxygen for life.
Well said, Dr. Manjushri Parasnis. I total agree the importance of tress. In fact, green infrastructure is getting so much important these days because people started to understand the value of green space.
Yes. It's often a given that high biodiversity means a more robust, complex, healthy system closer to a natural more sustainable state. The complexity and presence of specialist organisms can often be great indicator for system health. Others have answered well above ... but also think on the way of qualitatively and quantitatively measuring and the setting of baseline data of that system... and are you measuring an already disturbed system.
I would suggest it is also worth considering other factors too. Ecosystem value of some less diverse systems are important too. eg. estuarine mudflats and similar "productively" important systems. Biodiversity there can actually be measured as quite low if looking at just the fauna of the mud in that example... but those few dominate species often generate a highly productive biomass that is the keystone of a much bigger system. It can all depends on the scale of measurement, how, and when you measure. Biodiversity is important but other factors need to be considered when looking at natural assets and system robustness. Biodiversity is a great measure, but so are others.
Thank you for your comment, Dr. Gavin Saville. Yes, the ecosystem can not be evaluated looking at a single component of the system but to the whole including robustness of each component.
If you want to live on this earth, Biodiversity is must. Assume biodiversity is your Heart; Without a Heart as a Human cannot Live; But For Biodiversity No Need for Human(s). We (Humans) are only dependent on Biodiversity. A human canot Validate/Calculate 100% their services to Us.
Thank you, Dr. Abhijit Mitra for contributing your research in this book. Protecting mangrove forests in India is one of the best approaches to restore biodiversity in the coastal India. It has unique contribution to the ecosystem balance in that part of the world. I will take a look at the book! Thanks!
Yes, biodiversity can be used for natural asset assessment, as the richness in specie diversity, both Flora and fauna compositio or richness are good assessment for natural assets.
I agree with you, Dr. Anozie Ebere Loretto! Preserving richness in the flora and fauna community in the environment means we are preserving biodiversity!
Yes.
Biodiversity is an important key to assessing the structure of fauna and flora community. Hence, it is useful in the assessment of natural asset.
It should be that way. The problem is what metric you would use to estimate the value of biodiversity in an area. Richness? Evenness? Biodiversity indexes? Endemicity? Phylogenetic diversity? Rarity? What is more important and valuable?: a highly biodiverse forest not yet under critical risk (e.g. Amazon forest) or a critically endangered relict of tropical dry forest, even if it is not so species rich? Applying economic theory, that tropical dry forest would have a higher value, even though is less biodiverse.
That is correct, Dr. Diazgranados. All the factors are important evaluation factor for biodiversity. It all depends on the place of evaluation where relative importance one factor could be quite variable from a different place. I would suggest a multivariate assessment of all the factors in the evaluation of biodiversity. What do you think?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers