Keeping the Trees

Biodiversity 'lost in Southeast Asia'

    Trees are good for the environment. This is universally understood. Forests are essentially just a lot of trees, along with some other contributors. So, forests should be forests, right? Unfortunately, this is incorrect, but is accepted by most as a means for saying "good enough" when it comes to rebuilding forests which have been ravaged over the years through human development. A study published in Nature, conducted by researchers from the University of Adelaide, has found that there is a large difference in forests heretofore untouched by humans, "primary" forests, and those which have even been partially developed, "secondary" forests. The differences between the primary and secondary forests were surprising, shedding light on the magnitude of harm that any level of human intervention can cause on local ecosystems. As it appears, this impact can be incredible detrimental; even when efforts to conserve forests are undertaken, forests cannot be returned completely to their former glory. As the researchers stated, "undisturbed primary forests are the only ones in which a full complement of species can thrive."
    Thus, we have to focus our preservation efforts most on these rare areas which have yet to be touched by human development. Though, these areas are quickly disappearing. This problem is especially evident in South-East Asia, which contains the "lowest remaining forest cover, highest rates of deforestation, and the highest human population densities" of tropical areas. Time is of the essence to solve this problem. Like many issues relating to the environment, if we fail to act quickly, the few remaining areas with primary forests could face the same adulteration that has harmed almost all of our planet's forests, reducing them from a level of purity that they will never regain.