vision2020@moscow.com: Re: Sprawl - Biodiversity Project (fwd)
Re: Sprawl - Biodiversity Project (fwd)
Dale Goble (gobled@uidaho.edu)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Joel Hamilton wrote:
>
> I'm trying to connect Bill London's posting to the Palouse
> landscape. I'm certainly inclined to agree in general that urban sprawl has
<cut>
>
> My question is, does that paradigm apply to urban sprawl into
> Palouse farmland? It would seem that Palouse farmland, as it's currently
> managed and likely to be managed in the future, is as close to a biological
> diversity desert as it's possible to get. Does the "five acres and a horse"
> residential sprawl actually offer some environmental benefits such as
> increased habitat diversity, better watershed conditions, less erosion, and
> less farm chemical use, when compared to clean cultivated Palouse fields?
a quick point that might be lost:
biodiversity in itself is not *always* a positive -- if all that the term
is taken to mean is an increase in the number of species.
while palouse agriculture has taken a relatively diverse area and denuded
it of indigenous wildlife, the 5-acres-and-a-horse development is unlikely
to create habitat that will lead to the reestablishment of the missing
wildlife. rather than sharp-tailed grouse, for example, suburban
development is likely to lead to more house sparrows and starlings; if a
pond is constructed the species is likely to be canada geese. missing
mammals and fish are also unlikely to reappear because of the size of
the area necessary to support the species.
my point is that simply increasing the numbers of animals is not in itself
particularly beneficial.
dale goble
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet