The Sound of a Damaged Habitat
YEARS ago, when selective logging was first introduced, a community near an old-growth forest in the Sierra Nevada was assured that the removal of a few trees here and there would have no impact on the area’s wildlife. Based on the logging company’s guarantees, the local residents agreed to the operation. I was skeptical, however, and requested permission to record the sounds of the habitat before and after the logging.
On June 21, 1988, I recorded a rich dawn chorus in California’s pristine Lincoln Meadow. It was a biome replete with the voices of Lincoln’s sparrows, MacGillivray’s warblers, Williamson’s sapsuckers, pileated woodpeckers, golden-crowned kinglets, robins and grosbeaks, as well as squirrels, spring peepers and numerous insects. I captured them all.
When I returned a year later, nothing appeared to have changed at first glance. No stumps or debris — just conifers and lush understory. But to the ear — and to the recorder — the difference was shocking. I’ve returned 15 times since then, and even years later, the density and diversity of voices are still lost. There is a muted hush, broken only by the sound of an occasional sparrow, raptor, raven or sapsucker. The numinous richness of the original biophony is gone.
Lesson: While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a soundscape is worth a thousand pictures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/listen-to-the-soundscape.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
are you saying those are just a minor explanation?
the level of CO2 in the atmosphere? is that less of an explanation for climate change than nuclear?
i believe in renewables and more energy efficient ("less"
use of fossil fuels and not nuclear.
but science doesn't support a nuclear explanation for climate change.
i'm troubled that you seem to divert climate change discussions (which implicate fossil fuel use) into nuclear threads.
i started a thread about Water usage and diversions hurting bird populations, and you tried to take the thread away from the real causes of it (which are documented) into some completely unfocused and unproven link to the nuclear industry.
in other words, like in this thread, which could be about climate change and loss of species and what causes it, you divert all that and disrupt a logical argument and instead point towards some vague blame of nuclear. it doesn't prove anything bad about nuclear, because you are saying so little about nuclear, but it does take us away from talking about the real causes.
and i feel like pointing this out, because you're doing it to her and you did it to me.
and for no environmental benefit.
and for that thread, I gave up on you because you were just spouting nonsense and stunk things up bad enough.
in your mind.
