Dr Abe V Rotor
Living with Nature School on Blog
Paaralang Bayan sa Himpapawid with Ms Melly C Tenorio
738 DZRB AM Band, 8 to 9 evening class, Monday to Friday
Tamaraw (Anoa mindorensis) skeleton, Museum of Natural History, UPLB Laguna
Orangutan in captivity, Avilon Zoo, Rizal
Wild Pigeon (bato bato), Tikob Lake, Quezon
Parakeet, Parks and Wildlife Nature Center, QC
Philippine Hawk, Parks and Wildlife Nature Center, QC
Ecological
genocide. There is possibly no other term that can appropriately
picture the magnitude of destruction by deforestation. The cutting down a
whole forest evidently eliminates all inhabitants. While a number of
them could escape and find shelter somewhere, most of the residents
being habitat-specific, cannot survive without or outside their original
abode or beyond the boundaries of their niches.
This
is understandable. As an ecosystem, the forest is a product of
evolution. Organisms evolve with their natural habitat, acquiring traits
in the process. Nature is patient so to speak, to give chance for
organisms to acquire the Darwinian fitness, otherwise they will perish.
Many have gained dominance in terms of number. Others simply are
persistent like the dragonfly that is older than the dinosaur and has
remained a popular forest resident. Acquisition of protective or
aggressive mimicry is a product of long years of evolution that shows
that it is effective adaptation. A classical example is the relationship
of fig trees with wasps that pollinate their flowers. Not even water or
wind or man can effectively do it. More specific than this is the fact
that each kind of fig has a particular wasp pollinator that carries out
the job. And each kind of fig has a specific fruiting season, providing
continuous supply of food to many animals, such as monkeys and ground
fowls.
Premised
by this knowledge, we now begin to realize that reforestation is not
and will never be able to replace the original forest. Reforestation
efforts are merely providing a temporary vegetative cover that cannot be
compared with the structure of the original forest, much less to
compare it with the latter’s productive efficiency and biodiversity.
Here are other premises to support this contention.
1.
Nature, and not man, determines the species composition and combination
in a forest. We may be referring to a woodland - not a forest - when we
see Gmelina, Ipil-ipil and Teak plantations. These are intended to
produce commercial wood or pulpwood for paper.
2.
The landscape and the forest developed together - geographically,
geologically, and biologically. Streams and springs are full because
trees store rainwater in the ground; the roots and natural vegetative
cover check erosion and siltation. Thus the death of a forest means also
the death of streams, drying of river, silting of lakes and ponds into
swamp, meandering of rivers, etching of gullies on hills and
mountainsides, to mention but a few consequences.
3.
Abandoned deforested areas continue to lose not only soil fertility;
they lose the entire soil structure, beginning with the most fertile
topsoil to the clay foundation next to bedrock. In short, through
erosion the foothold built for thousands of years could be lost
permanently. We can only surmise what kinds of plant grow in such
situation. It is not surprising to see wasteland of talahib and cogon
grass on former forestlands.
4.
The forest creates a mini-climate. Forest attracts clouds.
Transpiration enhances precipitation so that rain occurs anytime of the
day, hence the name rainforest. All this can be permanently lost with
the destruction of the forest. This explains why desertification
(formation of desert) starts at deforested areas. Southern Cebu, in
spite of its proximity to sea, is a typical example where one can
observe the pathetic gnawing process. This can be observed also on the
Sierra Madre starting in Bulacan, and on extensive areas along the
narrow strip of the Ilocos region.~
No comments:
Post a Comment