How Planting Artificial Forests Could Backfire - eviltoast
  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    These summaries are really lacking. I read it. But then I read the article and I feel like there’s a disconnect.

    Like the summary brought up “40% increase in woody cover resulted in a ~30% reduction in the diversity of plants and ants”

    But really, the key word I would prefer to have seen is “afforestation”.

    The researchers analyzed literature from various studies on the growing trend of tree plantations for carbon capture. They saw that some tree plantations did reforest land. But in many cases, these projects actually do something called afforestation. This is where previously un-forested regions, like grasslands, are transformed into forests. This may sequester some carbon, but it hurts native wildlife that are not adapted for forest ecosystems. “In the Brazilian Cerrado (savanna) a 40% increase in woody cover resulted in a ~30% reduction in the diversity of plants and ants,” the study authors wrote.

    • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I’ve been seeing a lot of praise for this bot lately, but I really dislike it. I don’t like that it’s the default comment in so many posts, and I find it doesn’t help so I always just collapse it now anyway. Maybe it would be better if the bot could be summoned just when it’s needed for super-long articles? IMO most articles aren’t long enough to need a summary and just end up adding an unnatural automation ‘filter’ to the original text.