https://e360.yale.edu/digest/japan-depopulation-biodiversity
I ain't clicking that link. Are you trying to make a point? Do you have thoughts of your own on this subject?
>>5173468I think it's interesting how the usual narrative is that humans destroy biodiversity, but this shows how so many species are dependent on human inventions like agriculture and aquaculture.
>>5173468Also, here's the text.>The Japanese population is in decline, but the downward trend is especially pronounced in rural areas. The loss of people might be expected to lead to a resurgence of wildlife. But paradoxically, where farms have been abandoned, wildlife is also disappearing.>Researchers say that small farms in the Japanese foothills have created mosaic landscapes with rice paddies, open pastures, and scattered woodlands that provide homes to many kinds of wildlife. Where humans cut down trees for firewood and gathered leaves for fertilizer, they made room for orchids and azaleas, Nature reports. Where farmers dug rice paddies, they made a home for rice fish and heike fireflies. Broadly speaking, many species found on farms have evolved together with humans, scientists say.>A 2025 study from Japan found that biodiversity was stable only in places where the human population was also stable. In areas where the population had declined, researchers recorded a drop in the abundance of butterflies, fireflies, frogs, birds, and native plants. >The trends in Japan mirror those in many other nations, from Spain to China, where rural areas are emptying out as people move to cities in search of work. Landscapes that were shaped by people are being taken back by nature, but often to the detriment of species that depended on human tending.>A recent study of the Lake Constance region in the European Alps found that plant diversity peaked in the medieval era, when small farms created a patchwork of fields, pastures, and forests that supported a greater array of plants than either the closed forests that came before or the industrial farms that would follow. >“The broader lesson is that, in modern conservation, the choice isn’t simply between farming and biodiversity,” said its lead author, Adam Spitzig, a PhD candidate at Stanford University. Small, diversified farms, he said, “can boost and sustain biodiversity while supporting food production.”
>>5173471Any species that do better now?
>>5173472The study does not compare the effect on individual species. It compares the effect of depopulation on a set of species across different sites.But invasive/non-native species do experience growth with depopulation.>Plant invasive species richness showed an increase in 36 sites (35%), 24 (23%) showed a decrease, and 43 (42%) no clear trendhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-025-01578-w
>>5173464They changed the ladscape to suit their needs, forcing the ecosystem to adapt. Now that they're leaving, the ecosystem that has already gotten used to them needs to adapt again. My (biased) intuition tells me it will recover in different and greater ways over time, assuming the trend of the countryside emptying continues.
>>5173471tl;dr it turns out that Human agriculture and (partial) deforestation create marsh and meadow habitats, and these are major biodiversity hubs.As the rice fields dry up, so goes with them breeding areas for frogs, bugs, and fish - and food access for birds and lesser mammals.Humans are good, actually.
>>5173488Wrong. This isn't 'the ecosystem was forced to adapt', marshes and meadows are rare habitats normally while forests smother and drink up moisture.If you've ever walked around a temperate forest, you'll realize how barren they actually are.
>>5173471>humansscourge of the earth. they are killing nature :(>humans, japangood :0
>>5173464>>5173470>>5173498>>5173499I've been saying this for years. Disturbance is good and modern environmentalists are retarded because their entire thinking is "HUMANS BAD, TREES GOOD". You can't leave nature alone after removing all the large herbivores and preventing wildfires that were supposed to happen. That's why everywhere you go it's all the same shitty <100 year old forest with no wildlife other than squirrels and deer. It's basically worthless, especially in American suburbs where it's either that or manicured lawn and nothing in between.Small scale low intensity agriculture is the best way for humans and nature to coexist, like in European villages (pic related). Instead of "we heckin planted 20 native trees!" these faggot environmentalists should burn and cut all that shit down and turn it back into wetlands and meadows. Structual diversity is proven to be more important than muh native plant diversity. These faggots plant some shit and jerk off how they're saving the world. Why aren't they building south facing artificial talus slopes, or digging vernal pools, or burying a bunch of concrete debris to build a hibernation chamber for all sorts of small animals, or removing topsoil to create a barrens ecosystem.
>>5173498>Humans are good, actually.Yep.>Irrespective of human population increase or decrease, biodiversity losses continue among most species studied mainly because of change in agricultural land use, either due to urbanization, disuse and abandonment, or intensification. Only where human numbers are currently stable, biodiversity is also more stablehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-025-01578-w
>>5173498Human agriculture or Japanese agriculture? I’d be curious to understand the species tied to a big cornfield
>>5173564Based, thanks for the rant
>>5173498>Humans are good, actually.In this specific situation, you could say that. The abandonment of traditional wet-rice agriculture is hurting the frogs, bugs, and birds that spent the last 3,000 years adapting to those maintained wetlands and meadows. But thats missing some important context.The study focused only on human managed agricultural land, meaning it inherently focused on species adapted to human disturbance. It explicitly said they left out the species that actually thrive in undisturbed nature>Mosses, lichens, mammals and invertebrates—including soil organisms such as nematodes and molluscs—are important biological groups closely associated with forest habitats that we did not includeAlso, the agriculture that created the biodiversity is a very specific, traditional kind that is dying out. Modern farming and land use are exactly what's destroying these marshes and meadow.>land is often sold to developers for transformation to urban functions, such as road transport and ribbon development, or shopping malls, sports facilities, new residential development and car parking, or consolidation of family farms into larger-scale agro-industrial intensification, such as vegetable and fruit horticulture under vast plastic hothouses.The study even says at the beginning:>Earth’s sixth mass extinction may be underway, with losses accelerating to 100 to 1,000 times greater than pre-human influence levelsIt's more accurate to say that humans can potentially be good for some species, but usually aren't.
How are the japs even feeding themselves if they're abandoning their farmland?It can't all be greenhouses and import, can it?
>>5173734>frogs, bugs, and birds that spent the last 3,000 years adapting to those maintained wetlands and meadowsThere is no fundamental difference from a human made wetland/meadow to one that was created naturallyThis is exactly the kind of thinking that gets in the way of conservation
>>5173632It's a big 'it depends'. Monoculture is obviously bad, but that's not what agriculture is 99% of the time.Just look at the French hedgerows and you can see where nature is allowed to not only co-exist but work alongside agriculture.Humans have known for millennia how to not fuck this up, and the only reason why it's fucked up now is because modernists insist on a black and white mindset. "Either you have agriculture (monoculture), or you have untouched nature reserve." There is no such thing as literal wilderness, even in the depths of the Amazon there's human agriculture by native tribes. Anti-Human Environmentalism is stupid. We're part of nature, our agriculture works best when it is part of nature.
>>5173734>Earth’s sixth mass extinction may be underway, with losses accelerating to 100 to 1,000 times greater than pre-human influence levels>It's more accurate to say that humans can potentially be good for some species, but usually aren't.Megafauna like mammoths don't live in these habitats, and in fact when they were alive were the ones clearing forests and making meadows. With their extinction, it is up to humans to keep trees from smothering everything.
A big problem with the Sixth Extinction issue is everyone says "ooo African Elephant, ooo seven toed dodo frog" and focus on what's impressive or exceedingly rare.When the actual issue with agriculture and habitat loss is "How will Mr. Heron eat? Where will Mr. Bumblebee get food? Where will Mrs. Frog lay her eggs?" Common non-threatened species that could easily become threatened if all we ever cared about was 'untouched forest'. The trees will in all likelihood be fucking fine.
>>5173564>talus slopeserosion>vernal poolsmosquitos
>>5173793The difference is that agriculture created those wetlands and meadows in places they would naturally not have existed.
>>5174407And that's a good thing.Temperate forests are actually bad for modern biodiversity. Their canopies are virtually useless as food because nothing can reach them, and because trees block out sunlight only hardy plants can grow on the forest floor.Meanwhile, marshes provide habitats and food for fish, insects, amphibians, and birds. Meadows provide habitat and food for pollenating insects, rodents, and some bird species.The ideal setup is a combination of forest, meadow, and marsh.
>>5173780Fwiw farming is being abandoned in a lot of developed nations. America also has a rapidly declining farmer/farm problemThat doesn’t answer your question but they’re getting food from somewhere just like we are
>>5173780Quick bit of Googling. Looks like 40% of their calories are produced domestically and 60% imported
>>5174407Who the fuck cares if it's natural or not. If it benefits the environment it's good.This line of thinking is so retarded because in this modern world you only have wetlands and meadows because of human intervention. These habitats don't last long and they require constant upkeep to maintain. I mean you have entire states in the USA that have literally zero and I mean zero naturally occuring ponds or lakes. The only ponds and lakes they have were either created by humans or beavers.And then you have environmentalist morons who want to bring down every dam because "REEEE IT'S UNNATURAL!" and they end up destroying more wetland habitat. And no I'm not talking about dams in prime trout or salmon streams, I'm talking about removing a dam which ends up destroying a 200+ year old wetland and displaces all the birds and turtles and frogs that lived in it. Congrats you returned it to its natural state, a two inch stream that only has minnows and dries up completely in the summer.
>>5174503The biggest blackpill when it comes to ecology is the realization that environmentalists are fundamentally retarded. They do not understand deep time, they do not understand ecological succession, they do not understand the concept of 'ecology' as a regional or planetary biosphere system. They only just barely understand the concepts of evolution and extinction.They look at a panda and do not see a hyper-specialized herbivore that breeds slow and has no natural defenses, they see a RARE cuddly little stuffed animal. It's not a question of whether pandas 'deserve' to go extinct, just a fact that they eventually would whether humans were here or not. It just so happens we are here, and thus disrupt everything pandas need to stick around another millennia.And when it comes to habitats and ecosystems, environmentalists utterly shit themselves. Like they don't see a city as a habitat that's an opportunity to many species, like for example originally cliff dwelling pigeons who just love all these concrete vertical structures. A human built it, so it's bad. Artificial marsh? Human built, therefore bad. A big city = an artificial marsh as far as they are concerned.Utterly retarded. And yet they are allowed to drive the entire conversation of ecology and sustainability, for some godforsaken reason.
>>5174506Mein dude have you ever been part of any environmental organisation, not like greenpeace but actual ones? The dumb uneducated wanna be hippies have no clue, I'll give you that but as someone who works with some organisations I can tell you no one has a problem with artificial created ecosystems or habitats that have to be maintained to be in a specific state. Examples are the protection of swallows in europe, no environmental organisation has a problem with them using public or privately owned houses, its even illegal for anyone to remove them without permission. There are now even some bricks people can use while building houses that have a bird nest- I think swift bricks is the name, scotland makes them mandatory for new building afaik. Grasslands in my city where one of the rarest species of bush crickts live has to be mowed once a year or the specific undergrowth will suffocate a lot of other plants,that are needed for the specific biocenosis which the bush cricket is a part of.. at some places bushes need to be cut down to not close up the grassland. Working with some organisations I have met a few wonderfull ecologists, have seen a lot of different habitats in my area that of course have to be artificially maintained. You are right that they don't see a city as A (=one) Habitat but many different ones. Your whole take is pretty retarded, I'm amazed you can solve the captchas
>>5174510>The dumb uneducated wanna be hippies have no clue,this is the vast majority of orgs, it doesnt matter if theres some good people doing good things, youll always be number hordes of narcissistic, psychopathic, retards feigning empathy ruining everything they touch out of willful ignorance for clout, because these are the ones that get attention and thus get government funding and stay open
>>5174510>1% of orgs aren't retarded, so therefore the average environmentalist isn't retardedSomeone needs to retake statistics.
>>5174543Can I ask you how many hours have you spent trying to changing anything? I mean besides making angry posts on 4chins. People like you usually form their idea of environmentalism from social media, where the dumbest opinions get praised.I've invested my free time for 10 years now and those self proclaimed environmentalists you think are the majority have no impact on actual legislature because their opinions aren't based on actual evidence.
>>5174567Why aren't you part of that 1%? Has this to do with statistics? My argument is that being polemic about environmentalism doesn't change anything. Even if just 1% of orgas are able to understand your super deep understanding of ecology, why not connect with them and try to change anything and get a deeper insight of how things are in real life. I'm very happy with how things are starting to change in my local community and town even though it's been a slow process and is still far away from being perfect.
>>5174587i literally live in the worst state in the union that has a horrible record of ecological maintenance when it comes to the fact that the entire states ecology is designed to burn, but they dont do the small burns that are supposed to occur and actively prevent them which leads to mega fires that destroy everything. dont talk to me about legislature not affecting anything when all the experts keep telling them to let the burns happen, but all they talk about is fire bad, stop fire and never address the fact that the state is designed to burn, its like complaining about tornados when you live in tornado alley
>dont talk to me about legislature not affecting anything I forget sometimes how bad americans are at reading comprehension. Legislature DOES affect how the environment gets treated and managedBut what does affect legislature is people. Organizing, with the inclusion of experts is the best way to get things to change. You say the experts are for controlled burning. Are these experts, who communicate these things so the public can understand it not includes in your definition of environmentalists?
>>5174592>Why aren't you part of that 1%?Because I do not have to be?Understanding of biology and ecology does not mandate that I go join an activist group, dumb activist.
>>5174610So all you do is cry how you know everything better and make fun of people who try to make a difference in a way you yourself think is beneficial. You have no idea how things work in the real life, your opinion is purely based on instagram vibe "activists". You are a retard and a loser
>>5174604it is you who cannot read, retard, i am saying the people that can make change will not make the change that experts want because theyre stupid and instead make the wrong change and fund fire prevention programs because theyre retarded and dont understand that the ecology has evolved and revolves around small burns every year and not mega burns every couple years. and no controlled burns are not the mainstream opinion which is why theyre not being done regardless of experts, retard, i very clearly made that point in the beginning
>>5174612>make fun of people who try to make a difference in a way you yourself think is beneficialNo, I'm making fun of people who destroy the environment in the name of saving it.You are very likely one of those people, so lmao.
Making fun of some self proclaimed environmentalists and the instagram activism is understandable, I do that too and I know what kind of people you mean. I just think it would be less polemic to differentiate between those and the people that push for a change in the right direction. I mainly locate and monitor certain species that have the highest protection in all of europe (species in appendix 4 of the Flora-Fauna-habitat guidlines) and record the populations to the government. This protection is not just for the animals but for the whole habitat, which is usually a very diverse one including rare species without proper protection. I basically go around and turn pieces of public land into highly protected areas. The different species in appendix 4 are from very different habitat types. I also give my input about the best way to manage those sites (not pulling things out of my ass but from collected data) and monitor these sites (this means identifying and counting the animals and plants, over years) to see how these changes affect these populations and the whole biocenosis in a certain habitat. Please tell me how you think that my actions destroy the environment
>>5174623The fact you cannot differentiate between people who think artificial marshes and meadows are "bad" because human agriculture is "bad", and yourself speaks volumes.
>>5174632>The biggest blackpill when it comes to ecology is the realization that environmentalists are fundamentally retarded. Where is the differentiation in that statement. You implied I destroy the environment most likely, so I just tood you the basics of what I do, as an environmentalist. All you did was prove to me you are exactly the kind of guy I imagined.
>>5174510>>5174623I think Europe is different in that modern humans have been there for thousands of years and have become synonymous with the environment. I visited a few villages and it was pretty different from America where everybody had fruit trees or vegetable gardens, piles of firewood, people didn't really give a shit if the grass was growing too high. Streets would be covered in rotting plums and nobody cared. Nobody had giant sterile properties of turfgrass, every bit of land was used for something. I could easily find all sorts of animals like lizards and toads.Meanwhile in America I think the whole idea of humans being seperated from nature comes from the belief that Euros came here into pristine wilderness and ruined everything. People don't realize that the entire continent was managed by natives. For example they tended groves of nut trees, burning to maintain plains for buffalo, spreading crops like sunchokes and lotus (these plants are sterile or have trouble spreading by themselves). You can find random midwest plants far outside their "native" range growing randomly in pockets of suitable habitat on the east coast.I don't know exactly when it changed. The early europeans did take a lot of methods from natives such as burning and they did low intensity farming methods that created good habitat (pic related is a historic pasture in NY that is still being maintained through burning), but somewhere down the line the idea shifted and now Americans believe that humans and nature are two seperate entities and humans interfering with nature is always bad no matter what. Whenever they announce a prescribed burn in my area on facebook there are dozens of boomers going "WHY CANT THEY JUST LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!!"
>>5174807I mean it is no secret here that we europeans have deforestated almost the whole continent bit by bit in the past few hundred years. Except for like 5% all of the woodland has been planted by humans. This is the main reason for bad tree/bush diversity which in turn creates a lot of problems that are 100% man made and need to be counteracted. No serious environmentalist here is stupid enough to think everything is "natural" and people should just leave it be. Yes the short english gardens aren't typical here but still the government cuts the grass 6-8times a year on almost all publicly owned areas which is a big part of the city. Just reducing the mowing to once a year would increase the insect biomass by a few times in just a year and lead to more diversity in a few years. The reason that didn't happen yet is because uneducated boomers think tall grass looks untidy. And the instagram activists want to plant trees everywhere because they don't know of different habitat types and the importance of grassland..This is the case for middle europe at least, I can't talk about the rest of europe.. I don't want it to seem like bashing the US but a lot of the people are really dumb as shit and this influences the mainstream opinion and legislature. Acting like those retarded opinions are created by environmentalists is exactly how you make the problem worse- discrediting the people who want and push for positive change. Btw it's funny you mentioned the rotting plums everywhere as I talked yesterday about this because I was looking for ways to process the ripe ones since no one wants them. While the cherry trees next to them even cause fights with boomers who see them as their personal trees even though they are public property lol.
>>5174829the only thing you can do with overripe fruits is making alcohol i think
>>5174835I meant processing the ripe fruit before they start falling and rot. Making jam is a classic but I was curious what else I could do. With the overripe ones I would have guessed too that alcohol is the only possible use.
