Calver, M.C. (1997) Hollow Arguments? Emu, 97 . pp. 183-184.
*Subscription may be required
The recent critique by Stoneman et al. (1997) of Mawson & Long's (1994) assessment of size and age parameters of nest trees used by some birds in south-west Australia continues a long-running discussion of the potential impact of the loss of hollow-bearing trees on bird and mammal conservation in Australian forests (e.g. Inions et al. 1989 and references therein). What distinguishes the exchange from much of the earlier speculation is the confident assertion by Mawson & Long (1994, p. 152) that '... conservation of hollows (for parrots, cockatoos and other cavity dwelling fauna) and timber production must be regarded as incompatible'. Stoneman et al. contest this claim, asseting that Mawson and Long's conclusions are based on incorrect estimates of tree ages and misunderstandings of forest management in Western Australia. Thus, the debate is now sharply polarised. In cases of such disagreement, it may be fruitful to use the approach proposed by Kirkpatrick (1996) for debate on ecological issues, which involves identifying where the disputants aree, where they disagree and what further data could be collected to resolve their disagreements.
|Publication Type:||Journal Article|
|Murdoch Affiliation:||School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology|
|Publisher:||Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Publishing|
|Copyright:||(c) Birds Australia|
|Item Control Page|