Biodiversity in Deforested Areas

In a study published in August 2010 it was discovered that deforested areas in Southeast Asia contain much of their original biodiversity, even after being logged twice. According to Edwards et al. (2010) at least 75% of dung beetles and bird species survived in forest that was twice-logged. A possible outcome of this new information is the inspiration it could instill in conservationalists to stop the introduction of palm oil plantations which drop biodiversity levels and destroy habitats Hance (2010).

A large discrepancy between the primary and secondary source is the amount of information given, in particular the method of how the data was collected to reach the conclusion that a relogged forest in Borneo is worth protecting. In the secondary source, Hance (2010) simply mentions that birds and dung beetles were surveyed because they are an inexpensive indication of the level of biodiversity within the forests. On the other hand, Edwards et al. (2010) go into a much higher level of detail in describing how they received their data, indicating why dung beetles were chosen not simply because they were a simple, cost effective organism to measure, but also because of their close link to mammals and ecological importance. The primary source also describes the specific area studied how the samples were taken and what factors in the subjects were measured. The use of mist nets, point counts and baited pitfall traps were used to record data on the local fauna by Edwards et al. (2010).
The secondary source failing to describe the method definitely weakens the strength of their argument simply due to the fact that it lacks any elaboration. Simply stating that birds and dung beetles were surveyed as biological indicators is not an adequate reason to come to the conclusion that 75 percent of species remained after a forest that has been twice cut.

The primary source does include a fully described method which does serve to strengthen their argument. Due to the explanation of the method in elaborate detail it is far easier to see how the conclusion of the study was reached. However, the argument made by the research may be weakened by the specificity of the experiment. This specificity is presented through the limited types of subjects studied, as well as the different locales each part of the study took place.
The dark areas [below] are unlogged forest while the medium grey is once logged forest and the light grey is twice logged forest. When calculating if the subject’s populations had dropped due to logging Edwards et al. (2010) counted the species within the unlogged forest to compare those values to logged and relogged areas. Due to the distance between each area of study, results may have been obscured. For instance, the light grey area may have initially had the largest population of dung beetles, but after logging its population is recorded as equal to the population in the dark grey area. It could be incorrectly assumed that the dung beetle population was unaffected by deforestation when comparing the two areas.


(Edwards et al. 2010)


The results of the study are also displayed differently between the two sources. The primary source gives exact values, tables and graphs to reinforce their argument. For instance, in the graph below the mean abundance of endangered bird species in two types of experiments were measured in unlogged (black), once-logged (grey) and twice-logged (white) forests (Edwards et al. 2010).




(Edwards et al. 2010)

Contrary to this the secondary source contains few statistics and no tables or graphs, however several key statistics such as the stat that states 75% of species survived after a second round of logging, although roughly half lost abundance have been included (Hance 2010). The primary source goes into far greater depth interpreting and displaying its results to explain how it reached its conclusion, whereas the secondary source does little other than display the main points briefly. For this reason the primary source definitely strengthens its argument, although the secondary source’s argument is not necessarily weaker as it covers the main results reached by the primary, albeit with brevity.

The style of writing varies greatly between the two articles particularly in terms of vocabulary. The primary source’s target audience is the scientific community and due to this the vocabulary used is at a considerably higher level than the secondary source. The meaning of words used in the primary source like dipterocarp forests and avifauna would inevitably be lost on the majority of average readers, thus the secondary article, which has been written for the general public, uses simplified vocabulary to convey a similar message to its target audience. It is also apparent who the target audience is by comparing how the information of the study is formatted. The secondary source is arranged in short paragraphs that summarize the findings of the experiment, including only a handful of the statistics from the primary source. On the other hand, the primary source has a very traditional scientific layout; starting first with the abstract which is followed by the introduction, the method, the results and finally a discussion about the findings. Many statistics, graphs, tables and references to other studies can be found throughout the paper which also allows its format to vary from the secondary source.
Both the primary and secondary sources strengthen their argument through each individual chosen style of vocabulary and format. The arguments are strengthened due to the way each style easily attracts its audience. A casual reader would more likely be inclined to read a brief and easy to read article, which is offered by the secondary source. Whereas a scientist, perhaps interested in how the conclusion was reached, would be more inclined to read a more formal and professional scientific paper offered by the primary source.

In conclusion, the secondary source is a fair, but brief representation of the original article. It conveys the main idea of the study, the potential for conservation in deforested areas in Southeast Asia, in a direct and informal manner which contrasts sharply with the structured format of the primary source. The secondary source presents no visible inconsistencies with the primary and contains an argument strong enough for the average reader to be assured, however it does not present an adequate amount of information to provide any valid proof seen in the primary source. Both articles play well to their target audiences and are viable sources of information on the topic of biodiversity in deforested areas.


References:

Hance, J. (2010). Logged forests retain considerable biodiversity in Borneo providing conservation opportunity . Retrieved from http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0812-hance_logged_borneo.html

Edwards, D., Larsen, T., Docherty, T., Answell, F., Hsu, W., Derhé, M., Hamer, K., Wilcove, D. (2010). Degraded lands worth protecting: the biological importance of Southeast Asia's repeatedly logged forests. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Retrieved from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/08/03/ rspb.2010.1062.full.pdf+html?sid=efdb4490-fcc4-45c1-9fbe-a09a25fea3f4