Deforestation is the clearing of a forest for industrial use. It is used globally for many different things, whether making room for houses, agriculture, or timber harvesting. There is also natural deforestation from disasters such as forest fires. As the global population grows at a rapid rate, there is a desperate need for more land to house the ever growing population.
Many countries and companies depend on deforestation as it is the primary source of obtaining products like palm oil, cocoa, soybeans, and many more. Nearly 70% of deforested land is due to the global need for products of these sorts. Deforestation became an issue when it began to be used in excess, where 46-58 thousand square miles are lost every year. This proves to be a problem for the global ecosystem as trees are a major carbon sink, meaning trees can absorb carbon from the air. The relationship between trees and carbon is vital to sustaining life as carbon is a key ingredient in the process of photosynthesis, which produces oxygen. The global loss of forests will negatively affect the world’s environment as less trees mean less production of oxygen and more carbon in the atmosphere. Trees provide the necessary tools that allow ecosystems of all sorts to thrive. They provide all living things with oxygen to breath, and less importantly, they are purely beautiful organisms that contribute so much to the Earth. In figure 1, there is a picture of the levels of global deforestation in 2012. The top three in the extremely at risk was Nigeria, Indonesia and North Korea. In total, there are nine countries in extreme risk. The United States is #176 on the list, yet they reported the highest net gain from forests, but that is because the majority of deforestation acts occur on foreign land.
Figure 1
Verisk Maplecroft. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2017, from https://maplecroft.com/about/news/deforestation.html
Brazil is a prime example of the devastating effects that deforestation can have on a region, and it is the #8 country in extreme risk on figure 1. There is major economical gain from the deforestation industry as Brazil is the second highest producer of soybeans. Brazil accounts for about one third of the global rain forests. As seen in Figure 2, a large amount of Brazilian forest has been deforested, comparable to the size of France. The amount of deforestation in Brazil has major consequences for the global ecosystem. There is a larger abundance of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon. An excess of these gasses create the Enhanced GreenHouse Effect, which leads to climate change. As of 2016, 20% of the Amazon Forest is gone, which has global repercussions.
Figure 2
Fearnside, P. (2017, April 18). Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.
Oregon is prime real-estate for timber harvesters as Oregon consists of 45% forest, about 28 million acres. About 60% of this forest is federally owned which means the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Managment own it. Timber Harvesting accounts for 18% of jobs in Oregon. That means that there is an economic and social dependence on deforestation and timber harvesting. Timber Harvesting, although is sustainable, proves to be an issue as it disturbs the biodiversity of the area. The wildlife are left without a solid habitat and food supply. It also disrupts the water cycle and the process of transpiration. Trees are crucial in the water cycle as they transfer water molecules through stomas, and without this process, the environment is left drier. The process of deforestation leaves an environment very unhealthy if it leaves anything at all. Forests provide more than a home for certain creatures. It is vital to many human practices and can provide shelter for humans as well.
Many Western medicines are based off of organic matter found in forests. A lot of these modern medicines involve fungi and mushrooms. Besides the medical properties that mushrooms contain, there is an environmental dependence on them. Mushrooms act as a decomposer in an environment as they break down dead organisms, including trees, plants and animals. This allows them to provide crucial nutrients for the ecosystem that allows many plants and trees to grow, which is seen as a symbiotic relationship as mushrooms can use trees to live on while providing nutrition. Clearcutting disrupts this relationship as it eliminates one side of the relationship. Areas that experience excessive human activity, such as timber harvesting experience the effects of immoderate soil compaction. The areas with logging experience a lot of weight on the soil which disrupts the mycelium. Mycelium is the webbing beneath the ground that produces the mushroom, and if the mycelium is disrupted, the mushrooms will not grow properly.
A study from Shannon M. Hagerman et. al. looked at the “effects of clear-cut logging on the diversity and persistence of ectomycorrhizae at a subalpine forest.” Hagerman’s study was used in this study as it looked at the effects of clearcutting on a mushroom. This study varies as it focuses on a specific mushroom, ectomycorrhizal, and it looks at complete clear-cut, rather than varying levels of harvest. This study, conducted in British Columbia, found that clear-cut “significantly reduced” the biodiversity of the ectomycorrhizae in the subalpine forest. In Appendix A, the data from this study shows the reduction in biodiversity based on the Shannon Diversity Index. Hagerman’s study is relevant to this study as it validates the hypothesis that timber harvesting and clearcutting negatively affects the biodiversity of the mushroom species.
Another study conducted by Kristin B Byrd found similar results to Hagerman’s study. Byrd found that clear-cutting had a negative effect on the diversity of the ectomycorrhizal fungus in a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stand, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, and Gallatin National Forest, Montana. The data from this study suggests, similarly to Hagerman’s study, that there is a major effect on biodiversity of a certain type of mushrooms when there is clearcutting.
Looking at the devastating effects of excessive deforestation and the global consequences that come along with it, and the significance of the mushrooms in these forests, a question arises: do different levels of deforestation affect the abundance of mushrooms in biodiversity? It is hypothesized that the less deforested area will have higher amounts of mushrooms and higher biodiversity while the more deforested area will have less mushrooms and a lower biodiversity. This lab was approached as a fieldwork investigation using quadrats to collect data. There was a comparison of primary data to secondary data to complete a full and substantial analysis of the research question. A desire to acquire local data was fueled by the utmost curiosity of if the devastation of deforestation found in secondary data could translate to the smaller scale of Oregon forests and the biodiversity of mushrooms.
The purpose of this study was to investigate if varying levels of timber harvesting affect the abundance of mushrooms in biodiversity. The original hypothesis predicted that the higher levels of timber harvest would show lower biodiversity, while the lower levels of timber harvest would show higher biodiversity.
The data collected suggests that there is an effect on the abundance of mushrooms, and the biodiversity of the area. The biodiversity of the highly deforested area was 3.317 while biodiversity of the lush, not logged area was 10.07, and the biodiversity of the middle ground area was 4.29.
The abundance of mushrooms was greatly affected by the timber harvesting. The average abundance of mushrooms in the highly harvested area was 4.250 mushrooms, 11.83 for the middle ground area, and 14.30 for the lush area. This change in abundance shows that timber harvesting has a negative effect on the richness of the environment, which is a key aspect of the overall health of the environment.
One reason for the results is an invasive species. In all of the areas tested, there was a vastly larger abundance of the species of mushroom called Boletus rex-veris, commonly known as the Spring King. As the deforested area’s biodiversity was the smallest, there is reason to believe that the deforestation eliminated a lot of the mushroom species, leaving room for the invasive species to grow, which affected the calculated biodiversity. A key to high biodiversity is high evenness. As the lush area, area #3, was relatively untouched by humans, the Boletus rex-veris had the freedom to grow as it may, disrupting the evenness, despite the higher richness. Area #3 had the other species of mushrooms to combat the high abundance of the Boletus rex-veris, which in turn, left the calculated biodiversity to be higher.
A systematic error may have contributed to inaccuracies found in this study. Many of Oregon mushrooms are very similar to the human eye and there is the possibility of a miscount of abundance of mushrooms per species. This miscount would have led to an inaccurate representation of each area in terms of mushrooms species. This systematic error, classified as human error, would require a change of how the experiment was conducted. If the Oregon Mushroom Guide was utilized to the full extent, and a sample of every mushroom found was taken, then properly identified, there would be a chance of eliminating this error. If each mushroom was individually identified, instead of assumption based on appearance, the count may have been more accurate. This change in procedure would lead to better data as the data would be closer to accurate to the expected amount of mushrooms per area.
If this study was to continue, an addition of more areas to the data pool as to enhance the results. In a study, if there is more data, there is a better chance of coming to the better conclusion. Since there was only one area per level of timber harvesting, there was an unrealistic representation of the biodiversity of the level of timber harvested area.
The environmental issue that this study focused on was the effects of timber harvesting and deforestation on an environment. There is an evident repercussion of excessive harvesting of timber. With timber harvesting and deforestation comes damage to the environment such as lowering water quality, endangerment of species, and loss of biodiversity. This study has allowed a deeper understanding of the major consequences of excessive timber harvesting. Area #1, the highly logged area, was in a state of dismay. Besides the destruction of all wild life, there was garbage splayed all around, such as broken bottles and food wrappings. These qualitative data points contribute to this study’s findings as the large abundance of human detritus and the utter pollution of the land could have influenced the amount of wildlife there, including the abundance of mushrooms.
There is rarely one solution for an issue as big as global deforestation. That being said, there are ways to reverse the damage already done by excessive deforestation. One way that could drastically improve the rate of deforestation is legislation. By outlawing unnecessary deforestation, there would be a decrease in deforested areas, which would at least slow down the consequences. Oregon has a law in set called the Forestry Practice Act, or the FPA. This act requires preoperative plans to be reviewed, the ensurance of reforestation, and more. In 2017, there were 27 recorded violations of the FPA with penalties as high as $6750. These kind of laws would discourage inappropriate timber harvesting.
Government can play another role that is similar to creating laws. There are large corporations that take advantage of the weak regulations of timber harvesting laws. The government need to enforce the laws evenly and put an end to the corruption of big businesses. In the Congo Basin and the Russian Far East, there is an estimated 30% of logging is done illegally. In Indonesia, a staggering ~60% of logging is illegal. This kind of activity leads to major economic loss for the countries and the world. The World Bank reported a $10-15 billion loss per year due to illegal logging. The United States reported losing $1 billion due to illegal logging abroad. Not only is deforestation an environmental travesty, but it is an economical one as well.
Prevention is not the only solution. There has to be a way to combat the devastating loss of plants. Part of the FPA is the ensurance of reforestation. There needs to be effective ways to restore the ecosystem that was lost. In the United States legal system, community service, such as picking up garbage from beside the road, can subsidize the loss of trees with a replanting program. This would benefit the United States in two ways: it provides another means of community service, and it replenishes the trees in the country.
Replanting trees cannot work all over the world as some countries do not use community service as a punishment, such as Brazil, and Indonesia., Federal protection needs to be enforced to protect the land that is targeted by loggers, legal and illegal. The Amazon, for example, is a worldly wonder that is being destroyed, 20% of the Amazon is gone due to deforestation. If the land was federally protected, then it would be a federal crime to damage the land without prior review and acceptance by the government. This would make illegal deforestation have a higher penalty, whether that is jail time, or a fee.
The findings of this study suggest there is a great effect of deforestation on biodiversity. The sections of land tested in this study are relatively miniscule compared to the size of land being deforested all around the world. If a small section of land in Oregon experiences such a massive loss in biodiversity from deforestation, the larger land plots, such as the Amazon Rainforest, should see a large loss in biodiversity, on a larger scale as there are more species of different organisms in rainforests. Globally, there is loss of animals, plants, trees, mushrooms, and so much more through deforestation. The economic benefits that come with mass deforestation are outweighed by the consequences. The major global powers need to confront the issue of deforestation through laws and programs to combat the devastating consequences, before we run out of forests to protect.