Logo image
Back
Hollow Arguments?
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Hollow Arguments?

M.C. Calver
Emu, Vol.97(2), pp.183-184
1997
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/MU97024
url
Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

Abstract

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.

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#13 Climate Action
#14 Life Below Water
#15 Life on Land

Source: InCites

Metrics

76 Record Views
1 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Citation topics
3 Agriculture, Environment & Ecology
3.40 Forestry
3.40.195 Biodiversity Conservation
Web Of Science research areas
Ornithology
ESI research areas
Plant & Animal Science
Logo image