This makes sense, and a another good argument against monoculture farming.
Anecdotally, we have friends in a inner suburb of Tokyo who say there’s been a surge in Tanuki hanging around the neighborhood. Apparently they’ve been attracted by people land-banking - growing small quantities of permission trees on vacant land so it counts as a ‘farm’ to avoid vacant land taxes, then not harvesting the fruit because it’s not economically sensible… the fruit then attracts wildlife.
Fascinating. So in essence symbiotic systems are collapsing. But that’s not to say that no Wildlife will be present just different Wildlife wouldn’t it?
Different but less diverse… really interesting find indeed! I would guess there would be exceptions and it definitely depends on the type of agricultural farmland you are considering
Different but less diverse
For how long?
I think the title is misleading.
Yes when humans interfere and change the environment you get species that depend on that environment as the article says.
Obviously they will go when the humans and that ‘artificial’ environment go.
Nothing says it won’t go back to normal over time.The article states that in medieval times ecological diversity was higher than previously. So the baseline is not as diverse as the full ecosystem that grows in symbiosis with human agriculture (a certain type of agriculture)
I find the medieval part and the influence of agriculture even more questionable.
Drawing presumptuous conclusions
