Global biodiversity loss is intensifying. But it is hard to assess progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets for 2011–20 set by the Convention on . . . . Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.geneticliteracyproject.org
GR: The argument for satellite remote sensing being necessary for conservation does not hold up. Satellites cannot see conditions beneath forest tree canopies. That’s where most of the biodiversity resides, and that’s where the soils that hold it all together lay. Understory plants and soil microorganisms cannot be identified, counted, or assessed from space. Direct space-program funding into on-the-ground surveys and get some useful information. Before it’s all gone.
See on Scoop.it – GarryRogers NatCon News
“Free and open-access satellite data are key to biodiversity conservation” http://t.co/psw1hVPwih
GR: This is a well-written article. Unfortunately, it’s assumptions are wrong. Satellite data aren’t very useful for conservation. It only provides indirect evidence of the condition and trend of animal populations and most plant species. For example, in a forest containing over 200 plant species, satellite data only reveals generalities such as total cover and perhaps the condition of the two or three dominant tree species. The 197 other plant species are invisible from space. We need to spend the money for on-the-ground surveys and monitoring. Technology can be a diversion kids.