UK Nature and Environment

470 readers

55 users here now

General Instance Rules:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
Do not spam or abuse network features.

Community Specific Rules:

Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.

Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.

Our winter banner is a shot of Shotley marshes, Suffolk by GreyShuck.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Reintroducing wolves could expand woodland areas and reduce CO2 – study (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Reintroducing wolves in the Scottish Highlands could lead to an expansion of native woodland which could take in and store one million tonnes of CO2 per year, environmental researchers have suggested.

A study led by researchers at the University of Leeds said reintroducing the species into the Cairngorms, south-west, north-west and central Highlands could help curb the problem of red deer eating tree saplings, which stops natural woodland regeneration.

The researchers estimate that if wolves were reintroduced, a population of around 167 of the animals would thrive, which they say is enough to reduce red deer populations to a level that would allow trees to regenerate naturally.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Oh, where is that comment that said that all problems should be solved by introducing wolves into the area...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

Eaten by wolves sadly

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

Why stop at the highlands? There are parts of various places including most of the home counties and London that would be much improved by the reintroduction of hundreds of wolves.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

I can't wait to hear about farmers nipping this in the bud because they'll have to protect their sheep somewhat now. Or suggest that wolves pose a credible threat to human settlement, of course.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Is 167 enough for a sustainable breeding population?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Probably is. And according to this study yes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I couldn't find the source. Do you have a DOI?

[–] x00z 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Yes. You don't need many wolves to get going. And their territory is HUGE. Wolf packs have a smaller territory but wolves without a pack can have one that spans thousands of square kilometers. This means you can introduce 5 wolves over 500km and they'll find eachother and mate to a population of 167 in 10 years.

It being sustainable will mostly depend on their access to prey and area they can occupy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You'd end up with a very inbred population though. Even starting with 167, wouldn't inbreeding be a risk? Animal biology is not my field, so I don't know how many individuals you need to sustain a genetically diverse population

[–] x00z 1 points 4 days ago

Animal inbred risks are lower than humans. If you start with 5 and add a few wolves each 5-10 years, it should keep the genetics safe. Starting with 167 different ones would have a near zero percent risk of genetic problems.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Game over once the first rambler goes missing.