Among scientists there are many different definitions which serve different
purposes. This would be too complex to try to present to the general public.
Basically we need a politically acceptable definition which we can work with
in public which synthesizes as much as possible the varying scientific
concepts.
For example, various definitions of species richness seem to be well
understood, including simply the number of species. On the other hand,
functional diversity includes a lot of really disgusting detritivores which
may not appeal to many people.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ritchie, Euan" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: segunda-feira, 13 de Dezembro de 2010 23:05
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Defining biodiversity, and does the term capture the
public's attention?
Hi everyone,
I have just returned from the Ecological Society of Australia meeting and
among other issues, there was much discussion about the term biodiversity.
Many people argue that this term is hard to define, and importantly, the
public have no idea what it actually means and therefore they have less
connection/concern to preserve/conserve species and habitats. I thought it
would be interesting to hear how others define biodiversity, and if this
term isn't helpful for conveying the importance of species diversity to the
public, what term(s) should we use?
Over to you,
Euan
