2nd November 2005, 10:59 AM
I think "difficult" would be an understatement CK. I would add that there is broad acceptance that if you interfere with a waterlogged (or other extreme condition) site, you'll disturb the equilibrium resulting in medium or long term damage whereas other sites are left after the investigation without any consideration. It's quite sad, as you say, that we simply don't know how effective the preserve in situ route is because of lack of study 
It seems to me there is ample scope for abstract studies into "post" fieldwork consequences, rather than waiting to be proactive about a second look at a PPG site - though I accept that firstly finding the funding/arranging the study would be a rather 'interesting' course of action, and the value of the 'second look' shouldn't be under-rated.
(I really have worked in the field)
It seems to me there is ample scope for abstract studies into "post" fieldwork consequences, rather than waiting to be proactive about a second look at a PPG site - though I accept that firstly finding the funding/arranging the study would be a rather 'interesting' course of action, and the value of the 'second look' shouldn't be under-rated.(I really have worked in the field)