I suppose one could argue otherwise, but I will say that there is only one nature, and therefore only one equilibrium thereof. Therefore, there is no plural form, since there is no plural.

Any arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, I would say that you may quite safely avoid using a plural form of "balance of nature."

One could certainly argue otherwise, but I will say that there is only one nature, and therefore only one equilibrium thereof. So I only use the singular, and I would say that you may quite safely do the same.

Grammar corrections to question are "Is it correct" (reverse pronoun and verb in question) and "is there some other way" or "are there other ways" (both must agree in number).

I suppose one could argue otherwise, but I will say that there is only one nature, and therefore only one equilibrium thereof. Therefore, there is no plural form, since there is no plural.

Any arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, I would say that you may quite safely avoid using a plural form of "balance of nature."

I suppose one could argue otherwise, but I will say that there is only one nature, and therefore only one equilibrium thereof. Therefore, there is no plural form, since there is no plural.

Any arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, I would say that you may quite safely avoid using a plural form of "balance of nature."