Jump to content

Talk:Forest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hike395 (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 4 March 2023 (→Forest definition: I don't understand). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 13, 2007.


Forest definition

The forest definition in the lead section is too simple, as it is only concerned with a part of the forest, the trees. I have found a more comprehensive definition in "Young, Raymond. Introduction to forest Science.Wiley.”, that conveniently modified to avoid copyrights infringement could be as follows:

The forest is a community of living organisms, that interact mutually and with the physical environment, characterized by the fact that contain trees, which constitute the larger part of their biomass.--Auró (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Auró (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "Under some definitions, to be considered a forest requires very high levels of tree canopy cover, from 60% to 100%" is a misleading description of its source https://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/forest/htmls/intro_def.html which states:

"How many trees make a forest? Forests (according to the U.S. National Vegetation Classification system) consist of trees with overlapping crowns forming 60% to 100% cover. Woodlands are more open, with 25% to 60% cover. Other classification systems recognize savannas, which are discussed in this Web site, as having widely spaced trees with anywhere from a minimum of 5 - 10 % cover to a maximum of 25 - 20% cover." In the source, 60% is used as the threshold that separates woodlands from forests, "to 100%" is not used to describe where the threshold is, but the canopy cover in forests which, of course, can be up to 100 per cent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Ekbrand (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the article is misleading? Both the article and the source state that all values between 60% and 100% canopy cover are forests. — hike395 (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Description

Forests are central to all human life because they provide a diverse range of resources: they store carbon dioxide, aid in regulating climate, purify water, generate air (oxygen) and mitigate natural hazards such as floods. Forests are very productive, as each mature tree produces atleast ten new trees each year, over a 50 to 100 year life span, though under natural conditions most forest trees grow on for several 100 years. Left on their own, forests advance rapidly in a decade or so. Each hectare of dense forest absorbs about 5 to 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, depending on the forest type and climate. Many of the fruits and some household pets, are thought to have originated from the forests, and were domesticated and developed on farms and in villages close to the forests.

AesopSmart (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the statement about the quantity of carbon dioxide stored should be based on some reference, or not included.--Auró (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The data mentioned above is obtained from the reference values of the UNFCCC for clean development mechanisms with forestry.

AesopSmart (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All your statements need to be referenced, they need to be meaningful, they need to be accurate and the style needs to be encylopaedic.
What does "central to all human life" even mean? Such a statement is not encyclopaedic. Forests aren't central to the life a traditional Eskimo, for example. Such a statement is not encyclopaedic or meaningful.
Forest aren't generally or globally net oxygen producers, in fact most forests are not oxygen consumers. "Very productive" is also vague. NPP in forests is higher than in deserts, but lower than in many grasslands or polar oceans. So such statement is not accurate or encyclopedic.
The claim that each tree in a forest produces at least 10 new trees a year is unreferenced an clearly bunkum. Even by the most lenient reading of the statement and assuming that it takes 50 years for a tree to reach maturity, if a forest started with just one tree per hectare, then after 50 years there would be 51 mature trees per hectare, after 100 years there would be >2600 trees per hectare etc. If the Amazon rainforest has existed in situ for at just 10, 000 years it would need to contain over 3 trillion trees per hectare if this statement were in any sense true. At this point the weight of the trees in the Amazon would be slightly more than the weight of the Earth itself. The statement is patently absurd.
When you can address these obvious errors, we can consider adding this material to the article.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forests spread very rapidly, when left alone, without any human intervention or interference. AesopSmart (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A species' forest is of, by, and for all the other native plants, animals, fungi and soil microbes which have occupied that forest, grassland, desert or sea." --- Species Forest, Inc., Shelburne, Massachusetts USA

The Wiki definition does not say the species are the occupants let alone the rightful occupants of the forests.Rstafursky (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC) I agree! Wow!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaJuTe (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Marathon

In the section "Societal significance", Canada, Latvia and the USA are mentioned because the topic is linked with their countries. One could also say that the content of this sections belongs in other articles. There is no Russian forest article, moreover, the forest as a whole is considered very important for the Russian culture, i strongly believe that it belongs here. --85.212.205.65 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

Could the editor who left the {{Globalize}} article tag give more details about what is missing?

I see worldwide balance in the Definition, Evolutionary History, Ecology, Societal Significance, and World Size Records sections. — hike395 (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane, you added this tag back in July. Please follow up and explain what you feel is missing. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No response after 3 months -- I will remove the tag. — hike395 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki excess images to Commons

There were a number of redundant forest images that I moved from here to the gallery at Commons. — hike395 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forest&oldid=1142758533"