| Revision as of 22:28, 31 December 2007 editGabrielVelasquez (talk | contribs)2,704 editsm →Fact or Fiction← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:17, 23 December 2024 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers37,775 edits rv test edit | ||
| (211 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{Article history|aciddate=13 March 2007}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | ||
| {{WikiProject Ecology|importance=High}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Plants|importance=Top}} | ||
| I removed the sentence about the ]. See definition of what of biome is. Compare with ]. ] | |||
| {{WikiProject Forestry|importance=Top}} | |||
| ==Encarta== | |||
| {{WikiProject Climate change|importance=High}} | |||
| *For ideas about what should be written on such a broad topic you can see . ] 03:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Dhtwiki|date=4–16 October 2021}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Annual readership}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Talk:Forest/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Talk:Forest/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 2 | |||
| |algo = old(365d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Forest/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Ticket confirmation|source=http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca8753en|id=2020073010003087|note=See ]}} | |||
| {{Ticket confirmation|source=http://www.fao.org/3/ca8985en/CA8985EN.pdf|id=2020073010003087|note=See ]}} | |||
| ⚫ | == Forest definition == | ||
| I've noticed that ] is a red link. Would it be worth it to devote an entire article to just evergreen forests?? ] July 2, 2005 04:32 (UTC) | |||
| 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: | |||
| : I'm not sure that "evergreen forest" is a very natural category, but there is no reason it couldn't be an article. A more natural breakdown might be coniferous vs non-coniferous forests ] 05:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <p>Definitely Encarta is the better encyclopedia to check. At least it's more put into one, concise. | |||
| :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 ].--] (]) 08:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Species diversity in forests == | |||
| ::Done.--] (]) 12:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| So why do forests have many kinds of trees in them? I would expect that each forest would exist at a specific climate, and that natural selection would lead to fairly homogenous tree populations. Why doesn't that happen? -- ] 4 July 2005 03:15 (UTC) | |||
| 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: | |||
| :That's one of the big questions in ]. ] 4 July 2005 03:50 (UTC) | |||
| "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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : They don't always. Vast areas are covered by species-poor communities, particularly at high latitudes or elevations. Biophysical constraints in more extreme environments probably constrains what is possible evolutionarily, limiting species richness. | |||
| :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. — ] (]) 05:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ] 00:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Forest Description=== | |||
| ::Granted, but even then you can't explain the diversity of forest trees in terms of single limiting nutients. ] 01:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Forests are central to all human life because they provide a diverse range of resources: they store ], aid in regulating ], purify ], generate air (]) and mitigate natural hazards such as ]. 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. | |||
| :I believe in the UK a forest is a hunting ground, set aside by the king or another noble. An area such as the New Forest in Hampshire, UK is a forest, despite contianing large areas of heathland and meadows. The term, forest has been taken to mean an area of woodland since then as many hunting grounds contained woodland. User sjc503. 24th May 2006 | |||
| ] (]) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| :Yes, but the statement about the quantity of carbon dioxide stored should be based on some reference, or not included.--] (]) 21:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I removed the "see also" link to this redlink. Feel free to re-add it once the article is written, but as it stands I don't really see what the scope of that article would be (forest cover, by biome, would be meaningful, but should be in the appropriate article. ] 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The data mentioned above is obtained from the reference values of the UNFCCC for clean development mechanisms with forestry. | |||
| ==Photo's== | |||
| I've included a photo of Australian Forest to broaden it from the European and North American Variety. It would be good to obtain a picture from Africa and South America of another Habitat, like Mallee scrub or dry snow covered forest. ] 05:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 06:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::''All'' your statements need to be referenced, they need to be meaningful, they need to be accurate and the style needs to be encylopaedic. | |||
| We could do with a popular culture section, because trees and forests feature in almost every type literature ever as places of magic and nature and whatnot. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| ::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. | |||
| vdsfgsdfrtwrey3rqy3q5 | |||
| ::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.] (]) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Forests spread very rapidly, when left alone, without any human intervention or interference. | |||
| == Initial definition in article == | |||
| ] (]) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| A more comprehensive initial description should include the term "ecosystem." | |||
| "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 | |||
| First, the initial hunting statement should be later in the article related to sport, or livelihood. If the Amazon forest were historically set aside for hunting, then the ocean could be described as set aside for fishing. | |||
| The Wiki definition does not say the species are the occupants let alone the rightful occupants of the forests.] (]) 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I agree! Wow!!! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Globalize == | |||
| The initial definition should be more specific on size as well. With the current definition id describe a backyard with two trees in a corner a forest. Their needs to be specifications for size. | |||
| Could the editor who left the {{tl|Globalize}} article tag give more details about what is missing? | |||
| ] 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I see worldwide balance in the Definition, Evolutionary History, Ecology, Societal Significance, and World Size Records sections. — ] (]) 16:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know whether it is possible. I was frustrated finding a width/depth/flow minimum for ] (vs. creek, stream, ...). There doesn't seem to be any widely used criteria. Applied to forests, ] comes to mind as an area which doesn't meet the standard I thought existed for a national forest. —] 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|CactiStaccingCrane}}, you added this tag back in July. Please follow up and explain what you feel is missing. ] (]) 23:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the mention of the original definition in the first para is relevant – it relates to the definition of the term, not just to the use of forests for hunting, which I agree belongs later. I've tried to clarify this in the article.--] 12:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No response after 3 months -- I will remove the tag. — ] (]) 13:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Do all forest have trees? == | |||
| == Transwiki excess images to Commons == | |||
| On the link, ], they state a bamboo forest. Thanks, ], 8/15/07. | |||
| There were a number of redundant forest images that I moved from here to ]. — ] (]) 17:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2024 == | |||
| == Fact or Fiction== | |||
| "These plant communities cover approximately 9.4% of the Earth's surface (or 30% of total land area)" - I'm defending a young editors article related to '''Forests''' and I would like to see the references for these figures. Can you show that they are not fiction or hypothetical, ie. Science. ] (]) 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Forest|answered=yes}} | |||
| ] (]) 20:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The backyardigans | |||
| :] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:17, 23 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Forest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 13, 2007. |
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca8753en. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2020073010003087. See File:Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Key findings.pdf This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en  wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
| The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.fao.org/3/ca8985en/CA8985EN.pdf. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2020073010003087. See File:The State of the World’s Forests 2020. In brief.pdf This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
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)
- Done.--Auró (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Forests spread very rapidly, when left alone, without any human intervention or interference. AesopSmart (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
- 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)
- No response after 3 months -- I will remove the tag. — hike395 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2600:8801:44A1:1E00:B5A3:D989:58E6:FD24 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The backyardigans
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class Ecology articles
- High-importance Ecology articles
- WikiProject Ecology articles
- B-Class plant articles
- Top-importance plant articles
- WikiProject Plants articles
- B-Class Climate change articles
- High-importance Climate change articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Items with VRTS permission confirmed