Talk:Forest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
||||
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as high-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
Forest is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
I removed the sentence about the biome. See definition of what of biome is. Compare with biota. User:anthere
Contents |
[edit] Encarta
- For ideas about what should be written on such a broad topic you can see Encrata's forest article. BrokenSegue 03:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that Evergreen forest is a red link. Would it be worth it to devote an entire article to just evergreen forests?? Jaberwocky6669 July 2, 2005 04:32 (UTC)
- 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 Jeeb 05:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Definitely Encarta is the better encyclopedia to check. At least it's more put into one, concise.
[edit] Species diversity in forests
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? -- Creidieki 4 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
- That's one of the big questions in community ecology. Guettarda 4 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
- 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.
Jeeb 00:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Granted, but even then you can't explain the diversity of forest trees in terms of single limiting nutients. Guettarda 01:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- 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
[edit] Forest coverage
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. Guettarda 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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. Enlil Ninlil 05:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Culture
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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.221.227 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC). vdsfgsdfrtwrey3rqy3q5
[edit] Initial definition in article
A more comprehensive initial description should include the term "ecosystem."
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.
Secondly, the "high density of trees" idea alone does not differentiate a forest from a tree farm. - Steve3849 talk 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
D00d123 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it is possible. I was frustrated finding a width/depth/flow minimum for River (vs. creek, stream, ...). There doesn't seem to be any widely used criteria. Applied to forests, San Bernardino National Forest comes to mind as an area which doesn't meet the standard I thought existed for a national forest. —EncMstr 23:23, 27 September 2007 (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.--Richard New Forest 12:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Do all forest have trees?
On the link, Bamboo, they state a bamboo forest. Thanks, CarpD, 8/15/07.
[edit] 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. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC) liar wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.255.210 (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
uses of forests forests provide us with 1. wood 2.medicines 3.fuel fodder
how plants and animals are dependent on them they are depentent as 1.thats the home of several animals 2.as animals stay there plants can also survive here because they can exchange gasses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.227.2 (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
