Talk:Secondary forest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is the same as Secondary_Rainforest and it needs to be combined into 1 article.
- This appears to have been done. Canderra 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Should Second growth forest be merged with this article? KAM 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] misleading?
"It can act as a buffer for more valuable forest." How is this misleading? It is from FAO. KAM 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/southamerica/brazil/work/art5080.html Here is the Nature Conservancy using secondary forest to protect The Atlantic Forest of Brazil for example. KAM 00:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's a little unclear what "valuable" means in this context - rewording may be appropriate. Guettarda 00:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- the misleading part is that a secondary forest often arises AFTER the damage of deforestation has been conducted. Many species may have become extinct to yield this secondary forest. i think the sentence is equivalent to someone saying: "Nuclear bombs arent all bad, because the nuclear winter ensuing would mitiate global warming". i think this article needs to become very much longer in order to express the subtlety of the "buffer" concept. Anlace 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am confused as to where you are coming from. Secondary forests are often seen as lacking value, and thus, are not seen as worth protecting. It is important to point out that they are able to provide ecosystem services that non-forest habitat cannot - in terms of things like watershed protection and as buffers around remaining patches of primary forest. Changing the matrix around a patch of remnant forest from pasture to young secondary forest slows the loss of species from the patch of primary forest. It can also serve as a buffer that keeps the drying effects of winds, reduces tree mortality, etc.
- You seem to be saying that "secondarisation of forests is bad, thus we cannot say anything good about secondary forests". I don't think this is an appropriate approach. Guettarda 11:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-
Some other issues:
- "; however, in tropical areas this resemblance may be superficial, since much of the soil nutrient content may have been lost with the primary forest removal."
- Any form of secondarisation may result in nutrient loss, etc. However, the ultra-poor lateritic soils that people often associate with tropical forests, while extensive, are not the totality of tropical forests by any means. Adding this caveat to the original "It takes a secondary forest 40+ years to begin to resemble the original old-growth forest" makes the original statement less accurate. Of course, we really need to expand on this idea considerably. Still, the original wording is more accurate than the change.
- "The value of a secondary forest is often overlooked. A secondary forest protects the watershed, reduces erosion and provides habitat. It may also be a source of wood and other forest products. It can act as a buffer for more valuable forest. A secondary forest contains pioneer species which may be rare in a mature forest."
- As I said above, "value" should be more specific, it could be seen as a value judgement, but the basic content is accurate
-
-
- i have restored most of this text, but i think we are now pushing the envelope in overglorifying the secondary forest and risking POV issues. further expansion of this article needs to cover more systematically the entirety of the issues of conversion from primary to secondary, and i dont mean from the lumber industry POV Anlace 03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Secondary Forests often have less biodiversity than old growth forests" → "Secondary Forests typically are endowed with less biodiversity than old growth forests" - I'm not sure that this change is an improvement. In addition, this is really a function of what sort of secondary forest you're talking about. According to the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis, biodiversity peaks in secondary forests. Guettarda 00:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- your first point is well taken and i have changed the phrase back to its original sense. regarding the *second point see my comment above regarding "buffer". i think the "buffer" comment is an argumentative POV phrase. Anlace 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Buffer" is standard language in ecology for this kind of thing. Guettarda 11:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
