Talk:Amazon Rainforest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazon Rainforest is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Portal:Brazil
 Brazil Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Brazil on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Ecuador, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Ecuador

If you would like to participate, you can improve Amazon Rainforest, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Article Creation and Improvement Drive Amazon Rainforest was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week spanning from Sunday, 15 April 2007.

For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history.
To-do list for Amazon Rainforest: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Every section is lacking
  • Entire sections are missing
  • Tribes and peoples who live there
  • Examples of the incredible biodiversity?
  • Logging and deforestation in the Amazon rainforest
  • Enviromentalist Bias
  • The Trans-Amazonian highway

Comments of Hahnchen 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • More diverse pictures. There are so many pictures of rivers, but not enough to cover other aspects of the rainforest. Eg. Animals, weather, maps etc. Steven 22:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Priority 3

Contents

[edit] Poor article

I was suprised by the poverty of information in this article, both as a Brazilian and as a Wikipedist! I´m adding stuff.

So I added demography, languages, name origin, history, economy. Though I just discovered that there is an article on Amazon Basin, and maybe all that info belongs there.


I thought the total surface of the amazonian forest was around 7 millions of km² (around 2% of emerged surfaces).

This article says 1.2 billions of acres. Given that an hectare is 2.47 acres. 1.2 billions acres is 480000000 hectares2, this is 4 800 000 km². Right ? Which is about half my value...

But I found numbers that indicated surface of the bresilian forest was about 60% of the amazonian forest, about 4 000 000 km² (with about a 10% destruction in the past 20 years).

I think there is a mistake in the article, and that the surface indicated is more the one of the bresilan forest rather than the whole surface. Ideas ?

Amazonia and Amazon Rainforest are not the same thing. Although the rainforest is today the prevalent biome in the ecossistem, there are parts or cerrado and other forms of vegetatioin.
Amazon rainforest is 7 million km² in size, Brazil is 8,5 million km² in size, and Brazilian amazon rainforest is 49% of Brazilian territory. Source: MRE

Lígia In a book i read it said the complete opposite everyone says and believes in. The book states that trees relise carbon dioxide not oxygen if this statement is true the how come we are still living???

During sunlight hours plants release oxygen, and at night they release carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis might be worth a look (Barry m 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC))


Marbari67 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Suggestion to improve the article.

There are more questions than answer about the consequences of Amazonia deforestation. NGOs have been primary source of all hype on the deforestation but no one knows exactly which are the sources of finacing of these NGOs. Thus, I think a section should be included to, at least, expose these kind of doubts about the issue.

Also, should be mentioned that many international companies take profit on Amazonia deforestation.

If we think that 49% of brazilian territory is Amazonia, so its conservation implies Brazil giving up a considerable source of incoming. The "so-called" sustainable exploitation is, as far as I know, just an idea... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marbari67 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Number of tributaries

User:216.100.95.40 changed the number of tributaries of the Amazon from 1100 to 2200. I don't know the source for either number, but based on that anon's edit history, I reverted the change. Guettarda 17:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

And I reverted it again. Well, I thought I reverted it again - I didn't get an edit conflict but apprently you beat me to it. The same anon user had vandalized several articles within the space of a few minutes, then came back and reverted your revert. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic value

One square kilometer in the Peruvian Amazon has been calculated to provide potential earnings of $682,000 per year if intact forest is sustainably harvested for fruits, latex, and timber..... If it was true it seems you would have to build a huge road network in the forest to get the income. In fact, wouldn't work on a huge network of roads be underway now?

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss2/art9/main.html this article questions these figures.KAM 16:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Also shouldn't it be vaule not yearly income?
http://www.isse.ucar.edu/rates/processes.htmlKAM 18:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This page shows results from this study. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/1003.htmKAM 11:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forest and carbon

"absorb the millions of tons of greenhouse gases annually," Should this be in here?KAM 13:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It all depends on whether this is net absorption or gross uptake...for gross uptake it's pretty uncontrovertial, for net uptake I'd need to see a source. I'll have to look around - Guettarda 16:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Also depends on whether you're just talking about the vegetation or the whole ecosystem, i.e., including above and below ground. The current best estimates give a small net above-ground uptake of about 1 MgC/hectare/year, which, naively multiplying by the Amazon area in the article, gives 0.7 700 million tons annually. Both the area and the uptake are most likely overestimates, so the true value is probably more like a 0.5 500 million tons of carbon annually. I'll dig out some proper refs though. Bear in mind that worldwide emissions are 8000 million tons of carbon annually (CO2 emissions), so changes to this Amazon value could be significant globaly, but that "best estimate" I mention is very uncertain. (Deditos 10:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Expansion

Could somebody please expand this article. This article neeed much more substance and could do with a lot of expansion. --Aurangzeb 18:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Also no info on work of Michael J. Heckenberger KAM 13:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the information on different areas of the rainforest, the manner in which it formed, etc.? Somebody has filled it with a lot of environmental activist commentary, but did not provide much of anything on the rainforest itself... Perhaps activist concerns should have a single section and a link to a separate article on that specific aspect of the subject. THIS article should focus more on the characteristics of the rainforest itself and its history and mechanics. I visited the article expecting a thoroughly developed guide to a very, very large geographical feature with solid information. Unfortunately, that's not what I found. --Motorsportsmark 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture caption

Is this non-descript "river in the Amazon" named? I think we should add the name if we can.--Islomaniac 973 21:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Click through to the image description and the original, that information doesn't seem to be available. Guettarda 21:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Those small rivers keep appearing and disappearing so it's likely it doesn't have a name. 201.23.64.2 02:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AID Nomination Comments

These are comments written by those who voted for this article in the Article Improvement Drive. I've copied them here because there is no way to go back and look at the comments except when searching the history of the AID page. These are great points and please read them before editing the article. Happy editing. (^'-')^ Covington 02:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to the todo list.--Steven 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I think only the first comment belongs in the todo list. Most of the others are just comments on how badly this article needs improvement. RexNL 21:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well spotted, I cleaned it up and added my own comment. --Steven 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

I know its not entirely helpful just to ask others to do things but I think a map on this page would really spice it up. Some starting positions are:

Andeggs 20:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I made and added a map, using these links in part, but mainly the ecoregions of the WWF. Normally I would describe the ecoregions used in the caption for the map, but in this case there are too many, so I thought I'd just list them here on the talk page. Each ecoregions has a name and a code, like Juruá-Purus moist forests (NT0133) http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/nt/nt0133_full.html -- to view the webpage for each one, just substitute the code into the URL given above. Here's the ecoregions I included in the map's yellow line (with some generalization): Juruá-Purus moist forests (NT0133), Southwest Amazon moist forests (NT0166), Purus-Madeira moist forests (NT0157), Madeira-Tapajós moist forests (NT0135), Iquitos varzea (NT0128), Gurupa varzea (NT0126), Rio Negro campinarana (NT0158), Marajó varzea (NT0138), Purus varzea (NT0156), Monte Alegre varzea (NT0141), Japurá-Solimoes-Negro moist forests (NT0132), Uatuma-Trombetas moist forests (NT0173), Caqueta moist forests (NT0107), Napo moist forests (NT0142), Solimões-Japurá moist forests (NT0163), Tapajós-Xingu moist forests (NT0168), Xingu-Tocantins-Araguaia moist forests (NT0180), Tocantins-Araguaia-Maranhão moist forest (NT0170), Ucayali moist forests (NT0174). Pfly 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitaliz/sation?

Should "Amazon Rainforest" be a proper noun as the title suggests?  {{Capitalmove}} to "Amazon rainforest"...?  Thanks, David Kernow 10:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My instinct is that it's an improper noun, so "Amazon rainforest" is correct. This is how The Guardian newspaper in the UK has it [1], and they have pretty strict and consistent style rules. Deditos 10:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC).
Okay, I've listed the page for a {{capitalmove}} to "Amazon rainforest". Thanks for your input, David 12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!  David 10:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

More fundamentally, there is no such word in the English language as "rainforest"; the correct usage is "Amazon rain forest." Right now, Amazon rain forest redirects to this page; it should be the other way around. Lincmad 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Many major dictionaries say either spelling is acceptable, rain forest or rainforest. Some don't. The OED says either rain forest or rain-forest. But: "rainforest" is okay according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, and the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006. Pfly 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My copy of the Shorter Oxford (5th edition) lists "rainforest", but it does so under "rain" rather than as an independent word.-gadfium 08:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmentalist Bias

While deforestation, etc is a large part of what is going on in the Amazon today, there are many other things this article must include. As in other geographic articles, there are specifics that must be dealt with (ie-names of places in Amazon, local populations, etc).User:vitruvian0 01:28, 04 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a common statement that this forest is the "lungs of the planet". Should a section be included debating the accuracy of this commonly believed statement?--217.204.163.50 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

These "sources" are obscenely biased:

  1. ^ Kirby, K. R., Laurance, W. F., Albernaz, A. K., Schroth, G., Fearnside, P. M., Bergen, S., Venticinque, E. M., & De Costa, C. (2006). The future of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Futures of Bioregions, 38, 432-453. Retrieved November 26, 2006, from Science Direct database.
  2. ^ Watkins and Griffiths, J. (2000). Forest Destruction and Sustainable Agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon: a Literature Review (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Reading, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 15-17
  3. ^ Watkins and Griffiths, J. (2000). Forest Destruction and Sustainable Agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon: a Literature Review (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Reading, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 15-17.
  4. ^ Williams, M. (2006). Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  5. ^ Fernside, P. M. (2005). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, Rates, and Consequences. Conservation Biology, 19, 680-688.
  6. ^ Fernside, P. M. (2005). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, Rates, and Consequences. Conservation Biology, 19, 680-688.
  7. ^ Kirby, K. R., Laurance, W. F., Albernaz, A. K., Schroth, G., Fearnside, P. M., Bergen, S., Venticinque, E. M., & De Costa, C. (2006). The future of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Futures of Bioregions, 38, 432-453. Retrieved November 26, 2006, from Science Direct database.
  8. ^ Kirby, K. R., Laurance, W. F., Albernaz, A. K., Schroth, G., Fearnside, P. M., Bergen, S., Venticinque, E. M., & De Costa, C. (2006). The future of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Futures of Bioregions, 38, 432-453. Retrieved November 26, 2006, from Science Direct database.
  9. ^ Williams, M. (2006). Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  10. ^ Kirby, K. R., Laurance, W. F., Albernaz, A. K., Schroth, G., Fearnside, P. M., Bergen, S., Venticinque, E. M., & De Costa, C. (2006). The future of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Futures of Bioregions, 38, 432-453. Retrieved November 26, 2006, from Science Direct database.
  11. ^ Williams, M. (2006). Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

They're all speculative works, borderline propoganda. If I wrote a paper titled "Why Ecoterrorists are Scaring your Children", could I include it too?

If you have a non-biased scientific fact that was verified by 2 sources without the slightest hint of a political motive, then it should be included. These sources belong in the op-ed section of your local newspaper. Ymous 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent 7/23 Article

The text referring to the article in The Independent (online) sounds like it attributes the facts to the newspaper. See also http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1191932.ece where it is clear that the respected Woods Hole Research Center has concluded that the forest cannot survive much more drought. Can we discuss changes to the wording like "The Independent has reported that scientists at the Woods Hole Research Center are concluding xyz." ? --Ryvr 03:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the text a bit to reflect the Woods Hole Research Center etc. ---Majestic- 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've editted further to make clearer distinction between research by Woods Hole and other institutions (e.g., INPA in Brazil). Also, I've noted that only parts of the Amazon basin/forest experienced drought in 2005 — it's best we don't get into the habit of treating the Amazon basin as a homogeneous region in this article. I'll try to dig out some refs on which parts in particular. --Deditos 12:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon rainforest ultra poor, wrong, biased

I feel sorry for this article. The number of species of vascular plants, for example, is a wild unreferenced guess typical of passionate activists. A number of vascular plant species from 40,000 to 65,000 with around 6,000 of trees is what can be found in the literature. The article is so poorly done that it does not deserve editing. Better to start from scratch.

[edit] comment

what about the people

[edit] Moved from article

This may be useful, but it isn't appropriate in this form in the article. Guettarda 05:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazononian Internationalization

During a debate in a U.S University, a young fellow interrogated the Minister's thoughts surrounding the possible internationalization of the Amazon, declaring the Amazon region as part of the Global Commons. The student introduced the internationalization question conditioning his response as a humanist and not as a Brazilian. Here I summarize Mr. Cristovam Buarque's answer, because of its importance:

"In fact, as a Brazilian I would simply speak against the internationalization of the Amazon. Despite the fact that our governments do not take appropriated care to this patrimony, it is ours. As humanist, knowing about the risk of environmental degradation that the Amazon suffers, I can imagine his internationalization, as much as the internationalization of whatever is important to humanity. If the Amazon, from the view of human ethics, must be internationalized, we must also internationalize the world oil reserves. Oil is as important as the Amazon for the welfare of humanity. However, the owners of the oil reserves feel that they have the right to increase or decrease oil prospect and prices. On the same matter, the financial capital of rich countries must be internationalized. If the Amazon is a reserve for all humanity, it cannot be burned by the free will of its owner, or the needs of one country. Burning the Amazonia is as vicious as the provoked unemployment by the arbitrary decisions of global speculators. We cannot allow the financial system to burn out entire countries because of its speculation... During this encounter, the United Nations is having the Millennium Forum, but many presidents had difficulties in assisting due to restrictions in the U.S border. Because of that, I think the New York, as the central location of the United Nations must be internationalized. At least Manhattan should belong to humanity. Also Paris, Venice, Rome, London, Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, Recife... Every city of the world, with its specific beauty, and history, should belong to humanity. If the U. S wants to internationalize the Amazon, due to risks of leaving it in the hands of Brazilians, we have to internationalize the U.S nuclear arsenal, because it has been provoking destruction a million times more than the regretful burnings done in the Amazon forest. In actual debates, U.S presidential candidates are defending the idea of internationalization of the world forest reserves using debt-for-nature. We should start using that debt to guarantee that every child in the world has the possibility to eat and go to school. Let's internationalize the children, by treating them as a world patrimony that needs care, without importing were they were born. This is more important than the attention to Amazon. When the leaders treat poor children of the world as patrimony of humanity, they won't allow the children to work when they should be studying, to die when they should be living. As a humanist, I accept to defend the internationalization of the world. But until the world treats me as a Brazilian, I will struggle for the Amazon to be ours...ONLY OURS! "

Brazil Education Minister, Cristovam Buarque, January 09, 2004.

[edit] Countries

The opening paragraph states that the Amazon Rainforest covers 8 countries, then adds on French Guiana as a 9th. At the bottom of the page, a website is cited (http://www.amazon-rainforest.org/) which clearly states in the opening paragraph that 9 countries are covered, the same ones metioned in the wiki article. This should be changed, or do we pride ourselves in being unable to count? --Will James 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the opening paragraph says the Amazon Rainforest covers eight nations, plus French Guiana. French Guiana is not a nation, and as we pride ourselves on being able to distinguish between nations and entities that are not nations, it would be wrong to say the Amazon Rainforest covers nine nations. Schi 03:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon insects

There is a merge proposal: that Amazon insects be merged into this article. No arguments have been put forward for this merge. Unless arguments are provided, I will remove the tags in a week.-gadfium 08:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tags.-gadfium 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timber rights trading - NYT

No mention of that in the article... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/world/americas/14amazon.html?hp&ex=1168750800&en=c16fba62f8642a7e&ei=5094&partner=homepage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gkklein (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] History/Paleohistory of the Amazon Rainforest

I think such a section - or at least a short description with references. I was looking for this - and unfortunatly didn't find it. I'd love to help but have no information myself (which is why i was looking :-) --Kim D. Petersen 22:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange, I would have sworn there was a section on this already, but evidently not. You're right that this would be a good addition to the page. I have some info on this which I'll add when I get a moment. Deditos 11:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Actual Historical Information regarding the Amazon Condition

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/a/Talk%7EAmazon_Rainforest_8849.html"