Talk:Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Incorporated a bunch of information from a WWF site that was very informative. I wrote them, and got express permission to use it. Let me know if any of you find this inappropriate.
Here is a transcript of the mailing:
Stian Haklev to questions Jan 27 (5 days ago) I came across the page http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/global200/pages/habitat/habitat02.htm, and I would like to incorporate some of this material on the public, freely available Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tropical_and_subtropical_dry_broadleaf_forests, but I need your permission to do so. Information about Wikipedia's copyright might be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Thank you in advance, Stian Haklev University of Toronto
From: Questions Questions <questions@wwfint.org> To: Stian Haklev Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:05:23 +0100 Subject: Re: Use of material on Wikipedia Hello Stian
I have received a reply to your request. We are very happy to let you use the material that you need as long as it credited appropriately;
Also, you may like to use content from our more up to date G200 site;
www.panda.org/g200
Hope this helps and good luck
Best Regards, Online Team WWF International
Houshuang 06:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Conservation
- Effective conservation of dry broadleaf forests requires the preservation of large and continuous areas of forest.
I wonder how useful this statement is here. Since DF are less species rich than RF, the areal requirement is actually lower. In addition, since the canopy is more open and the species are more drought resistant, I suspect that edge effects are less pronouced than they are in more humid forests.
To some extent this statement is a truism, but there is a lack of real hard evidence. In fact, Janzen's successes in restoring dry forest in Guanacaste province, Costa Rica, are based on discontinuous areas of forest. So while this statement is not incorrect, it is less important than it would be for rainforests. Any thoughts? Guettarda 21:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You should feel free to remove it if you think it is misleading. I don't think the statement is untrue; most of the evidence I have seen suggests that effective conservation in virtually all biomes, especially with regard to megafaunal predators, is best accomplished by preserving large and continuous areas.
- The question is whether this is especially true of tropical dry forests. The rest of the text in that section, which talks about the generally larger ranges of dry forest megafauna, recovery after disruption from fire, and the need to include riparian forests in conservation units, suggests to me that the larger conservation units may indeed be called for. Tom Radulovich 17:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, makes sense to me. Guettarda 19:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Understorey
- The newly bare trees open up the canopy layer, enabling sunlight to reach ground level and facilitate the growth of thick underbrush.
I disagree with this info, but it comes straight from the WWF site. Canopies in Caribbean dry forests are open enough to allow seed germination under the canopy, but "thick underbrush" is really only present in burned sites. In contrast to how this is presented, I would say that in the dry season the trees have more access to moisture than anything in the understorey. Still, I don't know Old World dry forests well enough - I know that fires are considered a "normal" part of the system, and that fires result in grassy understoreys, which are important for animals. I don't want to impose a neotropical POV but... Does the sentence suggest the the deciduousness is the cause for the understorey? If so, I disagree. If it merely suggests that understorey plants benefit from the increase in light - I am skeptical, but I can live with it. Guettarda 19:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Listing animals
I don't see what the value is in listing additional animals. I don't really see what the benefit is of the existing list, but adding more specific examples only makes the random nature of the list more apparent. Guettarda 13:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
