Talk:Caatinga

Comments

I reduced parts of this article that were repetitive and modified it to show that the caatinga is really a vegetation first and a region second. Where are the external links? It looks like most of this article was copied from a source not mentioned.Vogensen 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

............

The article made no mention that caatinga was a vegetation in the opening sentences and the paragraphs about climate were repeated with different words.Vogensen 08:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think to focus on the use of the term caatinga as primarily a vegetation is a mistake. It is a term that clearly refers to a landscape, a climate, a particular environment.

............

I would like to remark that according to the Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics the term Caatinga refers exclusively to the type of vegetation that occurs in a wide area of the Brazilian territory, ranging from Northern Minas Gerais to Ceará. Caatinga is not to be confused with:

• Cerrado -- The typical vegatation of the Brazilian Central regions, ranging from Central Minas Gerais to East Rondônia and from Tocantins to West São Paulo (State), with some isolated pockets in Amazonia.
• Sertão -- the typical landscape of the Brazilian Northeast, the word was used for all inland Brazil until the early 20th century.

jggouvea 03:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Campina

Campina is also a Caatinga type of ecosystem which included open shrubland and tree savannas. --Melly42 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

rewrite

The caatinga biome is a very complex topic, and the treatment here is piecemeal, interspersed with editorializing and speculation (phrases like "may be"). It needs detailed attention to every aspect, by someone who has comprehensive knowledge of the topic, not just someone who copies in source from the web. At a minimum, it's going to require reading a set of studies by professionals who were there. I don't see those studies listed in the references.

If I delete the whole article, it'd be considered vandalism, but this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia in the state it's in. I'd enjoy working on this, but it's not high on my own priorities, and the article itself hasn't yet even been rated for importance.

• deforestation due to both climactic and anthopic reasons is only briefly mentioned
• role of seasonal waterways not mentioned
• endemic fauna other than birds not detailed: rodents, reptiles, insects
• fails to mention annual rainfall or average temperatures
• no mention is made of elevation or topography
• there is no mention at all of the indigenous inhabitants (what's left of them)
• biodiversity (alpha, beta) is not discussed
• In the intro: "Many annual plants grow, flower, and die during the brief rainy season". This feels like a High School essay; what really belongs here is *how* brief, when is it, and how much rainfall is there? And maybe a brief synopsis of how the flora and fauna are specially adapted to this kind of seasonality.
• In the Climate section it tells you when the rainy season starts (Dec./Jan.), but not when it ends
• in the Agriculture section, it says: "Some regions are being irrigated, most notably the São Francisco River". A river doesn't need to be irrigated - it's full of water.
• in the Deforestation section, it says: "Intensive agriculture, along with excessive grazing by cattle and goats is affecting the population structure of some of the more important plant and animal species". It certainly is, but in what way? What are these 'important' plant and animal species, and why does it matter??
• In the Deforestation section, it says: "This reduction may have contributed to the endangerment of the Spix's Macaw". Sheer speculation, unless rigorously sourced. It also neglects to mention the important point that Spix's Macaw has been extinct in the wild since 2000.
• in the Fauna section, there have been effectively no Spix's Macaws in the Caatinga since the late 80s, when the count was fell to 1 bird.
• there's nothing about the early discovery, exploration, and settlement
• there's nothing about the history of land use (conversion to farms and pastures) or the extermination of the indiginous peoples led by Antonio Conselheiro by Federales in 1897.
• there's nothing about conservation status, or conservation programs by government or NGO's
• there's nothing about the geology or agronomy

Sbalfour (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Vegetation

This section seems to have very close paraphrasing from source and has some references in the format from the original source KhoikhoiPossum (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Fauna

This section needs references for the indicated endemics from source such as IUCN or in the case of birds from Birdlife International. There are also several mammal species with incomplete binomials, for now I have linked to the genus page. KhoikhoiPossum (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Economic Exploitation

The statistic of a population of 15 million seems to refer to the rural population of Northeast Brazil in 1995; there are several issues with this:

• This region encompasses not only the Caatinga but also the Atlantic Forest and the Cerrado biomes;
• The Caatinga biome does include significant urban populations (for example Petrolina and Juazeiro do Norte;
• There is a more recent census of 2010.

I think a figure which is much more representative of the Caatinga would be that of the population of the Polygon of Droughts (pt:Polígono das Secas) for which there are statistics from IBGE. I think there are also statistics on per capita income for this particular area that show the level of poverty of this region (the area in fact was delimited specifically for directing government policy relating to droughts, underdevelopment and poverty) KhoikhoiPossum (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, do you know of a source for this? I'll modify the article if you point the way. Thanks.Prburley (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caatinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116235245/http://www.ibama.gov.br/ecossistemas/caatinga.htm to http://www.ibama.gov.br/ecossistemas/caatinga.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)