Talk:Deforestation/Archive 1

Greenhouse effect

I think this is one reason explained in two different ways:

This is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect for two reasons: 1) the burning or decomposition of the wood releases carbon dioxide; and 2) trees that once removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis are no longer present and contributing to carbon storage.

Changed it to:

This is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Trees remove carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis. Burning of the wood releases this stored carbon carbon dioxide back in to the atmosphere.

Much improved thanks. --maveric149

Advertising

I left out the GreenSpirit: for a sustainable future link on purpose. Too much advertising, too little immediate information. Femto 17:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All tropical forests gone by...

I see that an anon changed 2070 to 2090 - does anyone have a source for this figure? All of these figures are higly speculative, so they are only meaningful if you include a source - X say that, at current rates...and, of course, "current rates" is probably not a meaningful figure, since deforestation rates are not constant and are influences by both supply and demand - e.g., in the Mata Atlantica in Brazil, deforestation rates have fallen sharply, because (i) most of the forest is gone, and (ii) most of what remains is privately owned - there is no frontier here, small farmers are not clearing land. Very context dependent. Guettarda 13:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of differant rates at http://www.mongabay.com/08defor_rates.htm. Also I do not know ca. change? There also seems to be other problems with this article.KAM 13:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The rates of deforestation are pretty easy to establish (with some range of error) - it's the statement that "at current rates all tropical forest will be gone by..." - I'd like to see a source on that part. Of course, "current rates" is meaningless because rates change, and are driven by local forces (often policy), not globally constant forces. In addition, changing climate, changing rainfall patterns, are sure to exacerbate deforestation. Rates, I think, are anything but constant, and if you can speak of constant rates it is because you are averaging a lot of different processes (including forest recovery). Guettarda 14:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)It also hurts the animals

Maybe it should be stated as a percent of the remaining forest, from 1960 to 1990 one fifth, is that right? then a change in 1990 to a much higher rate? Or a range of rates from differant sources?KAM 19:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now that I look at it...there are so many problems in this article... The article goes from "tropical rainforest" destruction (20% lost) to "tropical forests" - which is in no way the same as "rainforest"...although it depends on how one defines RF. Guettarda 19:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well its better now, much better. I am very impressed. First paragraph is especialy very well done! Thanks!!KAM 23:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This linked map shows significant reforestation in the US between 1920 and 1992 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg97rpt/chap7.html#fig11 (See figure 11). Please note that earlier maps are for virgin forest only and the 1992 map is not. Tobyw 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for pre-1900 deforestation was for shipbuilding. Large wooden ships could take over 1M board feet of timber each. Tobyw 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80% of all forests will be lost by 2030? I have placed a citation needed for that year and figure because I do believe it is highly exaggerated. The whole article to me looks very biased towards deforestation being a serious threat to the entire planet and that we are cutting forests down at an alarming rate. I believe this article should be marked as biased. Bjorn Lomborg states that the FAO has claimed that the annual deforestation rate is 0.46 percent, plus over the last 50 years forests have covered just over 30 percent of the total land area going from 30.04 in the 1950's to 30.89 in 1994. 58.107.252.110 (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Lomborg is not a scientist nor an objective source. His work has been widely and sharply critiqued as dishonest. I have placed some reliable sources by this statement. by the way even the UN (a booster organisation for optimism) acknowledges the high figures for deforestation. Cewvero (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Have a look at the latest State of the Worlds Forest's 2007 report released by the FAO, from 2000 - 2005 deforestation has dropped to 0.18 percent from just over 0.2 percent. Plus although Lomborg is not a scientist he is a statistician and is an un-biased source who looks through all the facts and statistics to find his answers. Unlike others he doesn't exaggerates by picking certain statistics which prove their point, he looks at all sources and comes to a conclusion based on the facts and figures. As you can clearly see yourself, deforestation isn't as bad as claimed considering we're losing less forests each year. There is no way that by 2030 will we lose 80% of forests at the rate we're going. 131.172.99.15 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural

In New England, until about 1910, a lot of forest was cleared for agriculture. When agriculture shifted further west, many farms in New England were abandoned and the land reverted to forest. In 1909 Maine was about 70% forest, today it is 90%. In terms of volume, the U.S still produces lots of timber. Most imports today are from Canada. Forest degradation is another story.KAM 17:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hotspots

What do people think of detailing specific hotspots or case studies, and adding a global map of recent deforestation (and aforestation) rates? First to mind are Amazonia, Madagascar, historic Loess Plateau, and the California coastline. This may offer a more tangible way to illustrate the processes involved. It's not my forte, so I can't offer much. Daniel Collins 22:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to do it exacly? Should this page list hotspots in general then more discussion at that forest's page i.e. Amazonia? a map would be greatKAM 22:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nice map at http://forests.wri.org/index.cfm KAM 13:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Water

I think this article is missing something. I dont know much about it and dont have time at the moment for research but I believe there a large impacts on water flow/temp. This effects the entire ecosystem (fish, bears, type of plants etc). I also this article makes deforestation seem 100% bad when it can be a good thing in some cases. Tardigrade 05:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ecohydrological impacts of deforestation are mixed, but relevant. Here are a couple of examples:

In cases where post-deforestation leads to reduced transpiration, less moisture is circulated back into the lower atmosphere. This moisture, had it been there, and depending on the climate, may be responsible for rainfall not too far away, either through convective thunderstorms or canopy interception (aka, cloud forests). I believe an example of this is in Costa Rica, where a nearby forest received significantly less rainfall than before. (Incidentally, in this case, that may have led to the loss of a particular frog species.)
In Hawaii, the native Koa (a tree) has been extensively replaced by non-native species, I think including trees. But not all trees are alike. Koa's leaves are well-suited for absorbing cloud moisture, better than the invasives, and perhaps also transpire less. As a result, the new forested areas reduced the input of water to the groundwater, with deterimental effects for agricultural production "downstream".

So there are various changes that happen wrt water when the landuse - forest cover - changes: infiltration, evaporation, transpiration, runoff. I hope to get to these sometime. Daniel Collins 15:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link maybe someone can do some cross referencing and form something useful. http://smig.usgs.gov/SMIG/features_0902/clearcut_inline.html#concepts Tardigrade 05:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances trees and bushes and the forest floor act as a "sponge" for rainfall, Without the buffering effect of forest cover, rain impacting bare soil runs off faster and in greater quantities, carrying away topsoil

I think this needs to be changed, removal of trees alone will not cause rain to impact bare soil, but the ground cover and litter layer beneath itKAM 14:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an easy thing to describe succinctly and accurately. Hopefully it has no more flaws and can be built upon. Daniel Collins 19:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invariably in the second sentence might be too strong “ This is from FAO Forestry and food security 1992.. “A study in the Central Congo Basin found no evidence of any influence of forests on rainfall. It was suggested, however, that forest clearing, by increasing the heat reflectance, might introduce some instability into weather patterns which can be equally important as total rainfall to production systems (Bernard, 1953)” Also from the same document: “Throughout much of the tropics, most local precipitation is the result of monsoons or major storms generated by large weather systems, or else is caused by moisture-laden air being forced upwards as it passes over hills and mountains. In neither case is tree cover likely to have any dramatic influence on total rainfall.” http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/T0178E/T0178E04.htm KAM 15:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deforestation will invariably change the water cycle, by changing the fluxes throughout the system, but it might not be observable if you don't look hard enough. Flux towers and neutron probes perhaps weren't used much around the time of the 1953 report the FAO cites. As for invariably leading to dessication? To me, that's vague. Dessication of what? The soil, the groundwater, the lower atmosphere? It invariably varies. Deforestation can lead to more water availability, or less. I would advocate something like the phrase: "Deforestation alters the hydrologic cycle, potentially increasing or decreasing the amount of water in the soil and groundwater and the moisture in the atmosphere." Does this thread right the wrongs? Daniel Collins 16:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could a general statement be made? Removal of the forest often or usually causes........On the other hand instead of trying to make world wide generalizations which might not hold true 100 % of the time it might be better to do as you suggested before and talk about hot spots. Rather then say deforestation causes this problem, give a specific example. Loss of this forest has caused these problems etc. This has already been done for China. Perhaps this could be done for other places. KAM 18:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the forest is extremely harmful to the environment and an explanation shouldn’t need material that may not withstand close scrutiny

NASA satellite data are giving scientists insight into how large-scale deforestation in the Amazon

Basin in South America is affecting regional climate. Researchers found during the Amazon dry season last August, there was a distinct pattern of higher rainfall and warmer temperatures over deforested regions. KAM 19:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

economic development

It does seem to be true that this article does not discuss the benefits of deforestation. Rich countries cleared their forest for economic development. It has been argued that it is unrealistic to expect counties like Brazil to restrict economic development to accommodate environmental concerns of the north. Perhaps this article should discuss this.KAM 14:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon additions

An anon added: * When the loggers are cutting the trees down, the engine oil releases chemicals into the soil, causing the trees to grow back deformed. Also, trees have a chemical in them, and seep soil into the ground. I have removed this material as overly vague and not terribly accurate. Guettarda 16:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fear for the forests

To those who wish to continually fearmonger with doomsday and apocalyptic predictions of a planet without forests you should study forest ecology in greater detail. I live in a land that was entirely "deforested" 15,000 years ago by glaciation. It is now covered by over 80 % forestlands. While working in what I thought was old growth rainforest in Costa Rica I was suprised to learn that 80 years prior the land was completed deforested through slash and burn agriculture. If you visit Spirit Park in Vancouver you will be hard pressed to realized the whole area was logged 100 years prior. Until very recently agricultural humans have been fighting back forests to create farmlands. If these lands are left without human intervention trees will come back and the forest ecology will be restored.

I am not a proponent of unsustainable forest practices, however it is fear invoking statements based on ignorance such as "Tropical forests will be gone by 2080" that really amaze me. If you want to help the forests and their ecology go study them and support the sustainable use of forestproducts.

Forests only make up 30% of the production of Oxygen. 70% of Oxygen comes from algae. It says so in this article you're discussion. You should probably read first before posting false statements. 58.107.252.110 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But soon the forests will all be gone and then we will be without any way to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and then we will all die! Curse all loggers and developers and all idiots who cut trees! I wish that they would get crushed by the trees they cut, damn them! I hate them! They go to their death, and the death of us all! Help us!!! 4.158.60.59 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with statements like that, it is only a matter of time before environmentalism becomes a new religion. Like most religions, they believe the world will end. "Deforestation denial" has become blesphemy. And, of course, they truly believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, and promote violence and intolerance in the name of "saving the earth." I wonder how much money is being made from all this fearmongering?

Environmentalism already is a religion! The writings of John Muir are full of religious expressions for wild nature. Luckily, religion need not be dogmatic and apocolyptic, or intolerant of the unbelievers. Environmentalism has its zealots to be sure, but so does the religion of capitalism. :-) Pfly 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deforestation doesn't cause flooding

I have edited the page to say that deforestation causes the precipitation to travel faster to it's outlet, causing floods that occur faster, and maybe are a little bigger due to some of that water recharging a well or being lost to evapotranspiration. But while forests make floods less extereme, they do not prevent flooding. Flooding is a natural event.

I think I left in how important forests are in this regard without saying anything that suggests forests stop floods. Should this article link to Sponge Theory?

Published earlier in 2005 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) say there is no scientific evidence linking large-scale flooding to deforestation. “Forests and Floods: Drowning in Fiction or Thriving on Facts?” is a timely analysis that should prompt a close examination of the many issues involved in a major flood event —and an abandonment of the myth that deforestation is the root cause. KAM 13:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to Sponge theory which was imediatly deleted as trashing. The FAO article is a pretty authorative source and much as I like the idea of forests preventing flooding, if the most current research contridicts this then we need to highlight this in some way. The Sponge theroy article seems the best place to cover this, but a lot of work is needed on that article to get it to NPOV. --Pfafrich 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the well-established fact that deforested slopes are not subject to mudslides also be addressed? --Wetman 10:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That FAO report has some problems, and this "sponge theory" is a meme apparently started by the report. The idea that large rainfall events overwhelm the storage capacity of forest soils is sound, but the FAO made a sweeping generalisation. Also, do realise it was a policy document by the FAO joint with another organisation, both of whom are keen in forest clearance for development. Daniel Collins 23:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do y'all feel about a new article just on deforestation and flooding?

I am trying to tighten this article up a little. I think that the FAO report did say the deforestation causes silting in rivers which can cause them to flood. Perhaps all the effects on the envionment can be put in one place? KAM 11:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first of all the FAO is not the best authority on flooding. they are neither the top technical source and they are hardly NPOV. now as to the facts:

deforestation clearly can greatly amplify surface runoff and significantly enhance the potential for a flood event and enhance the magnitude of such flooding.

deforestation clearly produces greater soil loss through water erosion involving surface runoff. Thus deforestation is a significant cause of siltation.

siltation by itself does not "cause" flooding.

Anlace 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course you are right. Siltation alone does not cause flooding. What I should have said is that this article has a section "Environmental effects" but silting of rivers is not mentioned. Since we have a source (the FAO report) previously cited which has shown deforestation causes rivers to silt which in turn cause them to have reduced capacity, this information should be added to the article. KAM 14:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree plantations vs hemp/potato plantations

The article says:

Although an intensively managed tree plantation does not fully recreate the biodiversity found in less intensively managed forestlands, it still will provide more biodiversity than a monoculture hemp or potato plantation.

Can anyone verify this? A monoculture tree plantation vs a monoculture hemp plantation doesn't seem any different to me Barrylb 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least there does seem to be a move away from monoculture tree plantations, and they are now very keen on creating a mosaic of habitats, see [1]. So maybe comparing monoculture tree plantation vs a monoculture hemp plantation is a bit of a strawman. --Pfafrich 11:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is good reason to believe that a tree plantation wouild support a more diverse community than would a potato or hemp plantation. To begin with, there's the issue of structural diversity. There is much more usable space in a tree plantation than in the other kinds. While a tree plantation tends to support less wildlife than a natural forest, it is still likely to be used by birds and mammals. Tree plantations also often support understoery vegetation, and ephiphytic species (at the very least mosses and lichens) at a level that hemp or potato fields coiuld not. Another issue is the rotation time - tree plantations are grown on 15-150 year rotations. The soil is disturbed much less often, resulting in a more complex soil community. There tends to be less chemical use. Etc. So even at the monoculture level this should be true. Guettarda 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. I suppose the article seems to suggest that hemp is a bad alternative to tree plantations, which I don't believe to be true when all things are considered. Barrylb 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this very important subject, but surely it must be at least intuitively clear that attempts to objectively obtain benchmarks of biodiversity in a forest plantation are not the same as a truly biodiverse forest that has never been cleared. It is very very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.192.27 (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Drive for Wilderness

Wilderness is progressing slowly but surely in the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. You may wish to support the article with your vote. Jtneill - Talk 15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) '[reply]

Can we get some quanitiative information in this article please? Thanks!

While I agree that this article could use at least SOME more quanitative information, links to other articles would also be more pertinent then additional information in most cases. The amount of information that would need to be added to fill all the quanitative information appears to be extremely significant and more often then not would just create a large amount of repetitive information that can already be found in multitudes of other articles. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added that tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions. This is from the Chirac Foundation, who cite the last report from the International Panel on Climate Change, which I can't access. If necessary, someone should find a more precise citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.36.61 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

There is a mismatch between the definition in the first lines and the map. Either the map should move to Old Growth or the definition should be expanded to show that deforestation is being used as the loss of old growth. By almost any definition of forest there is in fact forest where the map shows there is none. KAM 23:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the map of "virgin forests" is definitely mismatched with the article. The "Today" map is based on roadless areas rather than anything having to do with forests, which makes it completely deceptive. Anyone have a better map?--Bibliophylax 02:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the same "virgin forest" but different today (1992) map.http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg97rpt/chap7.html KAM 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think this map should be removed. The "TODAY" map is based on a completely different metric from the first three frames. The description under the map is not correct either. "Roadless areas" != "Virgin Forests" zimmhead 20:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimm0who0net (talk • contribs)

Moving forward

Perhaps we can focus on hot spot as has been suggested. I think the forest and hydrology has been covered well (too well?) Maybe not enough about habitat lost. Migratory birds. And...I do use spell check. KAM 22:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reforestation

Is there no policy that requires people to plant a tree for each one they cut? If that was being followed faithfully, deforestation wouldn't be removing our trees! What are we trying to do anyway—turn Earth into a desert planet?!!! 4.158.60.59 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article tone caues loss of biodiversity

Many articles about forest in Wikipedia, including this one, suffer from a POV tone. The format is factual statement, explanation as to why it is a bad thing, factual statement, etc. Not that the added sentences are untrue but in my view, this make the article tiresome to read. I feel like someone is beating me with a stick while I read, (which causes a loss of biodiversity). For example simply define Deforestation in the first paragraph with perhaps one sentence saying it is considered a bad thing. KAM 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the article might be a little bit above the level of the average lay person, a huge amount of articles on Wikipedia are far above the level of an educated lay person and this article needs more information if anything not less. Also, turning it into a paragraph or two would turn it from a full fledged article into a stub Zanotam - Google me (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

"The largest cause as of 2006 is slash-and-burn activity in tropical forests." Is this true? Can it be supported with a source? KAM 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is true and there are many sources. i ll try to plug some in as i have time. i m busy now on europe and usa topics. ill get back to the tropics at some point. Anlace 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In places like Borneo, the deforestation caused by slash and burn practices has been greatly amplified by industrial logging. The cause-and-effect is not always simple. Pfly 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have median figures for 2000-2005 that suggest cattle ranching causes 60% of the deforestation, 30% by subsidence farming and so on... it is quite interesting but points in the oposite direction to what we hear about. i found it at [2]--Foxfoil (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm right in saying too that change of land use to palm oil plantations (driven by desire to reduce dependence on petroleum, as well as to make money of course - no bad thing per se) immediately precedes or accompanies deforestation and burning by small farmers/entrepreneurs. This may also be the case in parts of Borneo? Dendrotek 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to figures on the above mentioned website, large scale, commercial, cash-crop growers only caused 3% of deforestation - I have no other way to support the figures though and as I said before, they are from 2000-2005. Foxfoil (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trends in the United States

The current article states "From 1850 to about 1920 the amount of forest land in the United States actually increased. Today the trend in forest cover increase has reversed as urban sprawl causes conversion of forest as the forest is transformed to suburbs.(Forest on the Edge Housing Development on American's Private Forest (USFS))" The statement that the trend has reversed is wrong. The trend has continued with the US netting an increase of 614 square miles of forest from 2000-2005 according to the 2005 United Nations "2005 Global Forest Resources Assessment". What has increased is the compartmentalization of forest land and the growing urbanization of forest land (which the attached article, if you actually read it, provides evidence of). To characterize this as a REVERSAL of a trend in forest cover increase is just incorrect. zimmhead 15:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

strongly agree with zimmhead. this "reversal" POV is the same bjorn lomborg "uniformed optimism POV" that clouds many wikipedia environmental topics. Anlace 16:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the supplied source does not support the orginal statement. It seems to apply to only loss of private forest. Perhaps the losses in private forest has been offset by gains in public forest. Here is a source from SAF (Trends in forest land area)that says net change in forest cover in the U.S. is negative. [3]. This is the USFS source sited by the SAF [4] It seems to show a net loss since the 1950s. It may be different interpretations of the term forest cover between the FAO and the USFS. KAM 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um

im doing a project on this (deforestation).my teacher mrs.planchard is giving me 3 days to work on it and i am clueless.so i came here for help. but i still aint finding the stuff i need!! 65.69.27.29 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)shelby65.69.27.29 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted link

The link recently deleted by User:Eagle 101 "per external link guidelines" was "Do We Have Enough Forests?" by Sten Nilsson, Ph.D., a researcher at The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria. He is also a working member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry and an Academician of the International Academy of Informatics, Russia. (This is the article, in case you're interested in what is being deleted.) No doubt some guideline is being thoughtlessly applied: the justification will be as interesting as the deletion. --Wetman 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English

At school I have been assigned a project on 'Deforestation'. I took great intrest in this article. I understood most of it but I have trouble deciphering some parts of the article. I was wondering if any other people were experiencing this and could anyone do a simpler version on this article.

 Brainbox'07

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainbox '07 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Under attack

If the platitudinous incontrovertible statement "(deforestation) usually results in a significant loss of biodiversity" is challenged, it becomes quite clear that the subject of this article is under attack. Is that not it? --Wetman 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I just think that the claim needs a source. Personally, I'm not sure of its truth, so I was hoping someone could reinforce that claim with a reference. The subject of this article-"deforestation"- is valid regardless of the effects of deforestation. johnpseudo 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attact? reinforce? There are a number of definitions here: DEFINITIONS OF FOREST, DEFORESTATION, AFFORESTATION, AND REFORESTATION} - I didn't see any that match the one this article uses. I propose something like: The term deforestation may refer to either the removal of trees from an area or the removal followed by the conversion of the land to agriculture, pasture, development, or some other non-forest use. WHAT IS DEFORESTATION?. KAM 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition given in the first line doesn't appear to match any of ones found by Lund. It may differ from the source given as well Sucoff writes: Deforestation is the complete removal of a forest ecosystem and conversion of the land to another type of landscape. It differs from clear-cutting , which entails complete removal of all standing trees but leaves the soil in a condition to regrow a new forest if seeds are available. ( Deforestation By Edward Sucoff Environmental Encyclopedia Copyright 2003 The Gale Group, Inc.) KAM 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living Space

Deforestation and global warming are primarily anthropogenic in nature. As human population increases the need for more living space increases and more land is cleared for the growth of cities, agricultural use and other activities. The loss of forest results in less CO₂ being removed from the atmosphere and subsequent global warming. "Surface chemistry" contributes to the state of the atmosphere so perhaps the environmentalists should include more human activity in their climate models. --Jbergquist 14:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djouce Mountain

In regards to the caption for Djouce Mountain This article in the Irish times says: "The old charge that Ireland's ancient woods were swept away to satisfy the needs of Tudor colonists and British men-o'-war is long debunked." [5]- It may be a confusing picture of deforestation, to the left what looks like a planted forest can be seen. The country to the right must be open by choice. KAM 02:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pov

"why would you remove that paragraph?" - The first paragraph in particular should reflect a neutral point of view. The article does not contain a single line about the benefits of deforestation let alone the first paragraph. The article is written from the view point of an mainstream environmentalist living in a wealthy, highly industrialized country. What would an forest advocacy article look like? It would start with a little fear, the impending irreversible loss of the earth's species, then a little misleading information, the forest is a blanket protecting the earth, the soil acts which is a sponge etc (the article no longer says this) then end with a place to send money. (Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, World Wide Fund for Nature, Conservation International, African Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace also focus on preserving forest habitats.) What would a neutral article look like? I am interested in the causes of forest loss and hope that it can be reversed and it effects mitigated. I have read many article about forests, however I would not spend time reading an article that I though merely regurgitates talking points as if they are a mantra. I am looking for factual, unbiased information. I believe in a bottom-up approach to environmental protection in which people, armed with relevant facts make changes - which coincides with wikipedia's NPOV policy. KAM 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent additional text was apparently lifted from a web site called Genesis of Eden Diversity Encyclopedia and is an article called The Holocaust of the Green Cathedral [6].Deforestation causes problems that are local, for example, erosion, silting of rivers, soil degradation, loss of sources of fuel wood etc, concerns that effect local people. It also causes problems - loss of habitat and biodiversity, concerns that are the priority of many environmentalist in wealthy industrialized nations, usual places outside areas that are losing forest. Should this article be written as if the concerns of habitat loss were the primary concern? KAM 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to KAM

Please note the following:

Please conduct the deforestation discussion here to keep the thread intact: not on my talk page.
Please sign your posts with four tildas (You failed to sign a post on my talk page).
I am having difficulty following your logic or analysis regarding the above thread for these reasons

I was not the one who originally posted the paragraphs in question (Another editor did). I did revert their deletion, performed editing and added some sources. I am not familiar with the source you allege was one of the original sources of the material.
Your assertion that "deforestation causes problems that are local" is puzzling. I can't reconcile your assertion with large scale impacts of siltation and erosion (as has occurred in the Madagascar central highlands and extending all the way to silted rivers discharging to the Indian Ocean.
Your assertion that "wealthy industrialized nations, usual places outside areas that are losing forest" is also puzzling. The USA, Canada and some European countries are also losing portions of their forests which many residents of those countries are concerned about. Furthermore, China is highly industrialized and is losing considerable forest.
You seem to imply that residents of underdeveloped countries are not concerned about biodiversity loss as the "wealthy" are. Surely you don't mean that. There is considerable evidence that LDCs care deeply about the losses of their forests for many reasons.

Like you, I am interested in seeing this article develop on a factual basis and I will work with you toward that end. Deletion of sourced text is generally not a fruitful avenue. I prefer to edit material and seek sources to buttress the articles I work on. Best regards. If yourespond, try to respond point by point to issues I have raised above in this thread. Also try to spell my name correctly next time if you choose to use it. Sekolov 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the misspelling, it was inadvertent.

Regardless of the original editor I believe you support keeping the text in question. However much of it was lifted from this web site [[7] which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I don't have access to the most of the sources you cite but the one I did check (Sucoff) appears to have been incorrectly cited, I confess this has put a strain on my assumption of good faith as to the others. As far as my remarks about the POV of this article I'll leave that for other editors. Here is a explanation of local vs global [8] - LDCs may care deeply about decrease in biodiversity but on a list of priorities it would rank lower than a similar list made by an environmentalist in a wealthy developed country , I don't think this is reasonably in dispute. As to deforestation in the United States it depends upon the definition of the terms forest and deforestation, according to the FAO and the United States Forest Service the United States has gained forest since about 1920. - Research has shown a link between forest loss and GDP, nations with $4,600 GDP per capita or more are gaining forest with the exception of Canada.[9] KAM 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for your courteous and thoughtful response. I only support keeping parts of the text that we can edit and source to make a positive addition to this article. I think, at best, it is rough in its present form. I believe the independent editing and sourcing keeps it clear of copyright vio, but i welcome your further editing to put it more on track. I understand but dont fully agree with your concern of article POV. why dont you add a section on the ==Benefits of deforestation==? There clearly are some, like the short term feeding of lesser developed countries' people, (at risk of long term loss of soil productivity). Another benefit is the present comfort of "the wealthy" who can enjoy more immediate products. I'm actually not being sarcastic, and I really would welcome such a section. It s really not up to wikipedia to place great value judgments on these benefits. Hopefully we can work together on this article as I can see you are quite earnest and knowledgeable. By all means re-source or edit the Sucoff matter; i don't mind being bettered on an edit. Best regards. Sekolov 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a section 'Benefits of deforestation' would be POV in itself, as are many statements taken from biased "environmental" sites now. The article should clearly state why deforestation occurs (which would explain its benefits} and what it causes. Unfortunately, this article is quite a mess so we gotta work on it.--Svetovid 08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that if it was clearly stated why deforestation occurs that would explain its benefits.KAM 11:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update tag

This article is old, vague and incorrect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by StaticGull (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 June 2007.

Maybe that claim is valid, but unless it's actually backed up by concrete criticism and facts, it's just your point of view.--Svetovid 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Four images bunched together at the top with none below isn't the best look. This needs some work. Richard001 (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Anastrophe. Couldn't have done better myself. Richard001 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. not much to it really, besides a little cut & paste. the article could actually stand to have one or two more photos i think. Anastrophe (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deforestation in China

Would anybody be able to add a component on the desforestation in China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.161.115 (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

em? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.110.243 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balance and style

Good grief, an entire (long) article on deforestation and not even a single section on the benefits of deforestation. Even those sections touching on the reasons for deforestation make it quite clear that the reasons aren't good enough. I'm no right wing nutjob, but this article is to far slanted to the conservation viewpoint even for me. We need some serious discussion of the pros of deforestaiopn. After all, if its happening on such a wide scale somebody must be getting benefits from it, right?

Tomake this article anything liek balanced we need atleast one pro paragraph for every section. What are the benefits of deforestation to biodiversity, what are the benefits to productivity, what are the benefits to ecosystem services. Yes all those things they do exist if we look at the scientific litertaure and not just the conservation websites.

Perhaps a simple way for the novice to handle this issue would be to ask themselves hwo those htinsg woul be different if deforestsion hadn't occured.

And the style is horrible. Every seocnd sentence (literally in some sections) contains subjective judgement terms like "massive" and "tiny" and "overwhelming". This is suposed to be an encylopaedia.

Then we have the sweeping generalisations. All forest are biodiverse, all forests contribute to catchment recharge, all third world deforestation is to pay off foreign debt and provoke economic development and so forth. None of these statements is even close to be universally true.

There are also huge numbers of factual errors. Far too many for me to adress. Some of the more obvious ones are the ignoring of the mass deforestion in Australia 30, 000 years ago, the huge negative impact that forests have on infiltarion in sub-humid environments and the claims that forests produce oxygen. All those setcions are provably false.

Whole article needs a good re-writeEthel Aardvark (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asidemes will you please stop removing the clarification and weasel tags, both inline and in the heading. Those are there for a reason and should only be removed when you change the phrasing so they are no longer unclear or weasel words. SImply posting a link to a journalist who uses the same unclear or weasel phrasing is not sufficient because it doesn't resolve the problem. If you revert this again I will report you. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Protected for one week due to edit warring. Please discuss your concerns here. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Aardvark, your imputations are false. I've deleted disputable "weasel words". Can you please stop removing cited material from Wikipedia? You have no other users who have shown themselves to support your POV. Asidemes (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) You have not just removed the weasel tags. you have also removed the balance tag from the [page header, and most of the clarification tags. You have done both these actions without in any way addressing the problems of balance or weasel words.

2) It doesn't matter whether i have other users who support my point of view. The wording used clearly meets the standards for weasel words, the areas that need clarification are clearly vague, and the article is clearly unbalanced. If you wish to remove any of those tags you will need to address the issues of balance, clarity and weasel words. If you don't have the time to address those issues (and I don't) then simply leave the tags in place so someone else can.

3) If you dispute that these are weasel words, or that the wording is vague, or that the article is unbalanced then discuss it and I will attempt to explain it so you can understand, using refernces from Wikipedia's own reference pages. That is why the talk page is here. I started a discussion here when I made those edits and I have tried repeatedly to get you to engage in discussion, and you have refused. As you have found out, you simply can't do that.Ethel Aardvark (talk)

Once again, I've DELETED "weasel words" (terms like "massive" and "tiny" and "overwhelming")[10], I've added citations. Can you please stop removing citations and cited material from Wikipedia? Your disruptive edits are pure vandalism. Bring in the other sources and we can include the contrary opinion. If you are referring to the benefits of deforestation to biodiversity, ecosystem services and productivity, feel free to add a section and source the info. Asidemes (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to comment here - Asidemes, vandalism doesn't mean what you seem to think it means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism) you apply that label to anyone who dissagrees with what you have written - another example is one of your edits to the Australia article where someone removed an addition made by you and you put it back saying "rv disruptive vandalism" you are doing this too often Please be a bit more mature. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Vandalism means [11] and [12] ("replacing or removing existing content in bad faith"). After this edit warring started Ethel Aardvark has deliberately targeted and blanked my additions here [13] (Australia article, added in June 2008) and here [14] (Poaching article, added in February 2008). I put it back saying "rv disruptive vandalism". Asidemes (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asidemes do you wish to discuss this in good faith or not? I have begun the discussion. Please respond rather than making ad hominem attacks based on unrelated articles.

1)You have not removed the weasel terms. To give just a couple of examples, the article still says “flooding and landslides often ensue” and “It has been argued that deforestation trends…”. Both “often” and “It has been argued” are classic weasel words according to the Wikipedia standard and in both cases you deleted the weasel tags. I repeat, you do not need to remove the weasel tags to add citations and so long as you do so I will revert your edits. I do not have the time to go through and re-add all the weasel tags because you do want to learn how to add citations without deleting tags.

I will remove these weasel terms. Asidemes (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) You have removed clarification tags throughout the article when you added your citations without making any attempt at clarifying. Add your citations but do not remove the tags.

3) The article remains unbalanced as per the earlier discussion. I am not obliged to “bring in the other sources”. The article is clearly unbalanced and as such justifies the balance tag. It is not my (or any other editor's) responsibility to correct that imbalance, merely to bring it to the notice of the reader. Why else did you think that tag exists? OTOH if you wish to remove the balance tag it is your responsibility to correct the imbalance.

The article remains unbalanced as per the earlier monologue. "the benefits of deforestation to biodiversity" ... oof. Really, really bad joke, but feel free to add a section and source the info. Asidemes (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So add your citations (which I will be checking for accuracy and source) but please do not remove the inline tags without addressing the problem and do not remove the header tags while the problems remain. The balance tag particularly will require some major work before it can be legitimately removed. Simply adding citations will never justify you removing it.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Aardvark (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asidemes so long as you do not remove any labels without adresing the issues you can do as you wish. I reverted your edits entirely and solely because you did remove tags without adressing the issues. Now that I have shown this to be the case, and shown that your claims of "vandalism" were not warranted I will leave it to the Wikipedia administratio to dela with any future infractions.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later edit: Concerning your claim that the rate fo forest loss is increasing, which is not suported by references. IN 20 minute sin the library I found the following, all of which will be going into the article:

It is very difficult if not impossible to obtain figures for the rate of deforestation (Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy) (J. Fairhead and M. Leach 1998 “Reconsidering the extent of deforestation in twentieth century West Africa”) Unasylva 49(192): 38-46.

The consequences of deforestation are largely unknown and the impacts not verified by sufficient scientific data Radoslav Dimitrov 2004 “Lost on the Woods: International Forest Policy” in “Science and Politics in the International Environment” Neil E. Harrison, Gary C. Bryner eds, Rowman & Littlefield, London

Experts don’t even agree on what constitutes a forest Radoslav Dimitrov 2004 “Lost on the Woods: International Forest Policy” in “Science and Politics in the International Environment” Neil E. Harrison, Gary C. Bryner eds, Rowman & Littlefield, London

However bearing in mind these uncertainties and paucity of scientific data the following facts emerge

Global forest cover has remained approximately stable since the middle of the twentieth century (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/EnvironmentalQuality.html). Indeed based on the longest dataset available, published by the FAO, global forest cover has increased slightly since 1954 (Lomborg, B. The Skeptical Environmentalist 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

Globally the rate of deforestation declined throughout the 1990s compared to the 1980s (Radoslav Dimitrov 2004 “Lost on the Woods: International Forest Policy” in “Science and Politics in the International Environment” Neil E. Harrison, Gary C. Bryner eds, Rowman & Littlefield, London)

Globally the rate of loss of forest area declined throughout this decade compared to the 1990s. In the period 2000–2005 an estimated at -7.3 million hectares per year. Down from -8.9 million hectares per year in the period 1990–2000. (Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy) Ergo the rate at which deforestation is declining is becoming ever more rapid.

Globally the rate of tropical forest loss is declining: were lost at the rate of about 8.6 million hectares annually in the 1990s, compared to a loss of around 9.2 million hectares during the previous decade. (FRA Working Paper 49 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy)

Based on these trends global forest cover is expected to increase by 10 percent by 2050 —an area the size of India.The amount of woodland has increased in 22 of the world's 50 most forested nations. Asia as a whole gained 1 million hectares of forest between 2000 and 2005. Tropical forest in El Salvador expanded more than 20 percent between 1992 and 2001. In China there has been a 47-million-hectare increase in forest area since the 1970s. (James Owen, 2006, “World's Forests Rebounding, Study Suggests” National Geographic News http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061113-forests.html

There is currently more forest than there is cropland 1.5 billion ha of land is used for arable and permanent crops www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e08.htm Total forest area in 2005 is 3.952 billion hectares Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy

In the geological past, there have been periods during which the global forest cover was much more reduced than today, for instance at the last glacial maximum (Renssen, H., Goosse, H. & Fichefet, T. (2003), On the non-linear response of the ocean thermohaline circulation to global deforestation, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30)

The extent of deforestation that has occurred in West Africa during the twentieth century is currently being hugely exaggerated (J. Fairhead and M. Leach 1998 “Reconsidering the extent of deforestation in twentieth century West Africa”) Unasylva 49(192): 38-46.)

After all that I don't have much faith that you will find a reference to support your claim that the rate of deforestation is increasing. And if you can't then the claim gets deleted as unsourced and contradictory to the FAO and other experts.

But I will thank you for prompting me to research this subject. I just added the tags months ago and was content to let others find the facts. You deleting those tags has led to me finding all sorts of valuable references for inclusion.

CheersEthel Aardvark (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yum! Who doesn't like cherries, they should always be in bold. cygnis insignis 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by that cygnis insignis. Those data are mostly taken from the most recent and reliable data available from the FAO, and are the entirety of my finds of a basic literature review using my library and Blackwell with term such as "global forest cover" "rate of change". There's no cherry picking going on. The simple fact is that I couldn't find any references to support the claims made in the article such as the pace of deforestation being "ever increasing", that global forest cover is at an all-time low and so forth. All the references I could find on the rate of change of deforestation say the same thing: it's almost impossible to determine the rate of deforestation but to the extent that it can be determined the rate has slowed and global forest cover is expected to increase within the next century and forest cover is no any lower than it has been at other times the past few thousand years. If you think I'm cherry picking here and ignoring inconvenient data points then please post them. The FAO is the premier body dealing with this sort of data and the only organisation with comparable, long term global datasets. I'd dearly love to see some evidence that contradicts the FAO when it says that global deforestation is slowing and that forest cover is expected to increase within the next century.

BTW< I believe Wikpedia policy is to assume good faith, not to cast aspersions on poster's motivations and methodology with zero evidence. But hey, when you post your evidence that the data I presented aren't consensus base don the best datasets available then we'll have your evidence, won't we?

Cheers Ethel Aardvark (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414063,00.html

Amazon Destruction Jumps 69 Percent in Brazil

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/deforestation-accelerating-in-central-africa.html

Deforestation accelerating in Central Africa

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37035

Biofuels Boom Spurring Deforestation

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/destruction-of-rainforest-accelerates-despite-outcry-770904.html

Destruction of rainforest accelerates despite outcry

http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/01/24/forests.2.t.php

Spreading Deforestation Is Both Acknowledged and Ignored

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0830-peru.html

Peru's deforestation rate surged in 2005

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1228-malaysia.html

Malaysia's deforestation rate increasing rapidly - 86% jump since 1990s

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/11/environment.indonesia

Indonesian rainforests pulped to extinction

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0622-africa.html

Africa's deforestation rate may be higher than thought

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/02/forests.conservation

Satellite images show Papua New Guinea deforestation at critical level

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1064180420080610

Africa's deforestation twice world rate, says atlas

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4521

Worldwatch: Wood Production and Deforestation Increase

Some environmental groups have criticized the UN numbers as "misleading and inaccurate" saying that FAO is using industrial plantations to offset deforestation figures for natural forests while relying on flawed figures provided by governments that varying standards of forest monitoring. The London-based Rainforest Foundation notes that "the UN figure is based on a definition of forest as being an area with as little as 10% actual tree cover, which would therefore include areas that are actually savannah-like ecosystems and badly damaged forests." Further, says a press release from the organization, "areas of land that presently have no trees on them at all, but that are 'expected' to regenerate, are also counted as forests." http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1115-forests.html World deforestation rates and forest cover statistics, 2000-2005

Asidemes (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Asidemes refuses to respond to my statments, instead simply posting non sequitur quotations, he clearly does not want to discuss. I will assume fom this that he does not dispute thta teh refercnes that I deleted were inaccurate and did not support his points, and that he agrees that my removing them was in full accordance with Wikipedia policy and in no wa vandalism. I will leave it at that and leave the administration t deal with any future infractions. I believe I have established that I am more than willing to clear up this issue through discussion. A discussion requires two active parties exchanging views, not on party prsenting their views and reasoning and the other posting non sequitur quotations they found on the web.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Asidemes is referencing plenty of highly reliable sources that go along with public/common knowledge and opinion, that deforestation is increasing and there is a lot less forest now then there were 100 years ago which is supported by other parts of the article. Please don't got picking fight Ethel Aardvark, unless you're willing to deal with someone who doesn't want to fight and just edit articles with up-to-date information 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Zanotam - Google me (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the articles Zanotam. Not a single one of them says that the rate of deforestation is increasing. I'm not picking a fight here, I am asking for references that actually support what is written in the article. If you believe that you have a reference that says that the rate of deforestation is increasing then pleas post the appropriate quote here where we are discussing the subject. The FAO has stated quite clearly that the rate of deforestation is decreasing.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed tendentious editing going on here. But I am not the party engaged in it. To quote the policy the page on this :

You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.

No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e.g."You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.

Cygnis, Zanotam, Asidemes or any other editor, I say again :You say the references stating that deforestation rates are tracking the rate of human population growth can be found in article linked to, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what section is it in, and can you please quote the senetences where it says that deforestation rates are increasing as population continues to increase?

The only related statements that I can find in that article says exactly the opposite.

In section 3.1 it says that Should a strong relationship be expected between the processes of population growth and deforestation?... deforestation rate is independent of population growth rate.

In section 3.3 it states It is clear now that the role of population factors in deforestation varies considerably from one setting to another depending on the local patterns of human occupancy and economic activity

and

"It would be easy to come away … with [the] view that population growth was the sole cause of deforestation … But it would be an oversimplification" and

Deforestation [takes place] because population growth is outstripping change in technology.

These are particularly revealing because the reference which you are all citing as evidence that deforestation rates track population growth in fact says exactly the opposite. It says that population growth is independent of population growth, and that population factors overall are only important in some limited settings.

Given that the claim made in the Wiki article contradicts the FAO and every single other source I can find that actually discusses changes as well as the very article you all claim supports it, the fact that I can't find the claim makes me think it's not there.

And it's such a simple thing to quote. I've provided a quotes where it says that deforestation rate is independent of human population growth. Why is it so hard for anyone at all to quote where the references say that the rates of deforestation increase to track human population increases? If the articles say that then why can't it be quoted here in the discussion page?

I'm beginning to suspect that the problem is that you are laymen who misunderstood the article where it says that local (national or lower level) population density correlates well with deforestation. But density isn't growth, it's a measure people/unit surface area, not a measure of change in people/unit time. Just think about it for a moment. I'm sure we all agree that global population is increasing. But the fact is that global deforestation rates are declining at the same time (as per the reference under discussion). That is exactly the opposite of what the Wikipedia article says: it says that global deforestation rates are tracking the global human population. If they are tracking then as one goes up the other must be going up. Yet for the last 50 years population has increases consistently and deforestation rates have decreased fairly consistently.

It is also exactly the opposite of what the linked UN article says. It says that the deforestation rate is 'independent from the human population growth rate

But I am more than willing to discuss this in good faith if any of you is prepared to engage in more than hit and run posting and personal slurs. But since you all repeatedly ignore good faith questions that I post then you are clearly engaged in tendentious editing.

And BTW, Cygnis, asking your mates to revert my edits so that you can skirt the three revert rule is not allowable. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd actually done the research, you would notice that that one report appears to be in contradiction to most other reports. The numbers stated are far too low, much lower then those other agencies state for the applicable time periods. More up to date data shows that in Malaysia (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1228-malaysia.html) deforestation rates are on the rise, in Brazil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/25/brazil.conservation) deforestation rates are on the rise, and that universally, deforestation rates are increasing or staying the same (http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8368), and a claim that deforestation rates and human pop. growth aren't related is hardly worth listening to. I could show you a graph of the last 1000 years that compares human pop. and deforestation rates and they'll both be linked. I also noticed on your talk page that you're currently on your last warning, for vandalizing this article. While I admittedly shouldn't be doing this, you being a troll and there being a rule about not feeding trolls, you shouldn't expect anymore answers from anyone. You know what you're doing. You know it's wrong. Stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanotam (talk • contribs) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the comments about deforestation rates in Malysia or Brazil are supposed to pertain to. They seem to have nothing whatosever to do with the claim that human population growth tracks deforestation rates. But just to make things clear, I'm not disputing that deforsatation rates are increasing in many individual locales, just as they are declining in many individual locales. What I am disputing is the claim madein the article that global deforestaion rates track human population growth.

The reference that you claim says that "deforestation rates are increasing or staying the same" actually says outright that the rates are declining. I quote the overview: "According to FAO, the rate of deforestation dropped slightly during its last survey period. Between 1990 and 1995, annual forest loss in developing countries was estimated at 13.7 million hectares. This rate compares with a rate of 15.5 million hectares annually between 1980 and 1990". That is not saying that rates are increasing or staying the same. It is saying that rates are declining, while population increases. If you believe this refercne says somwehre that rates are increaisng or remaining stable then by all means quote where it says that. And for the record this figure itself is cited form an original article that I myself refernced first above.

And if you can show me a graph of the last 1000 years that compares human pop. and deforestation rates and they'll both be linked, then do so. At the moment all the evidence says that while populatin increases defoestaion declines.

And so I ask yet again: You say the references stating that deforestation rates are tracking the rate of human population growth can be found in articled linked to, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what section is it in, and can you please quote the senetences where it says that deforestation rates are increasing as population continues to increase? Failure to cooperate with such a simple request may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.

Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you are still ignoring my simple request Zanotam.

And so I ask yet again: You say the references stating that deforestation rates are tracking the rate of human population growth can be found in articled linked to, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what section is it in, and can you please quote the sentences where it says that deforestation rates are increasing as population continues to increase? Failure to cooperate with such a simple request may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To see the link between population and deforestation, check the Pre-Industrial History section. As cities grew, forests shrank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanotam (talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not even remotely the same as syaing that deforestation tracks population growth.

So the statement remoans unsourced. Can you please quote where it says that global population tracks global population growth. Not where it says that population density (ie city size) tracks deforestaion. Where it says that population growth tracks deforestation.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up needed?

After reading through the article, I think it might need some clean up. All of the when/vague/citation needed is a little extreme, and the article has an incredibly high density of intext citations. While important, it makes the article hard to read when paragraphs are broken up by 10 different citations and then 2 whens and a citation needed. I'm not saying it doesn't need citation or that intext citation is necessarily bad, but it's a little extreme. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

These are links to two serious incidents of vandalism, removing references; this one from E. O. Wilson and this one from the FAO. The editor has been selective in quotations from sources and now appears to be removing those that contradict his POV pushing. This is highly disruptive. The rest is a wish to debate and edit war within the article, rather than discuss it on the talk page. I removed that as well. I would advise Ethel to seek another site if s/he wishes to engage in online combat, I hope that other users will help to stop this disruption. cygnis insignis 08:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again.. cygnis insignis 06:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis there is already an open discussion of these edits above, as you are well aware since you made a hit and run contribution there. I will not discuss this under heading where you have presupposed vandalism. Talk about poisoning the well. If you wish to discuss this I am more than willing to do, in the section above.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the discussion and seen Ethel's Tendentious editing. S/he has made contributions that a bot recognises as damage to the inline citations. Ignoring this or any objections, the user continues to disrupt the improvement of this article. Can someone please revert it. cygnis insignis 08:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stone tools

I have added a rough date for the onset of the use of polished stone tools in Britain to answer a query. There is a clear association between deforestation and the widespread use of polished tools of all kinds in Europe, but such comments of course cannot apply to deserts, arid mountains or any areas where trees do not grow naturally. Peterlewis (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is suposed to be an article, not a list of factoids

Can we try to keeop some structure and some semblance of readability? The article eas simply a list of vaguely related factoids, most of them erronously referenced. Ive tried to compile it into some sort of coherent structure. That has meant that I've moved statemenst around, but AFAIK none have been deleted without cause.

The deletions I've knowdingly made are:

erroneous references for the pace of deforestation ever quickening and the pace of deforestation tracking human population. If you want to dispute these edo so in the discussions above. QUiote simply none of the refercens supoprt those claims.

Original reserach linking several unrelated artciles to make an unrelated and vague point, as per Wiki policy. Specifically the claim that since rainforests are biodiverse removal of rainforets must resultin soil degradation. Not only does that mke no sense but it is in clear breach of Wiki's no original reearch policy.

If I have unintentionally deleted anything (and I'm sure I have) then by allmean put it back, but put it back in somesort of context. Please don't just slot it back in as some random factoid. For example someone placed some factoids about total African deforestation into the section on rainforest deforestation. Can we please leave the section ion rainforest deforestaion for discussionof actual rainforet deforestation, not deforestation of African dry forest and African rainforests.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting stuff from the article. We'll just revert it back, and failure to cooperate with such a simple request may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors. Zanotam - Google me (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deforestation measures

I added this line:

Other SE Asian countries where major deforestation are ongoing are Cambodia and Laos. According to a documentary by TelePool, the deforestation is being directed by corrupt military personnel and government (Forestry services). ^[1]^[2]

Together with this I would suggest another entry.

I would suggest in the article that perhaps this issue could be resolved by letting the UN (or other wordwide organisation) to deny the military and government (forestry services) in these tropical countries the use of tree-logging equipment. This equipment includes motorsaws, regular saws, trucks with large, heavy loading platform (which can serve to transport logs), ... For certain projects (eg biomass projects, ...) independant UN/NATO, ... personnel can be appointed to oversee the storage and use of this equipment. The UN/NATO, ... personnel should have no connections to local government or military (eg they can be composed from foreign countries).

81.246.177.233 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging "Rates of deforestation" to "Deforestation today"

Having spent several hours cleaning up the section titled Rates of deforestation and fleshing out its existing inline citations, I have noticed that its factual content is largely identical to that of "Rainforest deforestation" under Deforestation today. I propose merging the two. This article is getting overly long, and removing these redundancies would go a long way toward alleviating the issue. The writing style in general seems better in the second section (Deforestation today), but I can vouch for most of the footnotes in the first section. AtticusX (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the two sections, re-organizing the text for logical flow and eliminating most of the redundancies in the text and citations. I also spent several hours going through the sources to double-check that the citations were accurate. I had to make some edits where the text did not accurately reflect the information at the sources. AtticusX (talk)

A user at 138.77.2.130 (an address with a long history of vandalism) has indiscriminately mass-copy-and-pasted text from an earlier version atop the current version of the "Rates of deforestation" section. This half-ass reversion creates redundancies more acute than the ones that had been eliminated, and lengthens and renders incoherent a section I worked hard to condense and improve. It has also brought back many of the errors and (IMO) poorly constructed paragraphs that had been fixed or eliminated. Since I am unable to read the user's mind to see what he/she liked better about the earlier version, I am going to revert his/her edit. If you want to restore some aspect of an earlier version, please feel free to do so, but integrate it logically into the existing text and be careful to check your edits to avoid recreating old problems. And please bear in mind that in general, improving this overlong article at this stage requires shortening it and making it more readable. AtticusX (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what are the environmental impact on deforestation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.185.209 (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse, by Jared Diamond

I'm sure there are a lot of books about deforestation, or that mention the subject, and none of them are called out, either. However, Collapse is essentially a sequel to Guns, Germs, and Steel which is notable for winning a Pulitzer.

This book details a number of societal collapses, from full scale to something more like a gradual slide that didn't destroy the society in question. Easter Island is considered, along with other Pacific islands, the Anasazi, Maya, Greenland Norse ( none of whom survived ) and many contemporary examples including Haiti vs the Dominican Republic, an unusual take on the 1994 Rwanda genocides, etc.

In all cases, Diamond asserts that the society collapsed because of environmental damage; deforestation is the common thread in every example in his book. Conspicuously absent is a discussion of the Soviet Union, which clearly had nothing to do with deforestation. ( In fairness, Diamond mentions this in the forward to the book ). Generally this is explained by the removal of trees leading to erosion, loss of soil fertility, and an ultimate lack of food to support the society.

This seems noteworthy and relevant enough to be mentioned in this article. The see also section is well filled out, and, more importantly, leads to articles on other concepts or areas of study, related to deforestation. It would be odd to throw a link to an article on a specific book into that list. Perhaps it makes sense to create a new section ... a lot of articles have an "in pop culture" section, generally with a list; I'm not suggesting something tabloid like this, but it could make sense to have something along the lines of "further reading" or the like here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.99.189 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objective definition

Some editors seem to think that the term applies only to man's activities. The term must also include natural processes, such as forest fires. Peterlewis (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of deforestation is caused by human activity and the article and most resources available on deforestation focus on that human activity. If you want "some editors" to be happy with such a fundamental altering of what the concept is really about, you need to do a better job in the opening line of reflecting the balance between how much of it is caused by humans and how much is "natural" - because if I knew nothing about it and read that sentence, I'd think they were roughly equal, or about 60/40. It's not even close. I'm going to revert it back to what it was, as the small amount of natural deforestation is not accurately conveyed with your edit. Its minuscule amount of contribution to deforestation needs to be stressed -clearly- or not mentioned at all in the opening sentence. Kelseypedia (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Kelseypedia -- deforestation is very largely manmade -- giving equal weight to natural and manmade causes is violation of WP:Undue. Basically, as Kelseypedia said, natural causes need to not be mentioned at all in the lead, and to be mentioned with a very clear statement to the effect of "an extremely small portion of deforestation is caused by natural events". That should be all that is mentioned in the article to this effect. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read a dictionary: deforestation is forest destruction. Both natural effects and man can achieve this end. Deforestation as a result of climate change was happening well before man entered the equation. Wiki should be neutral and NPOV. Peterlewis (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Society of American Foresters' dictionary of terminology [[15]] defines deforestation as: "the removal of a forest stand where the land is put to a nonforest use". The two key elements of this definition are "removal" and "nonforest use". Since "use" means by humans, the definition implies that deforestation is a purposeful removal by humans and not by a force of nature. If it were a natural force and the aftermath of the event was allowed to respond naturally, the event would be called "disturbance" followed by "succession", which would ultimately lead to another forest--unless the natural force involved major environmental change such as in climate or geology. As an editor, I would include the link to humans in the article's intro. Pinethicket (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peterlewis -- I don't need to read a dictionary. The fact is, that while deforestation can be caused by natural causes, in the vast majority of cases, it is not. Therefore to not mention this when mentioning natural causes might mislead readers. If we mention natural causes (which, as I said above, I've got no problem with), then we need to do so by attaching a clear statement that these cases are a very small minority of all cases of deforestation, and that the large majority is due to human influence. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deforestation in Vietnam

"War can also be a cause of deforestation, either deliberately such as through the use of Agent Orange[124] during the Vietnam War where, together with bombs and bulldozers, it contributed to the destruction of 44% of the forest cover,[125]"

The passage is linked to a source, but the cited author's figure is way out of sync with everything I've read elsewhere about the causes of deforestation during that period. The Vietnam Environment Administration said in a 2001 report that about 2 million hectares of land was lost to war. Rodolphe de Koninck puts it at 2.2 million hectares and cites M. Collins, saying this amounted to 6.6 percent of total land, 15.6 percent of forest cover in 1943 and 23 percent of forest cover in 1973. The article is called "Deforestation in Vietnam" and can be found at the International Development Research Centre's website at www.idrc.ca (http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/274-0/#page_11).

I suspect that the cited author is attributing the lion's share of forest cover loss to Agent Orange, something that, from everything I've read, is an assumption that has largely been debunked. The Vietnam Environment Administration attributes the loss from 1956 to 1986 primarily to unchecked timber extraction and clear cutting for agricultural expansion in the above-mentioned 2001 report (http://www.nea.gov.vn/html/Baocao_hientrang/VN_SoE/Issues/pressure/forest_pressure.htm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.72.239.221 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Transition Theory

Scientists have developed a globally accepted Forest Transistion Theory: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_transition). This should be in here as well - is very important to understand deforestation in long term run - I am currently not able to edit the page, but I can provide some information regarding deforestation and forest transistion (including a picture): (http://www.forestindustries.eu/content/dont-demonize-deforestation) plus some additional information regarding sustainable forest management, deforestation and REDD: (http://www.forestindustries.eu/reddresources) Haderer (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Deforestation

It is wrong to state deforestation is only true when "naturally grown forests" are chopped. Deforestation stands for any type of land use change from forests to any other land type. Be carefully with the term logging. Logging is a term for cutting down of tress for further use only (commercially or fuelwood for local peolple). Only ~25% of global deforestation is caused by logging reasons. 75% of global deforestation is done because of conversion of forest land to agiculture land (land use change). --Haderer (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #38(UN report on causes of deforestation) returns Page not found Editor731 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

%subj

Editor731 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Deforestation

This section is fairly sparse, and over the next few weeks I will add some information to this page, including the effects of deforestation on specific wildlife, more specifically in the United States, focusing on the Pacific Northwest region. These effects will include habitat loss and fragmentation, niche interruption of specialist species, interruption of the food web, and the relationship between deforestation and global climate change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengirl25 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Table

The Entry for New Zealand in Deforestation hotspot should be New Caledonia, this was an error in the original new srelease since acknowledged. I made the change but was reverted as vandalism. Could someone with proper procedures knowledge make this change to New Caledonia stick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.90.161 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric

Anyone else notice the contradiction of the effect of deforestation of rainforests in this section? Seems rather unclear to me when you say increased emissions from deforestation, and then say it has little effect on oxygen content. If it produces little oxygen, then it absorbs little carbon. So what is the net effect? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-tropical Forest Destruction

I've read some anthro histories and I know european and asian history in the pre-modern and early modern periods pretty well, and what's really missing in this article is an understanding of macro deforestation of forests besides tropical ones. I'm aware tropical are the least able to regenerate once logged but old growth forest in (all of) Europe and the US's Appalachia were huge hits to the biodiversity of the planet and their local ecosystems.

We need info about the destruction of forests the world over, not just tropical. It's my understanding that deforestation has increased manifold over the last several centuries, and while we can regenerate these old growth forests take many centuries to grow, and many areas will never realistically be reclaimed by forest cover.

It's really important to understand the whole problem, not just tropical. We've been stripping the forests for most of our existence, their has to be more data on this than a brief mention of US assassination of German Black Forest.

Jpuglionesi (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 62.88.233.5, 25 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

From the article: "Piracy also contributed to the over harvesting of forests, as in Spain."
I thought the correct word was "overharvesting". 62.88.233.5 (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Current spelling is correct. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Introduction

The intro should give some overall extent of deforestation and primary dangers/damages. This is what I would have added to the intro if not locked.

Deforestation increases at about 130,000 square km per year, accounts for about 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and leads to the disappearance of up to one hundred species a day. REF: New Move to Protect Virgin Forests By Zoltán Dujisin, Inter Press Service May, 2011
99.93.176.203 (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deforestation map

This map has been deleted:

91.182.150.20 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equivocal Quotation

Quotation number 141 states, "Based on these trends, one study projects that global forest will increase by 10%—an area the size of India—by 2050."

The aforementioned quote is not what the source said when you go to the derivation of the quote. The National Geographic article states that, "Ausubel said the trend identified in the study could "stop the styling of a skinhead Earth" and lead to a 10 percent increase in global forest cover—an area the size of India—by 2050." The word "could" completely throws off any veracity that may be given to this quote. We cannot be equivocal about this issue. If someone could find a source that could give the annual amount of acres of deforestation and compare that to the annual amount of reforestation, that would be beneficial. Unfortunately the two page National Geographic article about reforestation does not mention the important issue at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdd07c (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The meat industries

Why is it not clear that a large proportion of rainforest deforestation is due to the growing of soya beans in order to feed cattle (mainly in the western world)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.11.142 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deforestation - Atmospheric impact - Global Warming - Respiration in plants

In the subject of atmospheric impact to do with climate change, plants do not produce oxygen during respiration, in fact they use it up but most importantly they produce carbon dioxide and water in respiration, NOT oxygen.

You are incorrect, of course (assuming you are not just a vandal) and need to read Photosynthesis. Jus da fax 18:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 19 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the bibliography, source 79 lists the following quote as "Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years." The mistake lay in the citing of the source, which lists Leslie Taylor, and the publication "The Healing Power of Rainforests." The correct name of this publication is "The Healing Power of Rainforest Herbs." 117.203.103.179 (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Complete title and other info added. I have some reservations as to whether this book is the best source to verify this particular content. Rivertorch (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is often used as the removing of all trees in the area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.92.67 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. You should help out the good folks at at Wiktionary. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 October 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, in this sentence: Other plants remove carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis and release oxygen back into the atmosphere during normal respiration.

change oxygen to carbon, since during respiration plants release CO2, not oxygen. It is probably just a typo in the original document, since this is a very basic knowledge, for more details read articles about photosynthesis and respiration. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis says: photosynthesis is the opposite of cellular respiration.

thanks, Jan

78.102.77.183 (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome

According to the Portuguese version of this article, Rome's expansion was partly driven by the quest for wood. How true or false is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.6 (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds correct. The document they cite makes the statement. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent terminology

The lede defines deforestation as:

clearance or clearing is the removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is thereafter converted to a non-forest use*

Yet, the article almost immediately begins to describe any removal of trees, without any conversion to non-forest use, as deforestation. Is conversion of the land a requirement for something to be deforestation? Is the meaning of deforestation debated, and used inconsistently in sources? This article should either stick to a consistent definition of deforestation, one that requires land conversion, or state outright that there isn't a consistent definition and that the term is used to describe variable phenomena. Does anyone have any opinions/knowledge on this? Or should I be WP:BOLD and just start changing things.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Is the meaning of deforestation debated, and used inconsistently in sources?" Yes. Furthermore, a) the citation for the seemingly biased, overly-narrow definition given for deforestation is to a timber industry source, and b) this biased definition is now being cited in political discourse such as an election-related Letter to the Editor, "Stewart backs responsible logging," http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/31568844-78/university-eugene-sexual-allegations-woman.html.csp Greenineugene (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements per person

Perhaps we should note how much air is required per person per day ? For air, we need about 7 to 8 trees per person. Calculation follows:

a human breathes in about 9500 kilos of air per year; 23% of this is O², and we only take out 1/3 with every breath, so there is a consumption of 700 kilos of O² per year. A mature tree produces 100 kilo per year, so we need 7 to 8 of these per person.

With this calculation, we can also calculate how much forest we need worldwide btw: 7 trees X 7,2 billion people = 50,2 billion trees needed I'm not sure how much trees there are currently today, and by which rate they are chopped, else we could calculate by which time we will no longer be able to attain sufficient air. KVDP (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1, cite what wikipedia defines as reliable sources, Step 2, First complete Step 1. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trees actually contribute very little to oxygen production, the majority of oxygen is produced by aquatic organisms. Also making calculations on your own is generally considered original research and is frowned upon.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing link, please edit page

Link to the youtube video on this page is missing:

Video on Illegal Deforestation In Paraguay

This is a working link to the same video:

Video on Illegal Deforestation In Paraguay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.0.209.42 (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deforestation. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bmbf.de/en/12484.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global annual deforestation rate

According to the report at http://www.nature.com/news/global-count-reaches-3-trillion-trees-1.18287 , there are 3 000 000 000 000 trees on earth, and 15 000 000 000 trees are cut each year, so I think we can mention in this article that 0,5% of all trees are cut each year ? KVDP (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

references

The links to reference 2,10 and 11 don't work. --T.br273 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Re-Wording

There are a few examples of close paraphrasing, or even plagiarism present in this article. When typing a few of the sentences into the google search bar, the same sentences are found within the articles from which the sentence is cited from, which is probably due to direct copy and pasting from the original articles.

Retrieved from the 'Scribd' Website article on deforestation: "Examples of deforestation include conversion of forestland to farms, ranches, or urban use. Tropical rainforests is where the most concentrated deforestation occurs." "Furthermore, biodiversity after regeneration harvest often mimics that found after natural disturbance, including biodiversity loss after naturally occurring rainforest destruction" : https://www.scribd.com/doc/300266945/Deforestation-docx

From a Weebly page on Deforestation: "In temperate mesic climates, natural regeneration of forest stands often will not occur in the absence of disturbance, whether natural or anthropogenic" : http://saveearths.weebly.com/deforestation.html

From "Earth Dashboard": "Deforestation occurs for multiple reasons: trees are cut down to be used or sold as fuel (sometimes in the form of charcoal) or timber, while cleared land is used as pasture for livestock and plantation. The removal of trees without sufficient reforestation has resulted in damage to habitat, biodiversity loss and aridity." : http://www.earthdash.org/more_info/deforestation.html

The statement below seems to be directly from the AELLA website, along with multiple other sources: "According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, the overwhelming direct cause of deforestation is agriculture. Subsistence farming is responsible for 48% of deforestation; commercial agriculture is responsible for 32% of deforestation; logging is responsible for 14% of deforestation and fuel wood removals make up 5% of deforestation.[12]" : – http://aella.org/2012/06/united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change-source-causes-of-planetary-deforestation/ – https://prezi.com/fnslb2fxc7xw/what-is-deforestation/ – http://www.roveretoest.it/ecologia/causes.html – https://www.scribd.com/document/110206280/Deforestation

Among many, many more. Majority of the sentences that I copied and pasted into google came up with a direct link to an article, with no re-wording. Please consider rewording into own words, not just copying and pasting from various websites.

Under the title: "Substainable practices", the sentence jump from earth day to using bamboo for cleaner burning. I feel as though there should be a sentence in between to make the section run smoother. (also the sentence stating that the bamboo is used for cleaner burner is also plagiarized directly from https://www.scribd.com/doc/307439789/Deforestation-222-docx)

Also, citation 6 seems to have a cite error, consider revising so people viewing are directed to the correct website.

This is overall a good article with good information, but there needs to be a significantly less amount of plagiarism present.

Rharr475 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Deforestation. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Analyses/Why-are-we-seeing-REDD
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.uwec.edu/jolhm/EH2/Rogge/index.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://library.thinkquest.org/11353/trforest.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://rainforestweb.org/Rainforest_Destruction/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111212005601/http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org:80/xp/hotspots/atlantic_forest/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/atlantic_forest/Pages/default.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414053932/http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/california_floristic/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/california_floristic/Pages/default.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.intactforests.org/publications/intactforests_poster_preview.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear Wording

From the first paragraph: "In temperate mesic climates, natural regeneration of forest stands often will not occur in the absence of disturbance, whether natural or anthropogenic."

Natural regeneration will NOT occur in the ABSENCE of disturbance. I.e., disturbance leads to forest regeneration? What does that mean? Or is it a typo? Can anyone with access to the source figure it out?

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8500:4380:8C9E:5CC:2C59:A571 (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Access to the source is rather simple. I think that the expresion of its content may be improved.--Auró (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I think that this paragraph should be deleted, because it is about disturbance and regeneration, a different topic than deforestation. In deforestation there is a permanent removal of a forest. If there are no objections, I will suppress the paragraph.--Auró (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Auró (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add monitoring links

Can these be mentioned on the article here ?:

KVDP (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi Language Prathamesh Sheregar (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Deforestation. 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/20110615044847/http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html to http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628184520/http://www.fao.org/sd/WPdirect/WPan0050.htm to http://www.fao.org/sd/WPdirect/WPan0050.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010411092448/http://wrm.org.uy/deforestation/UNreport.html to http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/UNreport.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/ecosystems/ecosystemsrainforestrev1.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wri.org/map/worlds-forests-restoration-perspective
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160226181045/http://eia-global.org/forests_for_the_world/ to http://www.eia-global.org/forests_for_the_world/

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) 02:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017

This edit request to Deforestation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add an infographic and source that shows the deforestation rates across the US:

http://www.nobledatum.com/portfolio/deforestation-around-the-world/ Andresalaz (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andresalaz:

Not done. An edit request is just that, a request for someone to add an edit on your behalf. It isn't a request for permission to edit. What change do you think this article needs? CityOfSilver 05:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansions of Information

Article is very well researched and references cited. Top 10 most endangered forests lists in the graph is from 2011, input an updated list? Are there any other actions in the world that are contributing to the destruction of forests, climate change, and global warming in the world? Expand on the ending topic of HIV relating to deforestation? Aborkowski45 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Aborkowski45[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

This edit request to Deforestation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "As a result of deforestation, only 6.2 million square kilometres (2.4 million square miles) remain of the original 16 million square kilometres (6 million square miles) of forest that formerly covered the Earth." to "As a result of deforestation, only 6.2 million square kilometres (2.4 million square miles) remain of the original 16 million square kilometres (6 million square miles) of rainforest that formerly covered the Earth. 129.94.8.0 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've also added the word tropical, as per the source. NiciVampireHeart 01:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reforestation in India

1.5 million volunteers in India planted more than 66 million trees in just 12 hours in a record-breaking environmental drive on 3 July 2017. About 1.5 million people were involved in the huge plantation campaign, in which saplings were placed along the Narmada river in the state of Madhya Pradesh throughout Sunday. The campaign was organised by the Madhya Pradesh government, with 24 distracts of the Narmada river basin chosen as planting sites to increase the saplings’ chances of survival. Volunteers planted more than 20 different species of trees. Last year volunteers in Uttar Pradesh state set a world record by planting more than 50 million trees in one day. A reported 800,000 volunteers from Uttar Pradesh worked for 24 hours planting 80 different species of trees along roads, railways, and on public land. The saplings were raised on local nurseries. India committed under the Paris Agreement to increasing its forests by five million hectares before 2030 to combat climate change. The effort is part of the commitment India made at the Paris Climate Conference in December 2015. In the agreement, signed on Earth Day 2016, India agreed to spend $6 billion to reforest 12 percent of its land (bringing total forest cover to 235 million acres by 2030, or about 29 percent of the country's territory). India has experienced substantial loss of its forest cover over the past few centuries, as people cut down trees for firewood, pasture, and to make room for development.

source: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/india-plants-50-million-trees-uttar-pradesh-reforestation/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-plant-66-million-trees-12-hours-environment-campaign-madhya-pradesh-global-warming-climate-a7820416.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrp2019 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section 7, 'Control', 'Reducing Emissions': poorly-written paragraph.

"Control can be made by the companies. In 2018 the biggest palm oil traider, Wilmar, decided to control his suppliers for avoid deforestation. This is an important precedent[163]"

I don't know who wrote this but it needs re-writing. I hope I don't have to explain why. (!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.200.113.62 (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

Someone put 569,600,000‬ acres were lost... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.223.155 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADD TO MILITARY - AGENT ORAGNE, DEFOLIATION in vietnam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.70.198.37 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

As a result some countries simply have too much forest. Developing countries feel that some countries in the developed world, such as the United States of America, cut down their forests centuries ago and benefited greatly from this deforestation and that it is hypocritical to deny developing countries the same opportunities: that the poor shouldn’t have to bear the cost of preservation when the rich created the problem

This is not truth. For example, after India got independence in 1947, by 1990, there was a reduction of around 80% of the forest cover. To say that all this deforestation benefited the poor in India is utter nonsense. It was just looting, by the rich India, much to the detriment of the poor Indians. To complicate this issue with America and Britain is just delinquent intelligence.--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 11:43, 22 February

It seems that this issue is not clearly enough explained in the article, please see the reforestation section which explains that a accurate map of the original vegetation cover can be found at This Greenpeace map thus created, as well as this thematic map from howstuffworks

Can someone please make a open-source copy from these maps and upload them to wiki commons, after which they can be displayed here? The image should be the IntactForests image layered over a pencil line marking the extremities of the howstuffworks vegetation cover map. Note that it is perhaps best to move the intactforest coloring to the howstuffworks map, add the pencil line and delete the howstuffworks coloring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.0.241 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

This edit request to Deforestation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add following reference: ^[3] to the following statement, which is currently missing a citation "Deforestation on lowland plains moves cloud formation and rainfall to higher elevations." MonicaRLeslie (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Die Tropenholz-Mafia – Kriminelle Geschäfte mit dem Regenwald – Telepool, 2008
^ Alternative site for Die Tropenholz-Mafia documentary
^ Ray, Deepak K.; Nair, Udaysankar S.; Lawton, Robert O.; Welch, Ronald M.; Pielke, Roger A. (2006). "Impact of land use on Costa Rican tropical montane cloud forests: Sensitivity of orographic cloud formation to deforestation in the plains". Journal of Geophysical Research. 111 (D2). doi:10.1029/2005JD006096.

@MonicaRLeslie:

Done! GoingBatty (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty in % of global ghg?

This article says "Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions" but Deforestation and global warming says 11% for all not just tropical. Is one wrong or is there really that much uncertainty? We need to write the uncertainty in the estimates I think but where is it? Somewhere in some IPCC report? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mental health

With all the bad news I'm afraid more people will commit suicide more often. Antifa Jesus (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

This edit request to Deforestation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Deforestation is the removal of a forest from land that is then converted to non-forest use.[3] Deforestation can involve conversion of forest land to farms, ranches, or urban use. The most concentrated deforestation occurs in tropical rainforests.[4] About 31% of Earth's land surface is covered by forests.[5] Between 15 million to 18 million hectares of forest, an area the size of Belgium, are destroyed every year, on average 2,400 trees are cut down each minute.[6]

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations defines deforestation as the conversion of forest to other land uses (regardless of whether it is human-induced).

The removal of trees without sufficient reforestation has resulted in habitat damage, biodiversity loss, and aridity. Deforestation causes extinction, changes to climatic conditions, desertification, and displacement of populations, as observed by current conditions and in the past through the fossil record.[9] Deforestation also has adverse impacts on biosequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing negative feedback cycles contributing to global warming. Global warming also puts increased pressure on communities who seek food security by clearing forests for agricultural use and reducing arable land more generally. Deforested regions typically incur significant other environmental effects such as adverse soil erosion and degradation into wasteland. ElsaLiner (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I won't be able to answer the request unless you make it clear what needs to change. Thanks, Sennecaster (What now?) 23:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we including other articles in the synonyms in the first paragraph

Why are we doing this when they are separate, as evidenced by them having different articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaltosKieron (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Top 10 Most Endangered Forests 2011' source is 404 not found

we should find a new source or get rid of the table.

Done Fixed cite with link to Archive.org. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Give views on the deforest?.. Mohmmad Asad (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021 (2)

This edit request to Deforestation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

62.171.196.69 (talk)Forests cover 30% of the earth's land.Higgs

Agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation. Palm oil is a very versatile ingredient and can be found in nearly everything! ... ČĚËěçËằḏẻɧɠ□□◎short description|Conversion of forest to non-forest for human use}}

Satellite image of deforestation in progress in eastern Bolivia. Worldwide, 10% of wilderness areas were lost between 1990 and 2015.^[1]

File:Forestloss.jpg

Tropical deforestation in 1750-2004 (net loss)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Un dizième des terres sauvages ont disparu en deux décennies" (Radio Télévision Suisse) citing Watson, James E.M.; Shanahan, Danielle F.; Di Marco, Moreno; Allan, James; Laurance, William F.; Sanderson, Eric W.; MacKey, Brendan; Venter, Oscar (2016). "Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets". Current Biology. 26 (21): 2929–2934. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049. PMID 27618267.
^ Grantham, H. S.; Duncan, A.; Evans, T. D.; Jones, K. R.; Beyer, H. L.; Schuster, R.; Walston, J.; Ray, J. C.; Robinson, J. G.; Callow, M.; Clements, T.; Costa, H. M.; DeGemmis, A.; Elsen, P. R.; Ervin, J.; Franco, P.; Goldman, E.; Goetz, S.; Hansen, A.; Hofsvang, E.; Jantz, P.; Jupiter, S.; Kang, A.; Langhammer, P.; Laurance, W. F.; Lieberman, S.; Linkie, M.; Malhi, Y.; Maxwell, S.; Mendez, M.; Mittermeier, R.; Murray, N. J.; Possingham, H.; Radachowsky, J.; Saatchi, S.; Samper, C.; Silverman, J.; Shapiro, A.; Strassburg, B.; Stevens, T.; Stokes, E.; Taylor, R.; Tear, T.; Tizard, R.; Venter, O.; Visconti, P.; Wang, S.; Watson, J. E. M. (2020). "Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 5978. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7723057. PMID 33293507.

Land Rights

"Transferring rights over land from public domain to its indigenous inhabitants is argued to be a cost-effective strategy to conserve forests." Who argues this? Should be specific and give the argument instead IMO. --101.98.135.42 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reporting

Peter Baofu's Beyond Natural Resources to Post-Human Resources, which is cited three times, just quotes Wikipedia. (See the discussion over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard for background.) If anyone watching is a subject-matter expert and can replace those citations with non-circular ones, that would be much appreciated. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've snipped the Baofu citations; hopefully they can be replaced with real ones. (The noticeboard discussion is archived now.) XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yearbiol. Peer reviewers: Yearbiol.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Carlosr2359.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ikhan94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15 million hectares is the size of Bangladesh

I have already made my edit, changing belgium to Bangladesh. But I need to bring this up because apparently no one caught this error for at least a year? Or are my calculations somehow wrong?

1 hectare = 0.01 km² 15,000,000 hectares = 150,000 km²

A quick look at the wikipedia pages of the two countries, and... Or am I going crazy?? Jiaminglimjm (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big 2022 study

I currently have only a smartphone at hand, but maybe someone else could use the following study to update the article:

https://news.mongabay.com/2022/08/study-tracks-global-forest-decline-and-expansion-over-six-decades/

BR CarlFromVienna (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of GHG emissions

I removed "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, deforestation, mainly in tropical areas, could account for up to one-third of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.^[1]" The source says deforestation is up to 1/3 of the "the land use change component of the current atmospheric CO2 budget", not up to 1/3 of all anthropogenic emissions. AFOLU emissions are around 23% of all anthropogenic emissions. I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "the current atmospheric CO2 budget" but the source is definitely talking about land use emissions, not total emisisions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis", Section 7.3.3.1.5 Archived 15 March 2011 at the Wayback Machine. p. 527

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Forestloss.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About deforestation

Deforestation or forest clear is removal of forest or stand of trees from that is then convert it to known for deforestation can in work comes conversation of land to farmers renches or urban use the most considerated deforestation in tropical rainforest about 31 of earth land surface is cover by so I would like to say oh don't cut trees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.167.127.66 (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zawraksa (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zawraksa (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lavender4095 (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raizach (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Die Tropenholz-Mafia – Kriminelle Geschäfte mit dem Regenwald – Telepool, 2008

[2] Alternative site for Die Tropenholz-Mafia documentary

[3] Ray, Deepak K.; Nair, Udaysankar S.; Lawton, Robert O.; Welch, Ronald M.; Pielke, Roger A. (2006). "Impact of land use on Costa Rican tropical montane cloud forests: Sensitivity of orographic cloud formation to deforestation in the plains". Journal of Geophysical Research. 111 (D2). doi:10.1029/2005JD006096.

[4] "Un dizième des terres sauvages ont disparu en deux décennies" (Radio Télévision Suisse) citing Watson, James E.M.; Shanahan, Danielle F.; Di Marco, Moreno; Allan, James; Laurance, William F.; Sanderson, Eric W.; MacKey, Brendan; Venter, Oscar (2016). "Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets". Current Biology. 26 (21): 2929–2934. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049. PMID 27618267.

[flii-5] Grantham, H. S.; Duncan, A.; Evans, T. D.; Jones, K. R.; Beyer, H. L.; Schuster, R.; Walston, J.; Ray, J. C.; Robinson, J. G.; Callow, M.; Clements, T.; Costa, H. M.; DeGemmis, A.; Elsen, P. R.; Ervin, J.; Franco, P.; Goldman, E.; Goetz, S.; Hansen, A.; Hofsvang, E.; Jantz, P.; Jupiter, S.; Kang, A.; Langhammer, P.; Laurance, W. F.; Lieberman, S.; Linkie, M.; Malhi, Y.; Maxwell, S.; Mendez, M.; Mittermeier, R.; Murray, N. J.; Possingham, H.; Radachowsky, J.; Saatchi, S.; Samper, C.; Silverman, J.; Shapiro, A.; Strassburg, B.; Stevens, T.; Stokes, E.; Taylor, R.; Tear, T.; Tizard, R.; Venter, O.; Visconti, P.; Wang, S.; Watson, J. E. M. (2020). "Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 5978. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7723057. PMID 33293507.

[IPCC_deforestation-6] IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis", Section 7.3.3.1.5 Archived 15 March 2011 at the Wayback Machine. p. 527

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]