Talk:Old-growth forest/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move this article to "Ancient Forest?"

I'm proposing this article move to Ancient forest because it more adequately descibes the ecosystem. "Old-growth" has a management of tree harvest bias. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. "Old growth" is the scientific ecological term, and it has a very specific meaning. "Ancient" only means old. And a forest can be old growth without being ancient -- what defines ancient? A 150-year-old forest can be old growth, but I would tend to define ancient as five hundred years or more. I really think we need to keep this under old growth. jaknouse 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. "Old-growth" does appear to be the most commonly used term. ... and wikipedia is certainly not the place to attempt to change current scientific terms. I don't agree however, with your point regarding "specific" differentiation. The word "ancient" in dictionary meaning is a better umbrella term for what is also commonly referred to as pristine wilderness. "Old-growth" focuses specifically on growth. A forest does much more than grow. I suspect when "old-growth" was commonly accepted as a term, it was not a scientific decision. Yet, this is all beside the point. Again, thank you. - Steve3849 ^talk 13:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that "Old-growth" is the right ecological term for this article and it's used in articles from Canada and US. "Ancient Forest" is a different ecological term used in forestry. At least in North America. Ancient forest is just a really old "old-growth" forest. For example, on the coast of British Columbia old-growth forest considered to be any forest older than 250 years. Ancient forest would be something like 1000 years old. To conclude, "Ancient forest" is a private case of "old-growth forest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.211.145 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 November 2008

Split up the locations and amount of destruction or retitle the section

I propose that the section listing the locations of old growth forests have all of the destruction related information removed or be retitled. This is an article that should present facts, not try to promote a conservation crusade. Jessecurry 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be retitled. Following the links of the reference it does not appear to be peer reviewed. However, a noteworthy claim is made that no government funded studies are being conducted on this matter and there is included a detailed description of how the percentages are determined. Certainly the information, assuming it is factual, is pertinant to the article even if there are crusade overtones. - Steve3849 ^talk 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Change in section title made - Steve3849 ^talk 14:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

pristine old growth? The linked web site says forest in question is "an intact, natural state if it showed no signs of infrastructure, industrial forest harvesting during the last 30-50 years, mining, land clearing" That is not pristine. KAM 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole page looks to be a propaganda piece configured to bash the timber industry.

Agreed. I notice all seven references sited are from organisations known for political activism, five of the seven being Greenpeace. Hardly unbiased, is it? Steve64 00:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Forexample many writers on the topic observe that much of the forest disappearance in Africa and Latin America is associated with roving agriculture pursuant to which natives of the area burn off the land to clear it for agricultural use, or the wood is harvested for fire wood.

Attributing all reductions in forest cover to the darth vader timber industry is not supportable.

Theh classic understanding of 'old growth' in the pacific Northwest has simply been timber that was here before the European settlers were. In more the word has been pushed around for political purposes. When an advocate is trying to make a point that the last old growth on the planet is disappearing, an extremely narrow definition is used. when a political effort is made to attempt to shut down the active management of a tract of land, the definition of old growth expands to include the tract---nomatter what its history is, because there is more political support for not actively managing 'old growth' than there is for other types of forest cover.Rvannatta 04:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Industry" is used only once at the bottom of the article. "Logging" and "clear-cut" are not industry specific terms (ie. native logging). - Steve3849 ^talk 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"percentage of intact rainforest"

This is a very sneaky and misleading collection of figures. This describes how much of the old growth rainforest in the world is located in each continent, not percentage remaining from the original amount.

This discrepancy is obviuos in the oceania figure because most of oceania is Australia which is also mostly desert. These figures may impy that over 90% of Oceania's old growth forests have been removed which is untrue. What they DO mean is that Oceania only contains 7% of the world's remaining old growth rainforest.

I'm going to correct the wording of this paragraph so that it is clear what it means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabberwalkee (talk • contribs) 02:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I feel that this should definitely be clarified more. I also feel that this section of the article (though the whole article falls into this category several times) is not without bias. While it addresses that there are conflicts with logging companies and conservationists, it clearly takes sides several times. While I agree with the side that it takes, I suggest that the article be reworded many times to remove bias whenever possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persecutive (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientific definition of Old-Growth

That Wiki page doesn't present a good scientific definition of what Old-Growth forest is. There is specific scientific definitions that were made in the past 10-20 years. Intact and Frontier forests are totally different things than Old-Growth, although they are connected. Intact forest is a definition concerning landscape features, whereas Old-Growth connected to forest stand dynamics. Maybe you should divide your explanation between what general public thinks about what Old-Growth is and what is strict scientific definition. For now, the public don't really understand what Old-Growth is, since even the scientists didn't understand what it is until recent decade.

Whoever made that Wiki-article, should read articles of J.P. Kimmins - best example: "Old Growth forest: An ancient and stable sylvan equilibrium, or a relatively transitory ecosystem condition that offers people a visual and emotional feast? Answer - it depends?" published in Forest Chronicle 2003, VOL 79, No.3

That article defines what is Old-Growth and deals with most important issues connected to the term.

Old-Growth can't be defined generally and should be defined individually for different bio-climate zones. Interior, boreal Old-Growth forest is totally different from coastal rain forest Old-Growth.

You should also read articles of J. Franklin good example: "Ecological Characteristics of Old Growth Douglas Fir Forests." By Jerry F. Franklin, Kermit Cromack, et al. 1981

open source of his articles: http://faculty.washington.edu/jff/index_files/Publications_2000_to_present.htm

If you allow me, I can change that Wiki page and add more science into it as well as more history. Or just do it by yourself. I gave you enough information sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M gerzon (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Go on, improve it.--Svetovid (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of old growth tree > take a look

Just added one image of a single old growth tree within an old growth forest - image recently added to commons.

Since it fits the context, I posted it for other editors to view and consider. Placed it beneath the existing image. One benefit of this new image, is it truly conveys great age.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image suggestion

I suggest somebody adds to the article an image NOT representing redwoods or giant sequoias. Now, at first sight one can get an idea "old growth" = "giant trees". Lodgepole pine forest in Yellowstone, undisturbed tropical rainforest, northern taiga... whatever! Krasanen (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the image currently at the head of "Definitions" with the man standing in a park is inappropriate for the article because it over emphasizes trees for a forest. The man is not standing in an old growth forest. He is standing between two very old trees in a park. One would never find such a cleared trampled area without well maintained paths designated for massive pedestrian traffic. I wouldn't be surprised if the photographer was standing in a paved parking lot. - Steve3849 ^talk 23:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed two images: one of a single individual Coast Redwood tree + a man, another of two Giant Sequoias + a man + trampled ground. New ones are from Montenegro and Alaska. Krasanen (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition add

I added some scientific definition from forest ecology. Please, let me know if some of the sentences are difficult for understanding. If you can formulate some of the sentences better, please feel free to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.95.167 (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

There is long indroduction text about old-growth before the actual definition of what it is. I suggest to put half of this text later on in the article, because it is not that important. The issues discussed over there can not be understood without the definition. Also, this part of the text gives examples. I think examples should not be written in introduction part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M gerzon (talk • contribs) 09:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Added image & stand dynamics

I added image of stand dynamics stages during succession. That in order to illustrate the definition steps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M gerzon (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The description of "Old-growth" from stand dynamics perspective and particularly the new image do not fit in with the old-growth concept in the sense of this article (primary forest, ancient forest, great age ecc.). To illustrate this, I give a simple example. Because it seems to me M gerzon is located in the Pacific Northwest, the example is located there too. After a clearcut, we have a young forest of Alnus rubra. It reaches the old-growth stage in the age of about 70 years. The alders are now 25 metres (80 feet) tall and there are smaller Tsuga heterophylla trees under the alders. The forest is now old-growth. The alders can not anymore regenerate due to low light conditions and the last one dies in the age of 100 years. The hemlocks could be then 25 metres tall as well. But the forest is not anymore old-growth, although it has not experienced any disturbance. In fact, the forest reaches the next old-growth phase after several centuries. Does this cyclical old-growth concept fit in with your idea of old-growth? The description from stand dynamics perspective can be included in the article but I would place it in the end of the "Definitions" chapter and I would remove the new image because now this secondary definition is stressed too much. Krasanen (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

m_gerzon's reply to the previous argument - Krasenen, that is where you make a mistake. Please cite an article that says that old-growth forest has to be stable. I do not think that you can. Yes, there were articles like that 15 years ago, but most of the north-American authors think now that this concept is wrong. (Refer to authors: Kimmins, Spies, Franklin, Oliver) The point of the stand dynamics definition is that old-growth forest can be changed due to succession and not necessarily due to disturbance. So, your example illustrates perfectly well why you are wrong. Yes, old-growth forest can be replaced by young trees. Let me give you another example from pacific north-west. Imagine you have old-growth forest of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) This is a classical example of old-growth forest. Now, Douglas-fir can not regenerate in shade in the coastal forest. So, eventually all of it will be replaced by younger Hemlocks (Tsuga heterophylla). This is what happens in coastal western forests of Canada. Now, I hope you can see that my example is really similar to yours. Disturbance is not the only process that remove the old-growth forest from the landscape. Another example how old-growth forest disappear due to succession: if you have wet land where the decomposition processes are low, the nutrients will stay in the organic layers and won't be available for trees. Thus the trees won't be able to reproduce and the forest will be replaced by sphagnum bog. Let us look at old-growth forest of Black Spruce (Picea mariana). The organic layers in those forests do not decompose well, because of cold and wet conditions. Eventually the old-growth forest will be replaced by mosses and scares trees. As you see, there was no disturbance, but the old-growth forest is gone. Obviously, it takes long time. Well, in my stand dynamics explanation I never said that any one of the stages is short or long. It all depends on particular climate, disturbance history and plant community. Old-growth forest does not necessarily have to be extremely old. Historically, the first old-growth forests were described in pacific-north-west where the old-growth forests are extremely old. However, since then other old-growth forests were described. The definition that I present includes all the cases. In your case you say that the forest of Red Alder is not stable. So? Who said that old-growth forest has to be stable system? Again, some pacific north-west forests are more stable than others, but this is a tiny part of all forests on the planet. Another thing, please do not confuse definition of old-growth forest with definition of forest that was not disturbed for several centuries. This is not the same. We can have Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) stuck in stagnation for 1000 years. They will be 3 meters tall and very thin. This is not old-growth, but it is really old forest. The book that I cite in the Wikipedia article explains all of those cases. Refer also to "Forest Ecology" by Kimmins. "Old-growth in a new world" by Spies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M gerzon (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC) M gerzon (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Krasenen, another thing - there are definitions of old-growth that are not scientific. There are cultural, economical and environmental movement definitions. This article tries to reflect them all. I specifically wrote - "from stand dynamic perspective". Also, why some terms in Wikipedia should be treated from scientific perspective and others not? You are welcome to put other definitions, please write something like "from cultural perspective, old-growth forest is defined.....". Please, it is not fair that you are saying that what I write does not fit in the sense of this article. I cited my source. I also put explanation on your remarks about forest stability. Yes, the stand dynamics definition does not fit the idea that all old-growth should be ancient. What can I say. Sorry for being truthful. In Wikipedia there is no such thing as "sense of the article". Wikipedia is not newspaper. It is encyclopedia. The only "sense of the article" in Wikipedia is the text that supports the definition logic and that cites a proper source. I am not trying to lough at you. I just think that you are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. And by the way, thank you for your remarks about forest stability. I will put longer explanation with your example and mine.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by M gerzon (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC) M gerzon (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said that old-growth forest has to be stable. It can be changed by succession, of course. But such a situation occurs very rarely that an old-growth forests would be replaced by non-old-grwoth forest (otherwise than due to disturbation), if old growth forest is defined as here, for example. Note e.g. "later stages of stand development", "accumulations of large dead woody material", "at least 180 to 220 years old", "heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground", "Certain features do not appear simultaneously, nor at a fixed time in stand development"...

Your example is actually not very similar to mine: Coast Douglas-fir is longer lived than Western Hemlock, but Red Alder is much shorter lived. Consequently, when the last Douglas-firs die, hemlocks have already reached maturity, and the stand continues to be an old-growth stand also from stand dynamics perspective (Oliver & Larson). But in my example, when the last alders die, hemlocks are far from maturity. According the definitions I referred, such a mature alder forest I described is not old-growth (not a later stage of stand development, not heavy accumulations of wood, not at least 180 years old...). Consequently according those definitions in neither of the two cases cyclical old-growth occurs.

Yes, forest can be replaced by sphagnum bog (although that happens mainly due to decreasing oxygen levels in soil with increasing wetness, not due to nutrient shortage, bogs may be also rich in nutrients), but also in this case, old growth is not cyclical and it is not replaced by non-old-growth forest.

My sentence "sense of the article" was really little bit stupid, here you are right. Of course, it is better to include different definitions. As I wrote the definition from stand dynamics perspective can well be included in the article, but I would place it in the end of the "Definitions" chapter, because it is really not the principal definition. Krasanen (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the definition of old-growth will be divided by three categories: social, ecologically based and economic definitions. Furthermore, ecological definition should be divided into conceptual definition and quantitative analysis. The concept of old-growth is highly debated and is still not finalized even in science. Hence, there are several definitions that are used in different countries and by different groups of people. Those concepts do not necessarily agree with each other. For example, stand dynamic concept of old-growth can lead to the example with Red Alder given above. Most researchers do not see that as a problem, whereas others do not like it. Now, let's think again about the example with Red Alder. First of all, Red Alder stand will not necessarily reach old-growth state before it is replaced by Hemlock. It all depends on the speed of Hemlock growth on concrete site. If the Red Alder trees will reach the stage when they will start dying more often from deceases, then they will increase the amount of snags and logs in the forest. There will be also more canopy gaps where those Red Alders will die. Hence, we will have more light coming to the understory. This forest will look like typical old-growth. Yes, it will be replaced by young Hemlock trees. But again, that does not change the fact that the structure of some Red Alder stands may look like old-growth. The "old-growth look" is due to canopy gap formation from dying trees. All those typical big logs and snags, variety of tree sizes and ages, developed understory, etc. So, yes relatively young forest can create a "look of old-growth" that many researchers consider as a type of old-growth. But again, very important, not all Red Alder stands will reach this "look". Maybe most of them will be replaced by Hemlock before reaching the old-growth stage. Krasanen, have you meant that this will be the case? Red Alder can be replaced by Hemlock during the stem exclusion phase. Just because Hemlocks will grow fast enough. Another thing: definition by age of stands that are used in British Columbia are not proper definition. The ages were estimated by the "old-growth look" of the forest. Which is a subjective decision. The ages are used though, because they give good estimates when to expect old-growth. You also mentioned heavy accumulation of wood. However, some forests have frequent understory fires that do not kill big live trees and hence the logs on the ground will be in decreased numbers. Later stage of development definition excludes several old-growth forests that can be valued. You see, in each region the old-growth looks differently. This is due to climatic differences, different small impact disturbances, landscape, plant community. It is very difficult to generalize. The definitions that were cited do not include all the cases. Nonetheless, it is useful to cite local publicly accepted definitions from governmental sites. I am sure USDA has a definition as well as Canadian agencies.M gerzon (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

One still more extreme example: most willow tree species reach an age of about 50-70 years. So, you are saying that a willow stand 50 years after clearcut may be old-growth. Can you find a reference which considers this kind of stand as a type of old-growth? I haven't read the book by Oliver & Larson, but I am almost sure that their purpose is not to define the term "old-growth", but they only use the word for the last one of their stages.

I suppose Red Alder is very rarely be replaced by Hemlock during the stem exclusion phase - Red Alder is the fastest growing tree of the Pacific Northwest, and in the sites, where it grows poorly, its regeneration is poor too and there is no stem exclusion.

The characters I mentioned (later successional stage, age, wood accumulations etc.) were not my definitions, they were from the site I referred, where various old-growth definitions have been collected from literature. Krasanen (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, here is the reference for stand dynamics definition of old-growth: "Old-growth forest: an ancient and stable sylvan equilibrium, or a relatively transitory ecosystem condition that offers people a visual and emotional feast? Answer - it depends" by J.P.Kimmins. From "The Forestry Chronicle" vol 79, No3, 2003. You can find the article by using Google Scholar. Or use the link: http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/tfc/tfc79429-3.html To read scientific articles you need an authorized access. Do you have account in any university library or scientific organization? Anyways, in the article, read pages 436-437. Kimmins explains in short the Stand Dynamics definition.M gerzon (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, I have read the book again. There is a note that there are Transitional Old-growth and True Old-growth. The case with Red Alder will be a Transitional Old-growth. However, the case with Douglas-fir will be also Transitional Old-growth, if Douglas-fir is not the climax species in the area. The forest with climax species will lead to True Old-growth. Anyways, it sounds semantics to me. Old Douglas-fir forest is considered old-growth by everybody, even if it is not True Old-growth. All this "True" and "Transitional" do not change the fact of the function and visual appearance of the forest. M gerzon (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the example with Willow. Yes, the Willow ages fast. Hence, its dead trees will create gaps in the canopy, they will create snags and dead logs. Due to that you will have more light coming through the canopy and you will have more shrubs and trees regenerating underneath. Hence, you will have this young forest with a characteristic function of old-growth forest. It will be called transitional old-growth. The definition of old-growth by age of the forest is common. However, the definition by age comes from the knowledge that the forest will look like "old-growth" by that time. Hence, age of the forest can be definition for old-growth only in specific area. We can write those times in Wikipedia for each geographical region. However, this won't be absolute definition.M gerzon (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks as though the definition by Oliver & Larson is not used only by them. I also looked at their book with Amazon's Look Inside function, and it seems to me that they really want to make an alternative definition to the old-growth concept. I would still place this definition at the end of the chapter as it differs so much from the more common definitions. Also, I am sure that ordinary people would not call such a willow stand, as I described, old-growth - for example, saw cutted stumps would be still visible very clearly.

The difference between Transitional and True Old-Growth is not semantics. You comment now stand dynamics from a perspective of other definitions (like cultural) ("Old Douglas-fir forest is considered old-growth by everybody"). I would say that from the stand dynamics perspective, it is very essential if dominant tree species will change or not.

Yes, age limit of old-growth forest depends on region, of course. The ages in the site, I referred, were for the Pacific Northwest (thus, with other conditions, excluding e.g. alder forests). Krasanen (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Krasanen, I have thought more about your examples with Red Alder and Willows. The Hemlocks that will grow underneath Red Alder will establish on the site even before the Red Alder canopy will open in Old-growth stage. Just because Red Alder canopy allows enough light to penetrate for Hemlock growth. Hence, when Hemlocks will grow larger they will enter stem exclusion phase of the stand. So, technically the Red Alder stand will not reach old-growth, but will skip into stem exclusion stage where Hemlocks will be the major species. So, we will end up in mixed wood stand in stem exclusion stage and not in old-growth stage. Hence, there is no problem with stand dynamics definition. I just need to make a note in the article that the stand does not have to enter old-growth stage each time the dominant species changes. In case of Douglas-fir and Hemlock the forest will go through old-growth stage before changing the species. Krasanen, does this explanation is good enough to answer your comments on stand dynamics definition? I admit I was a bit confused with my previous explanations, but I think current explanation is more logical. Hence, there is no clash between cultural and ecological definitions after all. Right? M gerzon (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I cannot say surely because I don't know the exact definitions by Oliver & Larson. Actually, when you added the explanation of the 5 stages to the article, I found everything logic. But the image you added later appears quite misleading: There is two times a tall healthy forest called old-growth (without gaps), and then it is suddenly away and there is a forest of saplings. I would say, that happens never. If I have understood the stages correctly, a better sequence would be e.g. (C is the climax species):

1. Young trees of species A. (stand inition + stem exclusion)
2. Mature trees of species A and young trees of species B underneath (stem exclusion)
3. Mixed forest of species A and B (stem exclusion)
4. Mature trees of species B and young trees of species C underneath (stem exclusion)
5. Some mature trees of species B with gaps and medium sized trees of species C underneath (understory reinitiation + transitional old-growth)
6. Mature trees of species C (stem exclusion)
7. Some mature trees of species C with gaps and young trees of species C growing in the gaps (understory reinitiation + true old-growth)

Then I wonder what is "Late seral plant community" at the right edge. Suddenly the forest has disappeared and there are only bushes and grass?

I think the most important thing to add to this subsection is that this definition of old-growth is not only ecological or "scientific" one as you say above. It's only a definition by Oliver & Larson and Kimmins and maybe some others from their perspective. The definitions you put in subsection "Social definitions" are clearly social or cultural ("little disturbance by humans during contemporary historical epochs" etc), but e.g. the definition by US Forest Service is clearly more ecological than social:

"Old-growth forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function." Krasanen (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the image until I fix the problems you mentioned. As for stand dynamics definition, it is widely accepted in north american scientific literature. The new book by Thomas Spies "Old-growth in a new world" mentions it as well. Spies is research scientist from Pacific North-West part of USA. The book was printed just now in 2009. Nonetheless, I will add other ecological definitions. However, all this late stage, big trees, lots of dead wood, etc - it is the direct consequence of the stand dynamics definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M gerzon (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the conditions you mentioned in your last sentence are consistent with the stand dynamics definition if your new interpretation (in your second last message) is correct. However, other definitions are other definitions although result would be the same. There is a good argument to put this in the article too - that a projection of these two definitions is (about) the same selection of stands. Krasanen (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories of definitions

I added categories to old-growth definition, because it has many different definitions around the globe and within different professions and activist groups. M gerzon (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please cite more frequently

Please cite frequently in the definition part of the article. The article is already big enough to have more order in it. Citations should be from reliable sources. M gerzon (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is being vandalized by improper editing. Please keep the article in proper shape

This article is being vandalized by people that want to shout out their ideas. I noticed that people insert their definitions for old-growth wherever they want to. Many editors ignore sections that were provided for definitions (ecological, social, economical). Some editors clearly want to state they idea and they don't care what others already said before. Please don't be that kind of editor. Respect what others said before you and try to fit your ideas in sections or create additional section. But please don't create a section named: "Definition of old-growth", if there is already section with similar name.

Also, I found that someone inserted a paragraph in the beginning of a section, because I guess the person felt it is important to contradict some ideas of the section without even allowing these ideas being first introduced. Please help me to avoid such instances. If someone inserts contradiction to ideas of a section, these ideas should be kept in the end of the section. Otherwise, the general reader gets confused about the topic of the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M gerzon (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Logged Myrtle Tree in Upper Florentine Valley By Still Wild Still Threatened.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Logged Myrtle Tree in Upper Florentine Valley By Still Wild Still Threatened.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The assertion that the tree was 500 years old is not backed up by the site the photo was lifted from and seems very dubious given the size of the tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.249 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

The article looks to be reasonably well-copy edited and the lead seems to sufficiently summarize the points, so I'll remove both tags unless anyone has some specific concerns. Zujua (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)