Talk:Chaparral

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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): Mjharder2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2004 comments[edit]

moved comment from article

Typical animal life includes --need examples here

The California tree Quercus agrifolia is most commonly called the coast live oak, not the California live oak. The article itself should probably be moved. Is there any reason to rename it "California" here? Willmcw 23:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No offense intended to the photographer of a lovely scene, but the photo captioned as Coastal sage scrub, Los Angeles County is a poor example of coastal sage scrub. The dominant plants visible are black mustard (the yellow flowers) and eucalyptus trees. One is a native of Europe, and the other of Australia: neither is a member of the coastal sage scrub community. The indistinct shrubs in the middle ground probably are though, as are the identifiable Mexican (blue) elderberries (Sambuca Mexicana) in the near background (htough elderberry is not a core of the scrub community). While I appreciate the much-needed additions to the wikipedia, I think that this photograph has been mislabeled and is misleading. -Willmcw 10:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Reference to Chaparral?[edit]

Where does "the use of Chaparral in folk spiritual practice" get written about? What about Chaparral as an herbal medicine? Is that here on this page? And lastly, why is the Army missile first on the page - are all, less common references listed before a lengthy, primary reference?

"Chaparral" encompasses a large variety of plants. Probably the best approach would be to add material about the use of specific plants to the articles on those plants. There are probably one or more herbal medicine articles as well, which might be best for non-specific discussions. Also, the articles on the specific "folk", i.e. Native American tribes, that have the practices. Probably all that needs to be added to this article is a mention that various indigenous peoples made extensive use of chaparral plants for food, medicine, and materials. The missile is two sentences. Usually that stuff goes after, I'm not sure why it's at the top of this page - maybe it's time to put them on a disambiguation page. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we merge this with California chaparral and woodlands?

I think we should. Though "chaparral" is also a biota found elsewhere, its principal association I with California, and at least the California info should be moved over. Care to be bold and do the merge? Cheers, -Willmcw 06:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, upon closer examination, it seems they are not exactly the same. the Cali chaparral and woodlands is apparently a terrestrial ecoregion defined by the WWF, one which encompasses the chaparral as well as some of the coniferous forests in California. it seems that these articles should go together because there is some overlap, but it should be noted that Chaparral is a distinct subset of the CCAW. it seems it deserves its own article tho... so i dunno. Bonus Onus 01:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that research. Even so, the CCAW article could be made into a semi-stub that pushes all of the chaparral-specific info over to this article. Lumping chaparral and woodlands together is not the best way of treating either topic, except for the narrow issue of the WWF's regions. -Willmcw
Bottom line is that, IMO, most of the chaparral info from the CCAW should be moved over here, but both articles should be retained. -Willmcw 23:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
There was nothing to merge. Both articles cover their specific topic properly. False alarm. Apologies. -Willmcw 23:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

unbalanced article[edit]

This article spends about the first 20% talking about the chaparral biome and the rest promoting a position on a controversy. The author may very well be correct regarding the controversy; that isn't the issue. It's just that the chaparral biome is far more than the fire regime, and the article needs to be rebalanced to respect that. Unfortunately, I'm not the one to write it. Paleolith 03:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There's nothing wrong with the fire material but there is a lack of other information to round it out. I've added a couple of headers to delineate the article. It'd be nice to see more about the plants and animals. -Will Beback 07:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, if that ain't the truth. I'll spend some time adding references and shape this into a more balanced contribution. Rick 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A solution may be to break out the info on the fire regime into its own article, and keep just a summary in the Chaparral article. BlankVerse 10:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I suggested a merge because Chaparral is the term that refers pretty exclusively to the shrublands of California, something which is covered in "California chaparral and woodlands". Having two seperate articles is redundant. Valley2city 04:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about the Pinaceae and one about Gymnosperms, and they're not merged just because Pinaceae are exclusively members of the gymnosperms. The articles are not redundant. This was discussed before and decided against because the terms are not the same and are not used the same. KP Botany 18:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. -Will Beback 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. -NoahElhardt 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no chaparral is a term used to define a place with low scrub plants and with a climate rangeing for almost freezing to very hot , near the ocean. there are many of these climate through out the world, one of the larger ones (larger then californias) is the land surrounding the the medditearanion -- unsigned comment by 71.121.173.201 11:36, 2006 November 12
There are different terms for the scrub vegetation of other Mediterranean scrub vegetations, and chaparral should technically only be used for the California Floristic Province vegetation, while matorral/maquis/macchia for other Mediterranean ones, fynbos for South Africa and kwongan for Southwest Australia, according to the Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and shrub article, which needs some serious work in a few places. KP Botany
Aren't we all forgetting here about the Mediterranean chaparral? just for reference "chaparro" is a portuguese word for cork oak and chaparral thus a cork oak grove. since cork oaks are very slow growth trees and cork is harvested only once every nine years, a whole ecosystem develops under the trees, with shrub and wild game (boars) taking advantage of the lowered presence of humans. Galf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.95.181.54 (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
See the article Maquis shrubland for the Mediterranean chapparal, if that is what you mean. KP Botany 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge[edit]

I am studying environmental science on a collegiate level and chaparral is considered a unique biome seperate from CA woodlands and does appear around the world. I stumbled on this article while doing a class project. The article should discuss other chaparral regions in more detail however. I find that wikipedians can be to merge happy and this only slows down the research process. --Ian 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much, in this instance, as the merger request was simply a mistake. I will remove the tags. Thanks for paying attention. Yes, Wikipedians can be merge happy, or so it appears, but in other areas, they are stub happy, creating single sentence articles about everything. It takes time. KP Botany 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of good-faith edit[edit]

24.1.111.44 noted that "Chaparral is one of the most fire-prone plant communities in North America because of thunderstorms." (Addition in bold.) The Great Plains also have thunderstorms, and are less fire-prone, because they don't have a long dry season, which is the real reason why chaparral is fire-prone.

24.1.111.44 also added, "The Chaparral is a coastal biome with hot dry summers and mild, rainy winters. Droughts and fires are very normal during the summertime. The Chaparral area gets about 38 – 100 cm of precipitation a year and has an average temperature of 40ºC." It would be nice to have a reference for this, especially the precipitation and temperature (which is reasonable as a summer high but totally out-of-whack as a yearly average). Certainly the chaparral in the mountains of southern Arizona is not coastal, but, properly referenced, parts of this could be re-added to the top of the article (it seems out-of-place in the section on fire ecology).--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

simo[edit]

mohammed tabti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.233.35 (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of California Chaparral Institute link[edit]

On March 11, 2009 the link to the California Chaparral Institute was deleted. The given rationale for the deletion is here. This rationale is invalid. I started the Chaparral Institute after the 2003 wildfires in Southern California to help correct misconceptions about fire that were being stated in the media - namely that firefighters were at fault for the large fires and that large fires in Shrubland ecosystems were unnatural. One of the Institute's first editorial efforts to correct the record was published in the San Diego Union-Tribune on November 4, 2003. From that point onward the Institute has been directly involved in fire research with Dr. Jon E. Keeley's lab (USGS) and is currently conducting numerous studies on the impact of changing fire regimes on chaparral ecosystems. One of our studies has been completed and will be published in the next issue of the US government publication, Fire Management Today. A selected list of my other publications can be found at the About Us page on the Institute’s website. My work was recently featured in the Los Angeles Times. Regarding my qualifications, I have a Bachelor’s degree from the University of California in Environmental Studies, taught biology for twenty years, and have published a book on chaparral wildfires that has received excellent reviews from both firefighters and fire scientists. The book is now in its second edition. The California Chaparral Institute is a non-profit California corporation that is currently awaiting its tax-exempt classification from the IRS. I am not a "classically trained firefighter" like the individual who requested the deletion said, but rather a scientist who decided to be trained as a USFS wildland firefighter in order to better understand fire and the fire service. If you take a look at the California Chaparral Institute's website you will see that both myself and the Institute are committed to a balanced scientific approach to both fire management and the preservation of Shrubland ecosystems. While the individual who requested the link's deletion clearly disagrees with the Institute, his/her opinions are not supported by the facts. Therefore, I have restored the link. Rick (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per W:BOLD. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rick. Also support having the link. By the way, I enjoyed your talk at the Faulkner Gallery in Santa Barbara some few months ago; now that I know what the Chaparral Institute is about, I do think the link belongs here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of climate deletions[edit]

Removed reference to summer drought. Drought by definition is below average precipitation so cannot be used to describe typical precipitation. Also removed the absurdly high average temperature. If that is a good number for mean summer time high temperature, as I suspect, that should have been indicated. Victor Engel (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for plant species section[edit]

Some plants have two or more common names. I suggest alphabetizing according to binomial name, then listing common names afterwards. When I came to the article to add plants, the lack of such organization made it difficult. It might be good to even organize by alpabetized families, so related plants can be discussed according to their shared family properties. PPdd (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cis and that?[edit]

Cismontane and transmontane chaparral - Either I am confused, or there is a confusion in the literature. Desert chaparral is often discussed under cismtane, since it is so closely related (e.g., in Schoenherr). There is also cismontane chaparral west of the Coastal Ranges, contrasted with chaparral of the western Sierras, on "that" side of the Coastal Ranges. But the article calls the Sierra chaparral cismontane, not transmontane, leaving transmontane to be only desert chaparral. ??? PPdd (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaparral article needs images of both resprouters and the fire follower annuals and their eco-community.[edit]

The Chaparral article needs images of both resprouters and the fire follower annuals and their eco-community. Does anyone have good suggestions that are illustrative of both concepts and apply statewide? PPdd (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force[edit]

WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force

WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force

Would anyone like to join me in starting a WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force? Once there are five names above, we can start our task list. E.g., task 1- photo and upload to wikimedia commons images of all phases of chaparral fire cycle, and all seasonal phases and coloration changes (colors now being researched at the Stanford Department of Plant Biology Carnegie Institute for remote identification of specimens and their species), task 2 - make illustrations of chaparral anatomy and morphology across species which "makes it chaparral".

Sign your name in the quote box above.

I am working with UCSC's Arboretum director (and California Native Plant Society president) on a donation to them of a 10 acre real estate parcel with a approx 3500 foot elevation Sierra Azul maritime chaparral stand on it and surrounding it (his group's specialy), a riparian corridore through it fed by an artesian spring with the closest watershed being Yosimite (and a view of half dome in the far distance from the parcel) and will be going hiking in Griffith Park with Richard Halsey and some Hollywoodsters next time he is in Hollywood, if there are any super-esoteric questions you want me to hit them up on re maritime chaparral, Santa Monica Mountain Chaparral, or San Diego area chaparral, or if you want to join us and add your expertise. PPdd (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal list[edit]

The Cismontane chaparral section only has a list of birds, not other animals. Since it is noted in the animal section of the cismontane chaparral bit that there are many animals living in the biome, perhaps another list of animals should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.2.7 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaparro[edit]

es.wikipedia lists encinillo as the common name of Quercus berberidifolia]], and says of chaparro,

I've changed the text to reflect the broader meaning.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can come up with a reference of how chaparro was applied in North America, any assignment to specific oak species would be original research.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20% of world's biodiversity?[edit]

well, let's see the article on Troical Rain Forest claims 45-75% of the world's biodiversity. That leaves as little as 5% for all other biomes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.2.78 (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaparral. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chaparral&oldid=1194061457"