- 1 Definition of temperate rainforest
- 2 Mohawk Trail State Forest
- 3 List of old growth forests
- 4 Thank you for the work
- 5 Thank you
- 6 Ecoregions
- 7 Ecoregion map requests
- 8 Southwest Amazon moist forests
- 9 Brazilian Ecoregions
- 10 Move Ecology of California to Ecoregions of California?
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for January 4
- 12 Disambiguation link notification for February 1
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for February 8
- 14 AFT5 re-enabled
- 15 A barnstar for you!
- 16 Book writter
Definition of temperate rainforest
Hi, Miguel.v! You write in the Edit summary of your recent edit to Temperate rainforest regarding Iran rain forests: "I'm not convinced it's truly a rainforest though". How to define "truly temperate rainforest", that is a question I have tried to solve without finding a perfect answer, and therefore I decided to write you. In the Temperate rainforest site it is poorly defined, that is clear: 1. High precipitation, 2. Vicinity to the ocean; 2. is not more than one cause of 1., and so the high annual precipitation would be the only argument. However, I think the annual precipitation alone is not a sufficient criteria: for example, in the Mediterranean region there are areas with very high annual precipitation but the precipitation comes almost exclusively during the winter, and summers are so dry and hot that "rainforest" sounds comic, (and in addition most of forests have been destroyed millennia ago). There are also perhaps hundreds or thousands of mountain tops around the world where the annual precipitation locally exceeds 2000 mm. On the other hand, in Tasmania, for example, the best developed "rainforests" are situated in areas where the annual precipitation is only 1600-2000mm/y but fairly evenly distributed around the year (Tarkine), and the areas in the southwestern Tas receiving more than 2000 mm/y are (due to very poor soils) covered mostly vegetation types which are NOT classified as "rainforests": wet sclerophyll forests and moorland (Reid et al 2005: Vegetation of Tasmania).
The basic problem is that "temperate rainforest" (unlike "tropical rainforest") has never been well defined GLOBALLY. There are only local definitions, which do not fit to another continents. For example, australian definitions say that "rainforest" is composed mainly of trees which regenerate under shade or in natural gaps in the canopy rather than following fire (Floyd 1990: Australian Rainforests in NSW, Vol. 1). That definition would exclude great many Pacific Northwest "rainforests" because the Pseudotsuga menziesii requires in "rainforests" large scale disturbance (like fire) for regeneration (Franklin&Dyrness: Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington). In mainland Australia even some sites receiving only 600 mm/y are classified as "dry rainforest" (Floyd 1990). American definitions may say, for example, that "rainforests" are composed primarily of conifers (Kirk 2001: The Olympic Rain Forest). That would exclude the majority of "rainforests" in another continents, although the conifer dominance is largely caused by the dry summers of western North America (Franklin&Dyrness); if summers were rainier, the areas would probably be covered of broadleaf forests. As the most users of the en.wikipedia.org are probably american and familiar with american definitions, we can read from Talk:Temperate rainforest comments like that rainforests outside western N America are actually not rainforests at all but only moist/wet forests.
If the annual precipitation was the only criteria, the most forests in northern Iran would not be rainforests: precipitation reaches 2000 mm/y in the southwestern corner of Caspian Sea but decreases towards the east: in the middle coast it is 1200-1400 mm/y and in the southeastern corner only 600-800 mm/y (an iranian specialist, pers. comm.).
- Hi and thanks for your reply! I know (and I think there are) only local definitions of temperate rainforest, and these definitions differ markedly from each others. I read the Temperate rainforest article through again, and now I think the most important addition would be just that: It should be mentioned that "temperate rainforest" is quite a loose or indefinite concept, and definitions of "temperate rainforest" differ from country to country. With examples, of course. And you are right: sufficient moisture and temperate climate are the most important factors, as they appear already in the name. (And of course, that the area is covered by forest.) Other factors could be mentioned in regional chapters; for example, sufficient soil fertility is important in Australia but is probably not a limiting factor in Pacific Northwest. Krasanen (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think the amount of epiphytes (including mosses and lichens) on trees could be the best indicator for "true rainforest class" moisture. Sufficient amount of rainfall is very difficult to define globally, because there are so many influencing factors: distribution of rainfall, temperature, fog, topography... But the epiphytes indicate directly there is no drought periodes as they cannot take moisture from soil. The large amount of epiphytes belongs also to many rainforest definitions. Krasanen (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the list of old growth trees in this article per wp:not. The material is interesting; I suggest that you create List of old growth trees in Mohawk Trail State Forest, plug in your list there, and link to your list with an italicized See List of old growth trees in Mohawk Trail State Forest within the article Mohawk Trail State Forest. That would be the proper way to go about it. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Miguel... I must first apologize if this is not the appropriate place for this discussion, as I am relatively new to editing wiki. First, thanks for catching the unit error in the edited NH entry. However, I agree with you that something could be done with the units? While the 'acre' unit is common for NA, I can't say I hear 'ha' too often - is there a neat way to include both, or perhaps also square kilometers? In any event I hope to add what I can to this already outstanding list, and perhaps create a page for the added NH entry (I've been collecting information and photos in preparation) Tevonic (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Miguel! Also I think both acres and hectares (or square kilometres) should be included in the list. Now as the US areas are only in acres, it is difficult for non-US readers to understand, how big or small are the US areas. Probably many think acre~hectare, which leads to an overestimation. The units in the metric system are easy to calculate (100 ha = 1 km2), but it is more complicated between acres and hectares.Krasanen (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
An another thing: you removed Yellowstone from the list. If I understand correctly, you did not find a reference that says it is old growth. This site says: "The vast natural forest of Yellowstone National Park":
Of forest area, this site says: "The park is 80% forested":
- I think the burned areas in Yellowstone could be included in old growth area. Lodgepole pines have regenerated very well in the burned areas, and although they are not "old", the areas are in a natural state and "virgin". In the Old growth forest article "virgin forest" is considered a synonym of "old growth forest". Every truly natural old growth forest (excluding very wet rainforests) includes also burned areas. You have done a great work with the list! Krasanen (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the work
I just want to say thanks for all the work you just did to the Calif. national forest articles!!! Good job, good ref. The Angeles NF article needs critical care, as in prose, content, etc. (although I think the tag-"this article needs xxxxx" has been removed, thank God-horrible things.) Anyway, thanks again! Marcia Wright (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you much for the use of the Leavitt Peak photo. That was really speedy, and your uploading it yourself was fabulous. On Flickr, I've come to assume that folks probably aren't familiar with how wikipedia works. You sure made the process easy, and the photo looks great. Again, many thanks! Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I entered a category for the photo of "California Mountains" under Commons. Trust this is okay.MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ecoregion map requests
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Southwest Amazon moist forests, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/nt/nt0166_full.html.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Miguel. We had an edit conflict at the AfD for Ecology of California. What do you think of my proposal of moving Ecology of California to Ecoregions of California? Would you like to work on improving the article with me? —hike395 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Hike395. Sure, I'd be willing to help. I'm not sure about the title Ecoregions of California, though. I like to think of ecoregions as a means of describing the natural environment of place, rather than an end in themselves. Let me know what you decide. Miguel.v (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that ecoregions are not an end to themselves! I just want to describe the ecosystems of California, because it is an amazingly interesting place (from an ecological point of view). I am open to other titles.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern California coastal forests (WWF ecoregion), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Castle Rock State Park and Manchester State Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southern coastal plain oak dome and hammock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southern coastal plain hydric hammock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey Miguel.v :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|For your flora-related articles :). Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)|
Hello. I'm a Spanish user, and a few years ago I bought the book of 1000 wonders of nature. At the end of the book, I saw: Wipedia, and there were some names, and then, I saw your name. Do you have any relationship with this book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAVMAVGER (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)