Talk:Big Woods

Ecology Low‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Minnesota Mid‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps, showing the Big Woods region as a part of Minnesota and Wisconsin, be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Minnesota may be able to help!

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

"Closed forest" savanna

From what I am reading, most papers discuss the open (canopy) savanna, or the closed (canopy) forest, in reference to the trees in both types of regions, but the two regions are usually exclusive of one a other and contain different species. In other words, the two words closed forest and savanna contradict one another. This could be a possible misreading of the material, perhaps the region is a closed forest and savanna area, or perhaps there was a "closed forest savanna boundary", but these are the only ways I can find these used.

The source that seems most relevant and related to the particular area under discussion is not accessible online. A clarification, quote, and/or correction would be useful. Thanks

Also, just found the article Upper Midwest forest-savanna transition. Could this be what is being discussed?

Peacedance (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that the paragraph is talking about a savannah -> forest succession caused/allowed by the removal of fire and bison. Whether it's well-supported by evidence is also a separate question, though it doesn't seem implausible on the face of it. ~ 2601:441:4400:1740:F175:F068:A9F2:9B56 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]