Talk:List of old-growth forests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:List of old growth forests)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Environment (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Forestry (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Protected areas (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Eastern U.S. old growth[edit]

The book I referenced is available on Google Books and still has lots of locations that aren't on the list, for anyone who's curious. There's a dearth of this kind of information online and this is as good a place as any to collect it.

Massachusetts has several recently identified old-growth stands not yet listed, see this page from Harvard University. Miguel.v (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Lots of potential old growth forests in NYS

I found this document - - which lists sites in New York State of primary old growth forests over 40 acres in area (and a partial list of smaller sites) with many areas falling outside the general domain of the Adirondacks and Catskills. They also provide outside references, which I assume are acceptable to wikipedia standards. Should these be added to this page or a separate NYS listing to avoid clutter? Ledflyd (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Updated Massachusetts listing[edit]

I added a table listing all old-growth forests identified by Harvard University as published in the Northeastern Naturalist journal. Coincidentally, this is the same source as identifed by Miguel above. Anyway--can someone with more programming ability than I convert the table so its sortable? --CPAScott (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the initial work. Miguel.v (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for putting information in tables[edit]

I think we should try to get all the information on this page in sortable tables, since it would make it easier to navigate and make the information on it easier to find and understand.

I'm trying to think of column headings to have on the tables that would accommodate both small and large areas. Here are my thoughts:

  • Name: the name of the old growth forest itself, or if it lacks a name, the name of the geographical or administrative area where it's located.
  • Location: the coordinates of the forest, with fewer digits of accuracy for large areas and more digits for small areas.
  • Size: the area of the forest.
  • Forest types: an indication of the types of forests represented, including tree species or habitats.
  • Ecoregion: to show the old growth forest's significance as a landscape free of human influence in a broad ecological context.

Any other ideas for what should be included or excluded in the columns? Miguel.v (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I decided against coordinates, since they can be misleading when the old growth locations are scattered within an area and since they increase list maintenance. If an area merits inclusion on this list, then it merits its own page, and the locations of the old-growth forests within that area should be maintained on the referenced page. Miguel.v (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Acres and hectares[edit]

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 a 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) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. With Template:Convert, the numbers don't sort properly, so I'd been using Template:Nts, which does let them sort properly. But then I couldn't get the automatic conversion. It turns out that Template:Ntsc will do both: convert the numbers and sort them properly, so we should use that. Miguel.v (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Old-growth forests in arboretums[edit]

Hi, this is a great resource, thanks for all the whole work going into it. I was researching the 40 or 50 acre old growth forest at the NY Botanical Garden in the Bronx and found an article about an arboretums that has a small old growth forest of 30 acres and mentions the NY Botanical Garden and the one at Rutgers, here, thought it might be relevant. I'm not so sure about the NYBG one being included here, apparently they manage the forest now and remove dead trees, did a DNA survey, and it is heavily used. Drawn Some (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

New research on European old-growth forests[edit]

A new study has identified over 300,000 hectares (740,000 acres) of old-growth forests in Bulgaria and Romania. I don't have access to the full article, but there's a blog post on it [1].

And here's a cite you can copy and paste if you can get the actual paper:

{{cite journal |author=Veen, P., Fanta, J., Raev, I., Biriş, I., Smidt, J., & Maes, B. |year=2010 |title=Virgin forests in Romania and Bulgaria: results of two national inventory projects and their implications for protection |journal=Biodiversity and Conservation |url= |doi=10.1007/s10531-010-9804-2}}

Veen, P., Fanta, J., Raev, I., Biriş, I., Smidt, J., & Maes, B. (2010). "Virgin forests in Romania and Bulgaria: results of two national inventory projects and their implications for protection". Biodiversity and Conservation. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9804-2. 

Miguel.v (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Unless there's a Wikipedia policy suggesting otherwise, I'd prefer that the citations for old-growth go into the linked articles, rather than on this page. Putting citations in the relevant article lets us go into much more detail (locations, history, vegetation, etc) than we can fit on this page, leaves only one location for updating the citations, and helps keep this page from becoming cluttered with dozens of them. The Ouachita National Forest page is an example.

For the record, all the links with the [citation needed] tag on them do have citations for the old-growth in the linked articles. Maybe we should put a note in the lead saying to look in the linked articles for citations and more details. Miguel.v (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia policy does call for any substantive claims in all articles—including "List of..." articles—to be verifiably sourced per WP:V, a core wiki-policy. Wikipedia itself is not considered an adequate source: see the section Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it in the WP:V policy. The lone exception, where sources are not required, is disambiguation pages. We need not cite every detail about any particular old growth forrest, but if a claim is made about the size, or as to the fact that the XYZ Nature Park contains any old growth forest at all (which is an assertion), then a citation should be provided that will source those two claims about that particular forrest. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Old growth vs virgin forests,[edit]

I would like to point out that old growth and virgin forests are not the same. Virgin forest are those that have never been cut. Old growth are secondary growth that have been cut in the distant past and have regrown. Maybe in a few thousands year old growth will resemble virgin forest, but not in out life time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Amazon Rainforest[edit]

Perhaps I'm missing something really obvious (hence the lack of edit), but isn't the Amazon rainforest a really obvious omission from the (currently empty) South America section? Is there something that means it is technically excluded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The obvious reason is lack of information. As you see, the list is essentially a list of American old-growth forests, likely made by American editors.Krasanen (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So what's the point here anyway?[edit]

looking at what's here, I'm puzzled because there's lots of old-growth forests that aren't provincial parks; and it's not like Clayoqout Sound is all forest (it's a water body, and also a region, much of which isn't old-growth forest even on land). Many parks in BC are old-growth forests, and not all are in parks; actually most parks in BC are old-growth forest, come to think of it. This list to me seems to have too general a title. Maybe "List of protected old-growth forests" would be a better title, otherwise.......well, the little bit of forest behind our old "camp" (village) at Ruskin Dam would qualify.Skookum1 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Request from Ontario[edit]

I have copied the following here from the Help Desk. Maproom (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to have this old growth forest added please if it's of merit since I feel it has been overlooked.

Clear Lake Conservation Reserve was established to protect its provincially significant representation of old growth eastern hemlock upland forests, mature tolerant hardwood forest and a limnological complex 1 . Additionally, it is an established long-term ecological research site with research potential to undertake palaeoecological 2 investigations of a meromictic 3 lake. Today, it is also recognized for its landscape leve l function connecting protected and enhanced management areas. Elements of biodiversit y include: a significant representative pocket of ‘sparse coniferous forest on bedrock’; old growth hemlock, red pine, white pine and hard maple forest communit ies; and structural characteristics of mature/old growth stands. Clear Lake CR also in cludes important headwater areas, suitable habitat for species at risk (SAR), preferred habitat for area sensitive and provincially managed wildlife, and opportunitie s for ecologically sustainable traditional outdoor heritage activities. Its excell ent condition as an undisturbed protected area and relatively remote character prov ide additional support for the above values and intact ecological integrity. Recen t issues around trail development have highlighted the need to maintain ecological in tegrity of the CR.

Many thanks,

David Chambers [REDACTED] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)