Jump to content

Talk:Taiga/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

initial comments

moved from taiga page

Relatively few creatures can survive the winters in the tundra, unless they can hibernate, or, like some small mammals, live under the snow.

this article is about taiga, not tundra...was your addition meant for taiga or for toundra ? User:anthere

Taiga and boreal forest aren't quite the same thing. Taiga lies between the boreal forest and the tundra. --Big_Iron 10:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


It's just my opinion, but i think this is an important article and could use to be expanded... i'll add stuff if i get the time, but i don't really know a whole lot about the topic. SECProto 23:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


Devandalizing

I doubt that 'Ms. Lemons' is the second biggest terrestrial biome.--70.72.82.57 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right :) Thanks for catching that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see a bunch of gibberish all over the place in this article – maybe more devandalizing is in order.

Added some stuff

I just added a lot to this. I had done a paper on it a while back, so most of it just got copied and pasted from that, not too much work for me. Probably needs more editing to fit in here better though, but this is definitely improvement from the small article that was here before. Elfgar 03:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Elfgar

The link to the World Wildlife Fund's website points to a nonexsistant page. Whoever edits this article should change the link to reflect this. Kouban 00:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I feel that a photograph of the taiga would be most beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.40.2 (talk • contribs)

Done. SCHZMO ✍ 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fire

While the section on fire and fire suppression is well-documented, it does seem to stray from the subject at hand. Accordingly, I've tagged it for "Off-Topic." The contributor may want to move it to a different topic, or create a new one. Septegram 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The info at Taiga#fire suppression is rather redundant, off-topic as stated, and more fitting at Wildfire#fire suppression. It should be merged there. – P199 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, agreed it should be merged Prospect77 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

i concur that the fire suppression discussion should be moved. i can see how it stems from the primary topic in a way that fails to support the intent of the article as a denotative description of the topic.

merge it or just get rid of it. --Tainter 19:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
agree - it would be great if someone could merge it with the wildfire page. --Nbhatla 20:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Threats

It would be good if the threats to this ecosystem were included on this page. Things like unsustainable forest management, large scale expoitation etc.

This section is a bit disingenuous. Stating that clearcuts of up to 110km^2 have been documented (no citation), in a tone which makes it clear that the author thinks that's a lot (or too much), isn't very encyclopedic. Just for clarification, the Canadian boreal forest is about 3.5 million km^2. A clearcut of 110 km^2 is roughly .003% of the total... FusionKnight (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sustainability is quite contentious. Old Growth forests v plantations - both have different species diversities and recovery times. much info can be seen here

http://www.appropedia.org/Category:Forest_Conflict 27Aug2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in question.

Mentioning companies by name who consume forest products that may come from Boreal forests, is not relevant.

I recommend a more neutral position in this scientific article perhaps mentioning that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.173.221 (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC).


"Boreal Forests (Like all forests) are threatened by excessive logging for newsprint, consumer paper and home lumber products. " This is a neutral position? It is an overstatement. Not ALL Boreal forests are threatened.

Spelling?

I notice places where "Taiga" is slept "Tiaga" – which is correct?

For example, Discovery/BBC's Planet Earth website spells it "tiaga": http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/planet-earth/photo-journey/photo-journey.html An Alaskan elementary school page spells it "tiaga" also: http://www.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/joy/denali/Trumbull/tiagaforest.html This NCSU page spells it "tiaga": http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/extension/pskov2001/regions.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrbradford (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

From your examples, "tiaga" seems to be a common misspelling. Merriam-Webster dictionary which I consulted only gives the "taiga" spelling.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

a eurasian forest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.250.189 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Lore

I have removed the following passage from the article, as it is unsourced:

To the Canadian inhabitants it is believed that a treasure measuring up to $1,000,000 (U.S). It is believed that it was left there by the ancient scourges of the world, the vikings. One viking captain known as Alexander DeDushe is believed to have buried his treasure in the midst of the Taiga and the northwestern edge of Canada. It has been told that after burying his plunder he murdered all that were in his crew so as to keep the precious treasure a secret (very similar to the tactics used by the imfamous pirate Black Beard). Ironically this led to his death because he could not sail a 25 man boat across the ocean. Natives believe that his spirit, to this day, haunts the area in which his treasure is hidden.

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Very strange name for a viking.Colchicum 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe. Well, I assume it's a load of crap anyway, but at the moment have no means to check this thoroughly...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Insects Section

Just wondering if the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) should also be included here. If you've seen the news coming out of British Columbia and Alberta Canada in the past few years this beetle is becoming a serious threat to the boreal forest. Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.73.182 (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Spiritual Ecology of the Boreal Forest

The Spiritual Ecology of the Boreal Forest explores a first hand experience in the northern wilderness, and how it communes with the soul-level of our being. This Earth Vision article can be viewed in its whole version on the site: [1] - or directly on this page: [2] Josefgraf (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)josefgraf

This can't be accurate

The section on fauna says "Due to the climate, carnivorous diets are an inefficient means of obtaining energy; energy is limited, and most energy is lost between trophic levels." There is no source for this. Also, it is illogical, as the colder a climate gets, the lower the diversity of edible plants is. Carnivores actually become more common the farther north you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.203.55 (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

True, that sentence is very dubious. Orcaborealis (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Content migration

It looks like boat loads of content has gone into Boreal forest of Canada instead of here. How do we mangage the relationship between those two articles? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The boreal forest covers Canada, Russia, Alaska and Northern continental US, Finland, Sweden and Norway. Most of the content in the Canadian article is quite specific to Canada, although very good in quality. Thus, we cannot simply migrate anything. We should try to write as good articles on the Eurasian forests, too, and summarize them in this article. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A TEMPERATE DECIDOUS FOREST:TAIGAN PROJECT!

In the taiga plants,and animals adapt,or getsuse to it.It is the coldest biome in the world.You may say.What is the climate like?ANIMALS:snowshoerabbit,arcticfox,and lynx.The lynx is almost extinct.PLANTS:temperatedecidousforest.It is the main part of the taiga.It runs north,and is in many areas on Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.77.220 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is interesting, but it doesn't really further the developmet of this article. In addition, lynx is not "almost extinct". Only the species of Iberian lynx is critically endangered, and it does not dwell in coniferous forests at all. Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and Canadian lynx (Lynx canadiensis) are actually classified as least concern. Arctic fox is also not an animal of the taiga, but belongs to colder climate of tundra. --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Michigan

The text says the Michigan's Upper Peninsula is taiga but the map shows its the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.53.134 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection Section Suggestion

To complement the Threats section, there should be a Protection section that will briefly discuss and/or list the efforts of nations to protect the boreal forests from the threats mentioned. I'll go ahead and make it, please feel free to remove/discuss this change. Anyone who can help expand that section would be useful, I will when I have more time.Nnoell (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another climate definition of taiga, and problematic issues in article

The climate of the taiga is also described as having a mean annual temperature range from -5 Celsius to 3 C and less than 1,000 mm average annual precipitation, as seen here. This might be included in the climate section of the article.Orcaborealis (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article by WWF describing the Eastern forest - boreal transition (NA0406) ecoregion, a part of the Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forests. Mean annuan temperature varies from 1.5 Celsius in the north, where boreal species dominate, to 3.5 C in the south where broadleaf deciduous forests dominate, as seen here. Orcaborealis (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that taiga corresponds to Dfc and Dfb climate. In most sources I have checked, the forests in Dfb climate is considered temperate - either temperate broadleaf and mixed, temperate broadleaf or temperate coniferous. A Dfb climate has at least four months with summer (24-hr average at least 10 C, often considerably more), here is a source describing the taiga: Botany Wisc. Another source, WWF decribing a Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest in Russia: Western Siberian Hemiboreal Forests with 100 - 120 frost-free days, and thus probably at the Dfc/Dfb intersection. Most areas with Dfb - climate will have longer frost-free season, I have seen sources giving Montreal a frost-free season of 155 days. WWF seems to have excluded the Dfb climate from the taiga definition. The article also claims that average temperatures are below freezing for at least 6 months. This is not true for areas with a Dfb climate, as these areas have average temperatures below freezing for 2 - 5 months. Montreal climate 4 months below freezing, Moscow climate 5 months freezing, Oslo climate 4 months freezing. The article is inconsistent. Either we remove the Dfb climate from the article, or the section about climate will have to be rewritten. If we keep Dfb climate as taiga, article will be at odds with most sources. Orcaborealis (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Why does the article say that the correct name is the taiga? Why is this more correct than boreal forest? I would say both are correct, but explain the Canadian use of the names. Here is a very good scientific article: The boreal forest and global change. A noteworthy sentence: The boreal forests stores more carbon than the temperate forests and the tropical forests combined, with source stated. Much of it stored in peatland. Protection of the boreal forest is thus very significant in relation to the rising atmospheric CO2 level.Orcaborealis (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In need of a style / content edit

"The implications of proving of this theory have far reaching implications." It made me laugh, but also made me think that the article should be combed over, if anyone has the time to do so! 203.217.150.69 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, that sentence is strange, so I removed it from article. Orcaborealis (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency re: Scotland

The article currently opens with the following sentences (emphasis added): "Taiga (pronounced /ˈtaɪɡə/, Russian: тайга́; from Turkic[1] or Mongolian), also known as the boreal forest, is a biome characterized by coniferous forests. Covering most of inland Canada, Alaska, Sweden, Finland, inland Norway, some parts of the Scottish Highlands and Russia (especially Siberia), as well as parts of the extreme northern continental United States (northern Minnesota, Michigan's Upper Peninsula, northern Wisconsin, Upstate New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine), northern Kazakhstan, northern Mongolia, and northern Japan (Hokkaidō), the taiga is the world's largest terrestrial biome."

Yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrestrial_ecoregions_(WWF) lists no taiga ecoregions within the United Kingdom. Since the Scottish Highlands are part of Scotland, which is in turn part of the United Kingdom, this is inconsistent.

It's unclear to me whether the mistake is on the part of:

  • the WWF committee that drew up the WWF's list of ecoregions (i.e. Scotland does feature at least one taiga ecoregion, but the WWF failed to list it/them);
  • the Wikipedian who included the phrase "some parts of the Scottish Highlands" in the opening paragraph of the article (i.e. Scotland does not, in fact, feature any taiga ecoregions); or

zazpot (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Scotland should be removed. Why? Because the boreal forest of Scotland is a mountain forest, and no part of the lowland of Scotland is cold enough/with such a short summer season (24-hr average at least 10 C lasting less than 120 days) to qualify as boreal. There are many mountain areas with coniferous forest, such as the Rocky mountains, the Alps, etc, but these are not listed in the article. Orcaborealis (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto my query above, but this time re: the phrase, "and northern Japan (Hokkaidō)". Also, if you and I both agree the reference to the Scottish Highlands should be removed, do we need any further consensus, or should one of us just go ahead and remove it? Presumably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_Taiga.png would need to be edited too, since it shows areas of Scotland (and Japan, for that matter) as containing Taiga. Thanks for your help. zazpot (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


Ahh but let us go back in time, we find that the sea level is lower and climatic zones are all joined up. Then ice sheets melt and the island of albion is created. The once joined up bit of scotland is now seperated by water from the other bits. Yet the biology is similar. Once it was the same and the successor (in time) is now called boreal. SO DOES THIS MAKE that forest "mountain forest" somehow different? Or is it a remnant boreal forest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Building a road thru tundra/taiga

Has any country succeeded? I know in some - the roads are hard to use during summer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.1.137 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Kopaonik (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of roads in the taiga, and even some relatively large cities. Remember a large area in Northwestern Russia, Finland and Scandinavia does not have permafrost, and there are also areas in the boreal forest in Canada with no permafrost. However, tundra without permafrost is very rare.Orcaborealis (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation problem

In the paragraph ending with the sentence "In Ontario, active fire suppression activities began sometime in the late 1910's, but these suppression activities are generally thought to be minimal compared with post 1950 when fire suppression began in earnest and technological advances made fire fighting much more effective (OMNR 2002, Thompson 2000).", you cite Thompson, 2000.

There is, however, no citation in your references for this author.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.49.8 (talk • contribs)


The following information in the "Threats: Human activities" section has problems:

The main forestry practice in the boreal forest of Canada is clearcutting, which involves cutting down most of the trees in a given area, then replanting the forest as a monocrop (one species of tree) the following season. Industry officials claim that this process emulates the natural effects of a forest fire, which they claim clearcutting suppresses, protecting infrastructure, communities and roads. However, from an ecological perspective, this is a falsehood, for several reasons, including: a) Removing most of the trees in a given area is usually done using large machines which disrupt the soil greatly, and the dramatic diminution of ground cover permits large-scale erosion and avalanches, which further damage the habitat and sometimes endangers infrastructure, roads, and communities. b) Clearcutting removes most of the biomass from an area, and the various macro and micro-nutrients it contains. This sudden decrease in nutrients in an area contrasts with a forest fire, which returns most of the nutrients to the soil. c) Forest fires leave standing snags, and leave patches of unburned trees. This helps preserve structure and micro-habitats within the area, whereas clearcutting destroys most of these habitats. In the past, clearcuts upwards of 110 km² have been recorded in the Canadian boreal forest. However, today 80% of clearcuts are less than 260 hectares(2.6 square km). Some of the products from logged boreal forests include toilet paper, copy paper, newsprint, and lumber. More than 90% of boreal forest products from Canada are exported for consumption and processing in the United States. However with the recession and fewer US homes being built, that has changed.

This entry starts by pitting the opinion of unnamed "industry officials" against the opposite opinion stated as fact with no citations and followed by statistics with no references cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFineMess (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have tagged the section.--Npmurf (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

I find it odd that not one project has rated this as B class! Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Time for a reassessment. Orcaborealis (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Baring sea land bridge"

I feel that we should move to rename this and similar glaciological features, as the title implies small stature and a tenuous structure. In fact the connection was massive and was usable for maybe 20000 years at a time. This one must have risen to around 80 metres above sea level and had a width measured in tens of kilometres. Was the Southern coast subject to warmer sea currents rising through the Pacific and, consequently, fairly encouraging for the transfer of species in either direction between the continents? I imagine so. As my phrasing implies I am far from research fellow in this subject although I'm confident in that which I've writ. However I'd encourage those that can to legitimise these comments with some hallowed references! 86.129.116.118 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

Instead of / as well as the map presently being used, wouldn't it make more sense to use a map with the North Pole as its central point? The current one makes it look like the green areas are discrete forested areas with large gaps between, rather than one continuous strip running around the top of the globe ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Should this article's basename be "Taiga", or "Boreal Forest"?

If Taiga and Boreal Forest are essentially synonyms, the basename should be the English phrase Boreal Forest on the English wikipedia, because, in principle, we don't use foreign synonyms when there is a perfectly adequate English synonym. If Taiga are a subset of Boreal Forest this article should say so, and Boreal Forest should not redirect to Taiga, as it has since 2003! Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Consider renaming to Taiga and boreal forests as its Category: Taiga and boreal forests is named. It is the biome name. — Look2See1 t a l k → 01:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the logic. "Taiga" is an English word (of Russian/Turkic origin), and "boreal" is an English word (of Latin origin). Why would we suddenly consider one to be "foreign" and the other not? It's not like we are using an obscure transliteration of a Russian word where a perfectly good translation is available—both terms have been established in English for quite some while.
Incidentally, I don't mind renaming the article per Look2See1's suggestions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 7, 2015; 18:45 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2015

The text says that the Taiga is the largest terrestrial biome in the world [citation needed]. I would suggest adding that citation with the following link so as to provide accurate information. www.blueplanetbiomes.org/taiga.htm Sixoften1 (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I simply deleted the [citation needed] because the fact was repeated in the first body paragraph and already had a citation there. Altamel (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2015

  1. project

50.86.17.202 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Natural Disturbance section

I've been bothered by the incorrect format of the citations in the Natural Disturbance section, so today I converted all of them to wiki format. 

well deal with it \o/  tyga is a rapper.
                   1
                  /\  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.212.180.10 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Taiga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Taiga. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2018

Please change "...inland Canada, Alaska, parts of the northern continental United States." to "...inland Canada, Alaska and parts of the northern continental United States." as 'and' should be used after the second last item on a list, not a comma. Mountkosiosko (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done. I included "and", which was definitely needed, but I kept the MOS:OXFORD comma. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

The second sentences of the page says: The taiga is the world's largest biome apart from the oceans.[citation needed]

However the first sentence of the "Climate and geography" section says: Taiga is the world's second-largest land biome, after deserts and xeric shrublands, covering 17×106 km2 (6.6×106 sq mi) or 11.5% of the land area of the Earth.[4]


Taiga can't be the second-largest land biome AND the largest apart from oceans. The sentence in the first paragraph needs updated to say that it is second-largest land biome. 130.18.172.151 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Plain English

The sentence ending “Hokkaido” is 55 words long. It is followed by a strangely constructed sentence which starts with an irrelevant “however”. I have done too few edits to correct. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Why the fuuck is it called Jack London lake in Russia for the picture of the lake 124.168.224.6 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Largest terrestrial biome?

In the introduction, Taiga is said to be "the world's largest biome apart from the oceans", while in 'Climate and Geography' it is said to be "the world's second-largest land biome, after deserts and xeric shrublands". I don't know enough about the subject to know which is correct (or if they are somehow both correct), but this seems rather confusing and contradictory. Could someone with relevant knowledge please edit the article to clarify? Thanks.

Wotb (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Often in scientific literature it is mentioned that boreal forest is the largest biome. I am a forest researcher, and I have been tracking down an actual source for this information without results for a couple of hours now. Even FAO Global Forest Resources Assessments (http://www.fao.org/forestry/58718/en/) do not give a straight answer. Maybe the year 2000 report (FAO Forestry Paper 140), unfortunately I cannot access it.

2. The reference (https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/forests.php#boreal) should not be used at all, it is very dubious. "Current extensive logging in boreal forests may soon cause their disappearance." is one example. It also mentions latitudes of 50-60 that is very different of the 50-70 mentioned in Wikipedia text. Large fraction of boreal forest is larch forest, and larch is not even mentioned there, etc.

Pannu (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I immediately found what I wanted although it is not a direct answer to this question: Total forest area is 4000Mha, of which boreal/polar forest is 1224Mha, 684Mha temperate, 320Mha sub-tropical and 1770Mha is tropical. Tropical is larger than boreal, but it is possible that tropical forest consists of many biomes. In either way, the term "largest terrestrial biome" is not actually very useful because it depends on the definition. "Boreal forest cover around 30% of the area of global forests" is more useful phrase in my opinion. Reference (Table 1 from) Keenan, R. J., Reams, G. A., Achard, F., de Freitas, J. V., Grainger, A., and Lindquist, E.: Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015, Forest Ecol Manag, 352, 9-20, 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.014, 2015. or Global Forest Resources assessment 2015 (FAO 2016, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4793e.pdf)

This internet source seems OK. https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/boreal-zone

Pannu (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the "largest" bit about the deserts. Unfortunately the biome article is a mess. The concept of biome is evolving, and the article is inconclusive and doesn't even have a list of biome by area. One problem is that the tropical forest biome has been clearcut to almost nothing, while the taiga is more intact. The tropical "biome" started out bigger in area, but it is no longer there. Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Terminology

The article refers to Scandinavia and Finland separately, and in one section even mentions only Scandinavia and Western Russia while excluding Finland. In my opinion, the northern European areas currently referred to as Scandinavia, Finland and/or western Russia should be referred to as Fennoscandia, which is a more geographically appropriate term to use instead of the previously mentioned terms.

Roope00 (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, the Soviet Union gobbled up part of Finland in the 40s, and Eastern Finland is geographically more like Western Russia than, say, Norway. The boundaries are more geo-political than geographic, and are pretty fluid over time. The whole thing was Sweden for a long while. Whatever.

Fennoscandia will only confuse people. I will try and go through and standardize the terms. This kind of thing happens often in Wikipedia when people assemble quotes from different articles. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Tailings

I have also asked this question on the talk page for Tailings article. This article has 4 references to tailings. Some are mentioned as the residue of Oil Sands removal but for some it's not so clear. How long have there been tailings in the Taiga, and are there kinds of tailings that result from natural processes such as you would find in parts of the Arctic that have never been industrially exploited? The Tailings article reads as if they are always from human actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:FD8B:E263:28BE:E031 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Tailings are human detritus from industrial extraction/mining, whether for minerals or tar sands. Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

English Language or Russian? Taiga or Boreal Forest.

There seems to be an conflict stemming from the use of the imported Russian word Taiga, which renders up in a lovely poetic way in English, and the "boreal forest" which is very dry and scientific. I'm all in favour of the article being "Taiga".

Taiga is a great name. Boreal forest is a great description.

I will, however, standardize the use of "The Taiga", which seems to be from translations, to "Taiga", which is how we usually use names in English. The word "the" is often redundant. Or shall we say "The is often redundant", lol. Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Fire / Natural Disturbance

The para on "Natural Disturbance" should be edited down into the fire section. "Threats" is about external threats. Fire is part of the ecosystem. I would do this now but I'm tired, and also afraid of the restricted editing, which is caused by edit warring, perhaps over the ecological implications of human activity in the Taiga. The section is nonsensical, however. tx Billyshiverstick (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

(Rowe 1955) should be removed for formatting reasons. 2001:1970:5114:4C00:446A:50B9:D44A:ACD5 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

In the Flora section there is an image titled "Jack pine cones and morels after fire in a boreal forest." Those aren't Jack pine cones. They appear to be Douglas fir, but I can't be sure at that resolution. The image metadata doesn't appear to mention the cones, so perhaps we should simply remove the reference to the tree species.

Change to something like "Conifer cones and morels after a fire in a boreal forest". Clawmaster2135 (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Tóking

Tók 46.135.4.12 (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiga/Archive_1&oldid=1214151563"