Talk:Reforestation

  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): Kaori752.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This linked map shows significant reforestation in the US between 1920 and 1992 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg97rpt/chap7.html#fig11 (See figure 11). Please note that earlier maps are for virgin forest only and the 1992 map is not. Tobyw 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

One reason for pre-1900 deforestation was for shipbuilding. Large wooden ships could take over 1M board feet of timber each. Tobyw 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the external links provided here and I think every single one of them is spam, of varying descriptions. The German ones I'm not so sure about but even if they're not they should be on the German Wiki. So I've removed them. The Boy that time forgot 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The links are to websites to "BUY" green trees and other "trendy" green items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.120.191 (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

This short article (stub?) hardly looks neutral at present. Between the lines, it reads "the re-foresters are the good guys - the tree farmers are the bad ones." Any views? If there is support I may be motivated to look up some citations. Dendrotek 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree, the tone does not seem neutral, also "Some environmentalists are fond of calling forest plantations “tree farms” as a term of derision." [1] KAM 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your support. Could you please check your external link - I can't make it work right through, although I can see you are related to Davis College - but I cannot get the pdf.

Cheers, Dendrotek 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It certainly has the marks of a propaganda piece for one point of view.Rvannatta 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

One way we can do to extend the use of reforestation, is that we can save paper, after using the front of the page, and if the back is not used you can use the back. Instead writing a draft on good paper, you can write on newspaper print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.98.234 (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! This almost seems to take the side that reforestation is a good idea. Why don't we make this NPOV and simply describe what it is and who the proponents and opponents are? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

And pleeease! Take out this Carbondioxide-Garbage. It drives me mad to read everywhere about it!--Rimailleur (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Noticable reforestation efforts in history should be described. This includes South Korea, and more recently, Turkey and China. See http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch8_ss2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.178.120 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please add reduced biodiversity as a risk. Most plantations are industrial, offering no tree variation or vegetation besides trees. Also, trees in afforestation projects are often non-endemic, often sparking problems for indiginous vegetation and trees (eg eucalyptus, ... give of root toxins reducing growth neighbouring vegetation). See http://www.envirothonpa.org/documents/VerticalForestStratification.pdf , ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.185.39 (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

In Chili, near the Biobío River, foreign logging and reforestation companies started planting non-indiginous plants as Eucalyptus trees. This has resulted in the lowering of the water table. A local ethnic population called the Mapuche did not appreciate the planting of these non-indiginous trees, aswell as the prevailence of toxic spills from the companies and started burning the tree plantations, aswell as the equipment of the companies. Besides the destruction of equipment, Mapuches and people from the forestry companies were also killed. To this day, the situation remains tense. ^{[1] [2][3][4]}

This page needs to distinguish itself from Restoration Ecology in the sense of preserving biodiversity or include it. I'm proposing the creation of a new section coinciding with sections two and three called, "For Biodiversity Restoration". ConservationKM (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reforestation. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111185724/http://kennethmarendefoundation.com/index.php/reforestation-problem to http://kennethmarendefoundation.com/index.php/reforestation-problem
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613074936/http://treesftf.org/about/history.htm to http://www.treesftf.org/about/history.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mygreenspace.gs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323034720/http://www.effects-of-deforestation.com/reforestation.php to http://www.effects-of-deforestation.com/reforestation.php

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) 13:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The ref for "trees in temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on the atmosphere" seems quite old. As I rarely have update access to Wikipedia could somebody else check out more modern research e.g. https://news.mongabay.com/2018/01/study-reveals-forests-have-yet-another-climate-protection-superpower/ and if necessary amend?

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have now removed the sentence as I could not find a more recent citation to confirm it - but I am not an expert so feel free to revert if you have a more up to date ref.

Chidgk1 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The potential to capture carbon dioxide by planting trees might be around half as big as estimated in the ETH study cited after the sentence "Therefore, an increase in the overall forest cover around the world would tend to mitigate global warming.[9][10]" How can we give more information about the huge potential of tree planting to tackle climate crisis without citing only a study that recieved critics from reputated scientists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicseeds (talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Forests can be created to produce carbon credits. Requires GIS and other tools to find suitable locations though, help on this is appreciated: Carbon credit software tools --Genetics4good (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The sentence, "in terms of environmental services, it is better to avoid deforestation than to allow for deforestion to subsequently reforest, as the former leads to irreversible effects in terms of biodiversity loss and soil degradation" in that paragraph is very similar to the sentence, "In terms of environmental services, it is better to avoid deforestation than to cut down trees and reforest subsequently, as deforestation leads to some irreversible effects in terms of biodiversity loss and soil degradation." in the cited source. Only a few words have been changed around. Thoughts? Zion Maia Parker (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Csperling1 (article contribs).

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I was overlooking the article and thought of a few minor improvements that I was going to make, change, or add. I wanted to voice them on the talk page first, before I make any edits directly to the article itself.

I did notice the article having a few biased POV's mentioning things like "reforestation improves the quality of human life" or mentioning how reforestation is the "best way" to reduce climate change. I will be updating the diction associated with these sentences to make it a more neutral POV.

I also saw a few facts pulled from articles to be out of date, and could be supplemented with modern research to see if the claims are still accurate today. An example of this could be seen in the Costa Rica section where it discusses its goal "to be carbon-free and plastic-free by 2021." This claim also needs a citation to backup what it is discussing, so I will be updating that section as needed with more sources and information about Costa Rica. I also think some of the information posted in this section is irrelevant to the actual article itself and goes off track, so I will edit that as well "example: when it talks about what the president of costa rica thinks about climate change."

In terms of diction there were only two words I myself was unfamiliar with. With that being said, I thought it would beneficial if I add external links to wikipedia pages that discuss these certain methods and or words in depth. The words I would add external links to would be "felling" and "afforestation"

There were a few sentences that need citations so I will also review those and find a source that supports it, or replace it entirely with something that is appropriate for wikipedia because of right now it could be copyright or plagiarized.

Finally, after observing the environmental risk tab and Effects on biodiversity tab, do we feel that more information is needed tying it to reforestation? It seems to be a bit underrepresented in the article so maybe I will add additional articles for the stripping of nutrients in soil caused by too much reforestation, and how that has an effect on biodiversity? Still trying to think of a way where I could talk about this in a NPOV, however, I will draft it in my sandbox.

Also noticed the german citation that another wikipedian was questioning, and reviewed them in english to make sure they were appropriate for wikipedia as I was not sure if someone already did this.

Let me know what you guys think Csperling1 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I also noticed the Financial incentives category to be pout of date so will try and look for up to date sources that I could supplement with the info already present. Csperling1 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 15 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seskaff (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Iisabellasanch.

I wonder whether any of this content is useful here. I cut it from the biosequestration article. The references are quite old though so I am not sure if this is still state of the art:

"The World Rainforest Movement has argued that poor developing countries could be pressured to accept reforestation projects under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism in order to earn foreign exchange simply to pay off the interest on debt to the World Bank.^[1] Tensions also exist over forest management between the sovereignty claims of nations states, arguments about common heritage of mankind and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; the Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) arguing the anti-deforestation programs could merely allow financial benefits to flow to national treasuries, privilege would-be corporate forest degraders who manipulate the system by periodically threatening forests, rather than local communities who conserve them.^[2] The success of such projects will also depend on the accuracy of the baseline data and the number of countries involved. Further, it has been argued that if biosequestration is to play a significant role in mitigating anthropogenic climate change then coordinated policies should set a goal of achieving global forest cover to its extent prior to the industrial revolution in the 1800s.^[3]" EMsmile (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Humphreys, D (2008). "The politics of 'Avoided Deforestation': historical context and contemporary issues". International Forestry Review (Submitted manuscript). 10 (3): 433–42. doi:10.1505/ifor.10.3.433. S2CID 154430556.

EMsmile (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've just asked a question at the WikiPRoject climate change talk page to get some input on how to handle the overlapping content for different forestry articles regarding the role of new trees for climate change mitigation... EMsmile (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion continued here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal EMsmile (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply