4 ms·
What would you class as "natural" forests? I doubt theres a forest in Europe that hasn't been touched by man. Venice would have been very selective about the
by benj111 8y ago
What would you class as "natural" forests?
I doubt theres a forest in Europe that hasn't been touched by man.
Venice would have been very selective about the wood it would have cut for ships etc, you can't just cut any old wood. It needs to be knot free, be straight, or have just the right curvature. They weren't clear felling vast swathes, then replanting. I'm not even sure the was conscious planting at all.
- detaro 8y agoThe UN has a definition for "Intact Forest Landscapes". Little of those are left in Europe, the majority in Russia and Scandinavia. Western/Central Europe has only tiny slivers of any.
- benj111 8y agoI'm confused by your point. "Intact Forest Landscapes" seems to exclude any human made forest. So are you against all human planting of forests?
- detaro 8y agoI was providing data for your > I doubt theres a forest in Europe that hasn't been touched by man.
- benj111 8y agoSorry, I thought you were providing your definition of natural forest
- cf141q5325 8y agoThere is some but its extremely rare. In Germany you for example have the Hambacher Forst, where parts are as old as 700 years. Its scale is however lacking https://www.dw.com/image/45302299_401.png https://www.dw.com/image/45302299_401.png Generally you have "untouched" as in oldgrowth/primary forest and not being a secondary forest, which takes a few hundred years.
- pygy_ 8y agoArtificial forests are bound to be less resilient than wild ones. The lack of biodiversity is a major concern, since we often take shortcuts by planting cuttings, which are genetic clones, or by using an initial pool that isn't sufficiently diverse. An artificial forest is better than no forest, off course, but wild, ancient forests are more precious, since they are living DNA libraries.
- cf141q5325 8y agoAnother common term is old-growth/primary forest