5 ms·

you can also say the Saharan desert played a major role on turning what Amazon is... now, wow, calling it a grassland before humans 10,000 years ago is to smok

by luqtas 1y ago

you can also say the Saharan desert played a major role on turning what Amazon is... now, wow, calling it a grassland before humans 10,000 years ago is to smoke too much pot before reading/making papers. 5,000,000 AD then yes, maybe... /s but Terra Preta and other indigenous interferences is not even 10% of Amazon territory. various other animals are responsible for spreading diversity be it by shitting seed or just moking stuff around to make nests or impress some partner. the rainforest are also there because mountains changing courses of rivers. [0] "Geology and geodiversity of the Amazon: Three billion years of history" https://www.theamazonwewant.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Chapter-1-Bound-May-9.pdf https://www.theamazonwewant.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/C... [1] the grassland hypothesis (somewhere in the text) and other curiosities about its biodiversity https://www.science.org/content/article/feature-how-amazon-became-crucible-life https://www.science.org/content/article/feature-how-amazon-b...

culi 1y ago
This is common knowledge. Even the Wikipedia page states: > There is evidence that there have been significant changes in the Amazon rainforest vegetation over the last 21,000 years through the last glacial maximum (LGM) and subsequent deglaciation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest Also, there's this: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/10-800-years-ago-early-humans-planted-forest-islands-in-amazonias-grasslands https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/10-800-years-a...
- luqtas 1y ago
  the Wiki citation doesn't even have a source, nor is calling that indigenous people made it your last link is about Llanos de Moxos, which isn't in Amazon. you don't seen to understand even basic geography... even if Llanos was 100% man-made (and isn't) and it was part of the Amazon (and not a region that borders it) it would be the equivalent of 2.6% of the whole Amazon area. concluding such a thing because 3% of an area that benefited (soil quality wise) from billions of years of geologic events and was partly modified by humans is ignorant but again, Llanos isn't even Amazon it was common knowledge among middle age that Earth was flat. doesn't seem an argument to me
  - Jensson 1y ago
    There were elephants there that humans hunted to extinction, elephants typically keep forests down and create grasslands. So it seems likely it happened, and that humans was the cause (by killing the elephants). Edit: So it is likely that the change happened and had nothing to do with the soil change.
    - zeristor 1y ago
      Depends, there’s elephants in the Congo forest, they’re just not too easy to see. The trees grow faster than the elephants can wreck them. But in areas with less rain fall elephants keep the grasslands more open. As did Mammoths in the northern forests.
  - culi 1y ago
    I never said Amazonian grasslands was manmade. Reread your own comment to understand the context The Wikipedia source was to back up the claim that Amazonia was largely grasslands about 10-20k years ago. That is what is common knowledge.
  - southernplaces7 1y ago
    >it was common knowledge among middle age that Earth was flat. doesn't seem an argument to me And you don't seem to know basic history, casting doubt on other things you say. Nobody serious in the middle ages (or since much further back than that either) thought seriously that the Earth was flat.
    - luqtas 1y ago
      actually i meant "geocentrism" but it was too late to edit but you are right, middle age didn't thought Earth was flat now if you are defending this absurd commentary that Amazonia was a grassland 10,000 years ago and turned out to be what's because humans, i think you both are on the level of flat earth 21° century people
      - southernplaces7 1y ago

by luqtas 1y ago

culi 1y ago

This is common knowledge. Even the Wikipedia page states: > There is evidence that there have been significant changes in the Amazon rainforest vegetation over the last 21,000 years through the last glacial maximum (LGM) and subsequent deglaciation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest Also, there's this: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/10-800-years-ago-early-humans-planted-forest-islands-in-amazonias-grasslands https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/10-800-years-a...

luqtas 1y ago
the Wiki citation doesn't even have a source, nor is calling that indigenous people made it your last link is about Llanos de Moxos, which isn't in Amazon. you don't seen to understand even basic geography... even if Llanos was 100% man-made (and isn't) and it was part of the Amazon (and not a region that borders it) it would be the equivalent of 2.6% of the whole Amazon area. concluding such a thing because 3% of an area that benefited (soil quality wise) from billions of years of geologic events and was partly modified by humans is ignorant but again, Llanos isn't even Amazon it was common knowledge among middle age that Earth was flat. doesn't seem an argument to me
- Jensson 1y ago
  There were elephants there that humans hunted to extinction, elephants typically keep forests down and create grasslands. So it seems likely it happened, and that humans was the cause (by killing the elephants). Edit: So it is likely that the change happened and had nothing to do with the soil change.
  - zeristor 1y ago
    Depends, there’s elephants in the Congo forest, they’re just not too easy to see. The trees grow faster than the elephants can wreck them. But in areas with less rain fall elephants keep the grasslands more open. As did Mammoths in the northern forests.
- culi 1y ago
  I never said Amazonian grasslands was manmade. Reread your own comment to understand the context The Wikipedia source was to back up the claim that Amazonia was largely grasslands about 10-20k years ago. That is what is common knowledge.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  >it was common knowledge among middle age that Earth was flat. doesn't seem an argument to me And you don't seem to know basic history, casting doubt on other things you say. Nobody serious in the middle ages (or since much further back than that either) thought seriously that the Earth was flat.
  - luqtas 1y ago
    actually i meant "geocentrism" but it was too late to edit but you are right, middle age didn't thought Earth was flat now if you are defending this absurd commentary that Amazonia was a grassland 10,000 years ago and turned out to be what's because humans, i think you both are on the level of flat earth 21° century people
    - southernplaces7 1y ago