On the assumption that a wood is bigger than a grove and that a forest is bigger than a wood, how big does it have to be to be a forest? I know Winnie the Pooh had a 100-acre wood. Would 101 acres be a forest?
On the assumption that a wood is bigger than a grove and that a forest is bigger than a wood, how big does it have to be to be a forest? I know Winnie the Pooh had a 100-acre wood. Would 101 acres be a forest?
The difference is not in the area size but about it's density: https://www.reconnectwithnature.org/news-events/the-buzz/what-the-difference-woods-vs-forest. By the way, either must be 1.24 acres to qualify.
Definitions differ with locale as to the size necessary for a grouping of trees to be classified as a forest.
I searched on "a wood versus a forest". According to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization both must have trees over 16 feet tall and can cover an area as small as 1.24 acres. For a forest, the canopies must cover fat least 10% of the area. For a wood, the coverage needs to be between 5 and 10%.
Sure, set a standard that is impossible to check against without areal or satellite photography.
It would be easier if the set a standard based on number of trees per acre.
It would be easier if the set a standard based on number of trees per acre
Think again and compare a redwood forest with a Scotch pine forest. The number of trees per acre will be higher in the Scotch pine forest, while the amount of wood per acre is most likely lower.
I cede the canopy coverage is stupid, if you compare conifer forests with broad-leaved tree forests.
BTW, using satellite photography is cost effective when classifying huge wooded areas, it can be done automatically with a computer program. For any other method I can think of you need people on-site and not all forests are easily accessible.
HM.
BTW, using satellite photography is cost effective when classifying huge wooded areas, it can be done automatically with a computer program.
It's cost effective if you have access to the imagery and the right computer software.
For a Hiker on the ground wondering "Is this a forest or woods?" it's completely useless.
Edited to Add: Oh and if you have the software and the imagery, with a little extra information on the types of trees in the area, it should be possible to count the individual trees.
Think again and compare a redwood forest with a Scotch pine forest. The number of trees per acre will be higher in the Scotch pine forest, while the amount of wood per acre is most likely lower.
And that difference would matter to anyone other than a logging/timber products company why?
Sure, set a standard that is impossible to check against without areal or satellite photography.
Setting the difference between a wood and a forest based on canopy coverage is stupid to me.
However, when we come down to it, who but a scientist really cares if a wooded area is a wood or a forest? Scientist would have access to satellites.
If I were to define the difference, I would base the difference on the wooded area's size.
who but a scientist really cares if a wooded area is a wood or a forest?
For those who didn't read the article, this is from it:
By all these standards, a forest is more substantial than a wood, but it's doubtful anyone would call you out on it if you use the terms interchangeably, as many of us do. We even do it at the Forest Preserve. All our preserves with woods in the name — Hammel Woods, McKinley Woods and Messenger Woods, to name just a few — meet all of the above definitions of a forest.
That's a strange definition.
Less than half a mile from where I live there's an ancient woodland. It's more than 1.24 acres - several square miles in fact, the trees are mostly well over 16 feet tall, and I'd estimate the canopy coverage to be North of 50% because it's very gloomy underneath. But there's no way in hell any of the locals would ever call it a forest.
AJ
In Star Trek Enterprise, Admiral Forrest didn't have much of a canopy covering his head ;-)
Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear.
Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair.
Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he?
I don't believe there is a universally agreed upon definition of a forest. It's probably easier to define a wood.
Ursula K. Le Guin wrote a dead-tree novella on this subject.
The Word for World is Forest (= WWF)
Das Wort für Welt ist Wald (= WWW) [German title]
I like Alan Dean Foster's Midworld and Mid-Flinx (Pip and Flinx meet Midworld!)
HM.
But what is the difference between a forest and a forum? Both are full of some sort of growths. A forest may be nicer to visit than a forum.
When I was a kid back in the 60's the woods were near home and the forest far away. Don't remember differentiating between them by size as the "woods" near our place was all around us for many square miles... :)
In Britain a Forest was/is protected crown land. Taking game or cutting wood without permission could be punished by blinding or mutilation. The areas protected can include marsh, fen, pasture, heath and woodland.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_forest#Forest_law
In the greater Anglosphere National Parks, State Parks and State Forests are the modern equivalent.
From https://www.reconnectwithnature.org/news-events/the-buzz/what-the-difference-woods-vs-forest
The U.S. National Vegetation Classification system (yep, that's a thing that exists) further defines forests and woods based on the density of trees, according to Sciencing. In a forest, 60% to 100% of the land is covered by tree canopy, while only 25% to 60% of a wood is covered by tree canopy.
The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization defines the terms as well. According to that agency, a forest must be at least 1.24 acres. Trees in a forest must be at least 16 feet tall, and the tree canopy must cover at least 10 percent of the land. Other wooded land must similarly be at least 1.24 acres with trees at least 16 feet tall, but the tree canopy isn't as substantial, covering only 5 percent to 10 percent of the land.
In a forest, 60% to 100% of the land is covered by tree canopy, while only 25% to 60% of a wood is covered by tree canopy
I'm wondering how they classify tree plantations as are most forests and woods in central Europe.
If a really large consecutive woodland has more and less dense parts due to differences in soil and humidity, do they split this woodland into forest and wood parts?
HM.
If a really large consecutive woodland has more and less dense parts due to differences in soil and humidity, do they split this woodland into forest and wood parts?
That would explain Sher Wood Forest ;-)
AJ
The U.S. National Vegetation Classification system (yep, that's a thing that exists) further defines forests and woods based on the density of trees, according to Sciencing. In a forest, 60% to 100% of the land is covered by tree canopy, while only 25% to 60% of a wood is covered by tree canopy.
Canopy cover is not really a measure of the density of trees. Different species of trees will produce a different size of canopy at similar trunk sizes.
However it is a good guide to what you'll find growing at ground level. The wooded area near me has very poor ground level flora because of the tree canopy. Since they're mainly deciduous trees, the undergrowth has to do its thing in the short gaps between Autumn and Winter, and Winter and Spring.
AJ
be a forest
It depends upon how fast he runs.
Run, Forest, Run! :)
Thank you, I'll show myself out now.