If the Amazon rainforest is quite possibly by and large a man-made phenomenon, might not the same be said for the Central American, Congolese, and Indonesian tropical rainforests elsewhere along the equatorial belt? And how about the temperate rainforests in such locations as the Pacific Northwest and Chilean Patagonia?
You may well be correct about Central American rainforests. The first Europeans to arrive in the Americas inadvertantly introduced diseases to which the indigenous population had no resistance leading to a massive population crash and millions of acres of cultivated land becoming forest. The same is highly unlikely to be true for other tropical forests whose inhabitants hadn’t been totally isolated from the rest of humanity for millennia and hence would of developed some resistance to “European” diseases. Therefore there’s unlikely to of been a mass die of and subsequent expansion of the forest. However the indigenous people in the Congo and Indonesia would of undoubtedly had some effect on the forest e.g. by encouraging edible/medicinal plants to flourish by selectively removing seedlings from less useful species.
Nope. We Archeologists & Anthropologists have not found large concentrations of City’s in the other areas. It is possible that the Brazilian forest was perfect for human habitation 12-25000 yrs ago. First Man, Mongolians who came across the Bering Land Sea Bridge about 20-25000 yrs ago. They went South till they settle in a Warm lad and settle and Prospered building great civilizations. The upper North American part was cold & snowy so warm and FERTILE LANDS was there for the taking.
Enjoy. Mike
The idea that humans created “the Amazon” rain forest doesn’t hold up when the agricultural practices there are examined in detail. I am citing the work of anthropologist Cecil E Cook Jr who lived with the Nambiquara in the years of “first contact” for five years. He made several relevant points that come to a different conclusion from the proposal above.
Terra preta soils exist in patches, not fields in the North American sense. They exist where the soil is already productive for a variety of reasons.
The farming system was slash and burn agriculture well into the modern era. This involves cutting down vegetation and leaving it for a while to dry, then burning it to release the ash minerals. This process creates a lot of char at the ground surface. Over time soil accumulates and it is riddled with char, ash and various tough bits of vegetation.
This newly cleared area, a patch really, is used for one season. After that the patch is left to regenerate for several years (5-7). Any soil treated in this manner becomes terra preta.
The soils of a tropical rain forest are poor. Nearly all the nutrients are above the ground in biomass. To grow anything farmers have to release what is in the greenery.
Char in the soil is not itself fertilizer. It is host material for bacteria and toxins. Esp metals. Terra preta is more productive than the surrounding lesser patches because it was already a better location, and on condition that it is re-fertilized periodically.
As for the “lungs of the world”, tropical forests are balanced in terms of oxygen. They do not produce an excess rather balanced consumption via biomass rotting. They are net producers of methane. There is a large cloud of methane hanging over all tropical forests.
Oxygen surplus arises from ocean biomass productivity which is FAR larger in area than forests.
Whatever were the efforts and processes of early human agriculture, they likely had some thousands of years to work at enhancing the soils for increased food production and targeted plant cultivilation.
If this was the case, working some area for a short period then moving on to others, while periodically returning to previous areas, I can see how significant amount of acreage would eventually be affected and improved.
These rotating plots might quite logicall have been located adjacent to one another, eventually growing into large clumps of who knows how much area.
So yes, I can easily speculate – and again, over a long period of time – that quite a large area of the rainforest could have been thusly enhanced.
Unlock with Patreon
If the Amazon rainforest is quite possibly by and large a man-made phenomenon, might not the same be said for the Central American, Congolese, and Indonesian tropical rainforests elsewhere along the equatorial belt? And how about the temperate rainforests in such locations as the Pacific Northwest and Chilean Patagonia?
You may well be correct about Central American rainforests. The first Europeans to arrive in the Americas inadvertantly introduced diseases to which the indigenous population had no resistance leading to a massive population crash and millions of acres of cultivated land becoming forest. The same is highly unlikely to be true for other tropical forests whose inhabitants hadn’t been totally isolated from the rest of humanity for millennia and hence would of developed some resistance to “European” diseases. Therefore there’s unlikely to of been a mass die of and subsequent expansion of the forest. However the indigenous people in the Congo and Indonesia would of undoubtedly had some effect on the forest e.g. by encouraging edible/medicinal plants to flourish by selectively removing seedlings from less useful species.
Nope. We Archeologists & Anthropologists have not found large concentrations of City’s in the other areas. It is possible that the Brazilian forest was perfect for human habitation 12-25000 yrs ago. First Man, Mongolians who came across the Bering Land Sea Bridge about 20-25000 yrs ago. They went South till they settle in a Warm lad and settle and Prospered building great civilizations. The upper North American part was cold & snowy so warm and FERTILE LANDS was there for the taking.
Enjoy. Mike
Yosef
The idea that humans created “the Amazon” rain forest doesn’t hold up when the agricultural practices there are examined in detail. I am citing the work of anthropologist Cecil E Cook Jr who lived with the Nambiquara in the years of “first contact” for five years. He made several relevant points that come to a different conclusion from the proposal above.
Terra preta soils exist in patches, not fields in the North American sense. They exist where the soil is already productive for a variety of reasons.
The farming system was slash and burn agriculture well into the modern era. This involves cutting down vegetation and leaving it for a while to dry, then burning it to release the ash minerals. This process creates a lot of char at the ground surface. Over time soil accumulates and it is riddled with char, ash and various tough bits of vegetation.
This newly cleared area, a patch really, is used for one season. After that the patch is left to regenerate for several years (5-7). Any soil treated in this manner becomes terra preta.
The soils of a tropical rain forest are poor. Nearly all the nutrients are above the ground in biomass. To grow anything farmers have to release what is in the greenery.
Char in the soil is not itself fertilizer. It is host material for bacteria and toxins. Esp metals. Terra preta is more productive than the surrounding lesser patches because it was already a better location, and on condition that it is re-fertilized periodically.
As for the “lungs of the world”, tropical forests are balanced in terms of oxygen. They do not produce an excess rather balanced consumption via biomass rotting. They are net producers of methane. There is a large cloud of methane hanging over all tropical forests.
Oxygen surplus arises from ocean biomass productivity which is FAR larger in area than forests.
Whatever were the efforts and processes of early human agriculture, they likely had some thousands of years to work at enhancing the soils for increased food production and targeted plant cultivilation.
If this was the case, working some area for a short period then moving on to others, while periodically returning to previous areas, I can see how significant amount of acreage would eventually be affected and improved.
These rotating plots might quite logicall have been located adjacent to one another, eventually growing into large clumps of who knows how much area.
So yes, I can easily speculate – and again, over a long period of time – that quite a large area of the rainforest could have been thusly enhanced.