# Talk:Woody plant encroachment

I think this article should be at Bush encroachment with sections on Namibia and South Africa dealt with as sections. It is related to phenomenon in the veldt and is not a political one although there may be differences in how it is handled in the two different countries (is it?). Shyamal (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The title certainly has overtones of politics. The term "encroachment" is clearly negative (even pejorative), and while Google Scholar does reveal technical usage of the term, that does not guarantee its appropriateness or even correctness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Shyamal, Sekundemal, Calidumpluviam: Further to the "Article title" thread, WPE implies that woody plants are somehow straying where they do not belong into pristine, virgin grassland which must be the right and proper thing for the landscape. Says who? The ecological succession in many ecozones is from bare ground to grass to mixed herbs and woody plants to forest, whether or not one subscribes to the idea of a climatic climax community. Worse, the WPE seems to overlap heavily with, if not to form an actual but loaded synonym of, secondary succession. There, woody plants (re-)invade a grassland created or maintained by human intervention, often by regular burning. Yet, the article doesn't even mention or link secondary succession, so we may well have a WP:CFORK here; if we don't, the article must at least discuss the relationship of the two concepts and separate them carefully, citing multiple reliable (review, not primary research) sources. This article is detailed and richly-cited, and looks as if it is carefully-written, but it seems to use many primary sources, and the elephant in the room is not even mentioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Woody plant encroachment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this really thorough review, which I find helpful and relevant in all points. As the one that recommended the article for GA, I will work through all proposed changes with time. This will probably take several weeks and I will revert back with detailed feedback on the affected changes once done. Once again, many thanks, your review is very inspiring.
~~~ Sekundemal (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


### Comments
This is a very thoroughly researched and well-written article and it is certainly close to GA status.

However, as I've commented on the article's talk page, the topic appears to be a regional form of ecological succession, more specifically it seems in many cases of a secondary succession. I think the article cannot qualify as good until a section is added to set "woody plant encroachment" in context with plant ecology in general and secondary succession in particular. It may be that it is no more than a regional type of secondary succession, in which case the article needs to say so; or it may be that it is sometimes such a succession and sometimes something else, in which case that overlap needs to be explained and cited.
Done. Section on definition and etymology added, now comparing woody plant encroachment to the concepts of secondary succession, regime shifts and land degradation. I will keep refining this section, which is difficult due to a lack of specific sources for such a disambiguation/definition. Sekundemal (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The term "encroachment" in plain English carries the meaning of invading undesirably, of wrongly straying into (someone else's) space, i.e. the term has a pejorative connotation. Since we are required to be neutral on Wikipedia, the use of such a term needs to be supported by a short section, which could be called "Etymology" or "History of the concept"; a little of this is already in "Definition" and a little more in "Causes", but I think it would be clearer with a definite section for the topic. Probably a brief discussion with quotations from Staples, West, and Walter would clarify the matter.
I see your point. At the same time, encroachment is defined as "the act of slowly covering more and more of an area" (Oxford Dictionary). With this meaning, the term is less pejorative than "invasion" and does not necessarily refer to an intrusion into someone else's territory. I have spelled this out in the section Definition and Etymology. It's a common mistake in some literature to use encroachment and invasion as synonymous. Sekundemal (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The article gives commendable detail on carbon sequestration and climate change. This needs to be reflected in the lead section with at least a sentence or two.
Done. 2-3 sentences added at the end of the lead section. Sekundemal (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The article goes into considerable detail in section 8 on the affected ecoregions. If this is to remain in this article, it needs to be reflected and summarized in a paragraph of the lead section. A good case could be made for splitting it out to a List of ecoregions affected by woody plant encroachment as it does little to further the discussion of the main topic, though it illustrates the human response to it.
All species names need to be in italics. See e.g. the Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and all the South African savanna subsections.
"invasive species Prosopis" should be "invasive genus Prosopis" (2 issues).
"shrub encroachment is mainly limited by the than reduced competition from the herbaceous layer" - apart from the stray word, is this not the wrong way around, i.e. encroachment is mainly limited by competition from the herbaceous layer, and encouraged by its removal, as in overgrazing?
Yes. Corrected and now reads "Overgrazing plays an especially strong role in mesic grasslands, where bushes can expand easily when gaining a competitive advantage over grasses, while woody encroachment is less predictable in xeric shrublands." Sekundemal (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Some items in the (rather too long) "See also" list are already linked in the article and should be removed, e.g. Biodiversity, Biodiversity loss, Land degradation (I expect there are others). Others probably should be incorporated in the article text and linked. The list should then be trimmed; it is meant to contain items which an alert reader might suppose to be something to do with the topic but do not directly concern it. That does not seem to apply to many of the items on the list. I suggest you check each item both for whether it's already in the article (so delete) and for whether it should be there (so add to article, delete from list).
On reference style, there is no consistency – at least six styles are in use. The majority of the papers seem to use Doe, John A.; some use Doe, J. A.; a few use Doe, J.A.; some such as #56 and #85 use John A. Doe; a few use either Doe J A or Doe JA; ref #185 uses J Doe. Ref #304 contains the baffling "H.," and ref #184 contains only the unparseable "T., Conant, Richard". At least the lack-of-punctuation problem needs to be fixed, i.e. please expand Doe JA to Doe, J. A. and preferably to Doe, John A. if the forename can be found. To be clear, it doesn't matter which style you use but please choose one.
Done. I have corrected all references as far as possible, using Doe, John A. Sekundemal (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
One other thing - I see that an editor has removed one ref as it was to a preprint, i.e. not yet peer-reviewed, so not a reliable source. Actually, even when reviewed, it, like the great mass of papers here, will be primary, i.e. not a review article that examines, compares, and evaluates the primary literature. Of all the sources here, none are obviously "reliable secondary sources", though perhaps ref #2, Eldridge et al 2011, comes close. Some justification (here) for the exclusive use of primary sources is I think required.
As far as I can judge, this bias towards primary sources is not intentional. There are only few secondary sources on the topic, with only a few researchers having attempted synthesis reports, e.g. Archer, Eldridge, Stevens. Secondary sources will be added as they become available. Sekundemal (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sekundemal, I see you've made several changes to the article. Could you indicate here on this talk page which comments you have addressed, so that I can check and strike them? Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks,Chiswick Chap. I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia protocols and processes yet, your guidance is of much help. So far I have worked on bullet points 4, 5, 6 and 8. So you have crossed out the right ones, and can do so also for bullet 5 (species in italics). The remaining edits will follow, I expect to have the necessary time closer to (and after) Christmas. Bullet points 1-2 will require a bit of research/time. Many thanks ~~~~ Sekundemal (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine. Struck that one. You can reply directly under each item when you've addressed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, I have now worked on all items, see the comments above. Your comments on the ecological definition and etymology remain important and I will refine the respective section with time (also as scientific evidence advances). Do let me know if you find the added section(s) still too weak. Many thanks. Sekundemal (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that's fine. The article is to my eyes clearly up to the required standard, and while I agree with your last remarks, that simply gives room for further improvement beyond GA, which this article now is. Good work! If you have the time, please look at the list of GA nominations and pick one or two to review. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Erikdactyl, thanks for reviewing the lead section of this article. Allow me to provide some feedback as one of the main editors of the article. The article went through a GA review process and as part of that process teh lead section was significantly expanded. On purpose the lead section does not have references, because all content and claims are reflected in detail in other sections. This is in line with guidelines, such as the one linked below. Do you think we must introduce some key  referenes from the aticle body or can the lead section reamain without? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#References_in_the_lead? Calidumpluviam (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Calidumpluviam My apologies, I hadn't noticed any other articles written without references in the lead section and thought not having references made verifying claims difficult, with the possibility of unverified claims being included in the lead. I now see this isn't the case with this article, I mistakenly didn't check the talk page before editing. Thank you for the detailed reply. I personally prefer references in the lead, but I understand why they aren't included in this article. Erikdactyl (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Erikdactyl I think you have a point and I have now added 4 key references/sources to the lead section. It makes a much better impression this way and also elevates the most important references. Many thanks for your feedback. I have removed the "unreferenced section" tag and look forward to similary contstructive feedback in the future. Calidumpluviam (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)