Talk:Chaparral

message: moved comment from article
Typical animal life includes --need examples here
----
The California tree Quercus agrifolia is most commonly called the coast live oak, not the California live oak. The article itself should probably be moved. Is there any reason to rename it "California" here? Willmcw 23:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 comments

message: This article spends about the first 20% talking about the chaparral biome and the rest promoting a position on a controversy. The author may very well be correct regarding the controversy; that isn't the issue. It's just that the chaparral biome is far more than the fire regime, and the article needs to be rebalanced to respect that. Unfortunately, I'm not the one to write it. Paleolith 03:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. There's nothing wrong with the fire material but there is a lack of other information to round it out. I've added a couple of headers to delineate the article. It'd be nice to see more about the plants and animals. -Will Beback 07:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A solution may be to break out the info on the fire regime into its own article, and keep just a summary in the Chaparral article. BlankVerse 10:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unbalanced article 

message: I am studying environmental science on a collegiate level and chaparral is considered a unique biome seperate from CA woodlands and does appear around the world. I stumbled on this article while doing a class project. The article should discuss other chaparral regions in more detail however. I find that wikipedians can be to merge happy and this only slows down the research process. --Ian 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry too much, in this instance, as the merger request was simply a mistake.  I will remove the tags.  Thanks for paying attention.  Yes, Wikipedians can be merge happy, or so it appears, but in other areas, they are stub happy, creating single sentence articles about everything.  It takes time.  KP Botany 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Merge  

message: 24.1.111.44 noted that "Chaparral is one of the most fire-prone plant communities in North America because of thunderstorms." (Addition in bold.) The Great Plains also have thunderstorms, and are less fire-prone, because they don't have a long dry season, which is the real reason why chaparral is fire-prone.
24.1.111.44 also added, "The Chaparral is a coastal biome with hot dry summers and mild, rainy winters. Droughts and fires are very normal during the summertime. The Chaparral area gets about 38 – 100 cm of precipitation a year and has an average temperature of 40ºC." It would be nice to have a reference for this, especially the precipitation and temperature (which is reasonable as a summer high but totally out-of-whack as a yearly average). Certainly the chaparral in the mountains of southern Arizona is not coastal, but, properly referenced, parts of this could be re-added to the top of the article (it seems out-of-place in the section on fire ecology).--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of good-faith edit 

message: mohammed tabti  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.233.35 (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  simo 

message: On March 11, 2009 the link to the California Chaparral Institute was deleted. The given rationale for the deletion is here. This rationale is invalid. I started the Chaparral Institute after the 2003 wildfires in Southern California to help correct misconceptions about fire that were being stated in the media - namely that firefighters were at fault for the large fires and that large fires in Shrubland ecosystems were unnatural. One of the Institute's first editorial efforts to correct the record was published in the San Diego Union-Tribune on November 4, 2003. From that point onward the Institute has been directly involved in fire research with Dr. Jon E. Keeley's lab (USGS) and is currently conducting numerous studies on the impact of changing fire regimes on chaparral ecosystems. One of our studies has been completed and will be published in the next issue of the US government publication, Fire Management Today. A selected list of my other publications can be found at the About Us page on the Institute’s website. My work was recently featured in the Los Angeles Times. Regarding my qualifications, I have a Bachelor’s degree from the University of California in Environmental Studies, taught biology for twenty years, and have published a book on chaparral wildfires that has received excellent reviews from both firefighters and fire scientists. The book is now in its second edition. The California Chaparral Institute is a non-profit California corporation that is currently awaiting its tax-exempt classification from the IRS. I am not a "classically trained firefighter" like the individual who requested the deletion said, but rather a scientist who decided to be trained as a USFS wildland firefighter in order to better understand fire and the fire service. If you take a look at the California Chaparral Institute's website you will see that both myself and the Institute are committed to a balanced scientific approach to both fire management and the preservation of Shrubland ecosystems. While the individual who requested the link's deletion clearly disagrees with the Institute, his/her opinions are not supported by the facts. Therefore, I have restored the link. Rick (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, as per W:BOLD. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi Rick.  Also support having the link.  By the way, I enjoyed your talk at the Faulkner Gallery in Santa Barbara some few months ago; now that I know what the Chaparral Institute is about, I do think the link belongs here.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of California Chaparral Institute link 

message: Removed reference to summer drought. Drought by definition is below average precipitation so cannot be used to describe typical precipitation. Also removed the absurdly high average temperature. If that is a good number for mean summer time high temperature, as I suspect, that should have been indicated. Victor Engel (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of climate deletions 

message: Some plants have two or more common names.  I suggest alphabetizing according to binomial name, then listing common names afterwards.  When I came to the article to add plants, the lack of such organization made it difficult.  It might be good to even organize by alpabetized families, so related plants can be discussed according to their shared family properties. PPdd (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for plant species section 

message: Cismontane and transmontane chaparral - Either I am confused, or there is a confusion in the literature.  Desert chaparral is often discussed under cismtane, since it is so closely related (e.g., in Schoenherr).  There is also cismontane chaparral west of the Coastal Ranges, contrasted with chaparral of the western Sierras, on "that" side of the Coastal Ranges.  But the article calls the Sierra chaparral cismontane, not transmontane, leaving transmontane to be only desert chaparral. ??? PPdd (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cis and that? 

message: The Chaparral article needs images of both resprouters and the fire follower annuals and their eco-community. Does anyone have good suggestions that are illustrative of both concepts and apply statewide? PPdd (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Chaparral]] article needs images of both [[resprouter]]s and the [[fire follower]] annuals and their eco-community.  

message: WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force
Would anyone like to join me in starting a WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force? Once there are five names above, we can start our task list. E.g., task 1- photo and upload to wikimedia commons images of all phases of chaparral fire cycle, and all seasonal phases and coloration changes (colors now being researched at the Stanford Department of Plant Biology Carnegie Institute for remote identification of specimens and their species), task 2 - make illustrations of chaparral anatomy and morphology across species which "makes it chaparral".  
Sign your name in the quote box above. 
I am working with UCSC's Arboretum director (and California Native Plant Society president)  on a donation to them of a 10 acre real estate parcel with a approx 3500 foot elevation Sierra Azul maritime chaparral stand on it and surrounding it (his group's specialy), a riparian corridore through it fed by an artesian spring with the closest watershed being Yosimite (and a view of half dome in the far distance from the parcel) and will be going hiking in Griffith Park with Richard Halsey and some Hollywoodsters next time he is in Hollywood, if there are any super-esoteric questions you want me to hit them up on re maritime chaparral, Santa Monica Mountain Chaparral, or San Diego area chaparral, or if you want to join us and add your expertise. PPdd (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force''' 

message: The Cismontane chaparral section only has a list of birds, not other animals.
Since it is noted in the animal section of the cismontane chaparral bit that there are many animals living in the biome, perhaps another list of animals should be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.2.7 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal list 

message: es.wikipedia lists encinillo as the common name of Quercus berberidifolia]], and says of chaparro,
* Botánica; nombre común de:
** Byrsonima crassifolia
** Chaparro de la Vega
** Fagus sylvatica
** Ilex aquifolium
** Quercus coccifera
** Quercus suber.
** Quercus ilex.
** Quercus pyrenaica
I've changed the text to reflect the broader meaning.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaparro 

message: well, let's see the article on Troical Rain Forest claims 45-75% of the world's biodiversity.   That leaves as little as 5% for all other biomes?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.2.78 (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  20% of world's biodiversity? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chaparral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106032023/http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/dplu/mscp/docs/Biodiversity/handoutvegcomm14.pdf to http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/dplu/mscp/docs/Biodiversity/handoutvegcomm14.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified