Talk:Big Woods

"Closed forest" savanna
From what I am reading, most papers discuss the open (canopy) savanna, or the closed (canopy) forest, in reference to the trees in both types of regions, but the two regions are usually exclusive of one a other and contain different species. In other words, the two words closed forest and savanna contradict one another. This could be a possible misreading of the material, perhaps the region is a closed forest and savanna area, or perhaps there was a "closed forest savanna boundary", but these are the only ways I can find these used.

The source that seems most relevant and related to the particular area under discussion is not accessible online. A clarification, quote, and/or correction would be useful. Thanks

Also, just found the article Upper Midwest forest-savanna transition. Could this be what is being discussed?

Peacedance (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that the paragraph is talking about a savannah -> forest succession caused/allowed by the removal of fire and bison. Whether it's well-supported by evidence is also a separate question, though it doesn't seem implausible on the face of it. ~ 2601:441:4400:1740:F175:F068:A9F2:9B56 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)