# What is a forest? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 20, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096 "2003-06-20T04:54:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![OliverTwistofLime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b487fb/32.png) [@OliverTwistofLime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverTwistofLime)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/1 "2003-06-20T04:54:03Z")
The dictionary defines forest as a dense growth of trees and underbrush over a large area. How many trees does it take to make a forest? What is the minimum area of land necessary to meet the definition of forest? I looked up forests…read about rain and cloud forests but I did not see the answers to the above questions. Please respond. Perhaps its all subjective. ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/2 "2003-06-20T05:31:09Z")
Apparently there are [set definitions as to what constitutes a “forest”](http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/forest/htmls/intro_def.html) > [@](#): > > How many trees make a forest? > Forests (according to the U.S. National Vegetation Classification system) consist of trees with overlapping crowns forming 60% to 100% cover. Woodlands are more open, with 25% to 60% cover. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/3 "2003-06-20T06:58:23Z")
It’s entirely dependant on who you ask, where they are and what end they are working towards. The most widely used defintion i that produced by the FAO: [http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/003/X9835e/X9835e01.htm](http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/003/X9835e/X9835e01.htm) > [@](#): > > Forests are lands of more than 0.5 ha, with a tree canopy cover of more than 10 percent, which are not primarily under agricultural or urban land use. > > Forests are determined both by the presence of trees and the absence of other predominant land uses. The trees should be able to reach a minimum height of 5 meters in situ. Areas under reforestation which have yet to reach a crown density of 10 percent or tree height of 5 m are included, as are temporarily unstocked areas, resulting from human intervention or natural causes, that are expected to regenerate. There’s a lot of other detail there as well. There’s no minimum number of trees required to make a forest. Given that it need only be an area of 0.5 hectares there are many foests that consist of only one tree. ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/4 "2003-06-20T07:07:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _Orig. by Blake_ > There’s no minimum number of trees required to make a forest. Given that it need only be an area of 0.5 hectares there are many foests that consist of only one tree. 😕 How can “one tree” mean a forest? From your link: > [@](#): > > Forests are determined both by the presence of **trees** and the absence of other predominant land uses. > \ > Trees outside forests are trees and tree environments on land not defined as forest or other wooded land. My bolding. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/5 "2003-06-20T07:11:33Z")
One tree can mean a forest provided it covers an area of 0.5 ha and has \>10% canopy cover. What do you see as the contradiction here? The fact that the site uses the standard ‘trees’ rather than the more cumbersome “tree or trees”? The fact that there can be trees outside forest area because they are individually too scattered and small to make 10% canopy over half a hecatre? ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/6 "2003-06-20T07:18:27Z")
I had thought it as a contradiction, **Blake** , but I’ve looked a little further into the term “canopy cover”. My mistake – I’m used to thinking in terms of a forest canopy being the spread of a number of individuals of the same species. Peace. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/7 "2003-06-20T10:46:30Z")
Forests in medieval England were areas set aside for hunting- sometimes they contained only sparse woodland. Trees in forests were also managed for timber by thinning and many other methods. It is remarkable that since the rundown of broadleaved forest management for timber in the British isles the number of trees has increased, and despite the loss of hedgerows there are more trees here now than for thousands of years. * * * SF worldbuilding at [http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html](http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/8 "2003-06-20T10:50:52Z")
That’s pretty much the case worldwide. Without human intervention forests and woodlands everywhere are experiencing a dramatic increase in plant density. It’s a major problem since the species wihtin these areas have adaptations for more open forest types. More trees=/= good. ---
**Author:** ![G.Cornelius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@G.Cornelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G.Cornelius)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/9 "2003-06-20T12:07:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by eburacum45 \* > \*\*Forests in medieval England were areas set aside for hunting- sometimes they contained only sparse woodland. Trees in forests were also managed for timber by thinning and many other methods. > \*\* [The New Forest](http://www.hants.gov.uk/newforest/) being a case in point, it actually is only sparsly wooded. Of course, the new forest is no longer new - it got that name nearly 1,000 years ago! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/10 "2003-06-20T13:00:20Z")
It’s worth keeping in mind that a forest is an ecosystem characterized by the dominance of trees in its flora. (This isn’t intended to contradict the above definitions, but to stress a distinct point.) A monoculture plantation of trees does not a forest make – it’s the mix of flora, fauna, and soil microbiota that work together to make a healthy forest. (This is why whole-tree harvesting where the non-woody parts and scrap from timber production are burned for energy can be more harmful to a forest than other forms of lumbering – the nutrients from the twigs, leaves, bark, etc. are not returned to the soil to be recycled into new trees and such.) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-forest/183096/11 "2003-06-20T13:17:00Z")
Depends a lot on what sort of forest you are talking about Polycarp. Forestry plantations, even of exotic timber, are still forests by any defintion. Monocultural plantations are certainly healthy, often healthier than ‘natural’ forests. They also fulfill many of the same environmental functions. Exactly how ‘monocultural’ a forest can be is aslo debatable, since some ground layer and animal life always intrudes in the real world, and often quite a lot. The effect of clearfelling and total product utilisation technologies also varies considerably depending on the timber type. Many species rely on natural fire devastation to maintain stand structure, and this system mimics the process better than selective harvesting. The nutrients returned after fire are pretty slim anyway normally, and the amount lost from total utilisation can easily be replaced. The advantages gained by efficient product an dland use more than outweighs any damage caused by the process in many cases. There are many cases where selctive harvesting is more damaging than clearfelling.