Talk:Shifting cultivation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 20 October 2024 by 118.238.230.163 in topic "Political Ecology"
Jump to navigation Jump to search

<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".

Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Archives

Dubious claim in first sentence

I tagged the first sentence based on personal academic training... I haven't time at the moment to hunt for RSs. What grows back is post human disturbance, and by nature is a different species diversity and population density compared to what was there before, pre-human disturbance. So I think its wrong to label it subjectively as "revert to its natural vegetation". I'll look for RS later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Shifting cultivation

This a situation where by a farmer left his farm uncultivated for some years (2-3 ) due to lose of nutrients. 102.89.33.38 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Political Ecology"

The Political Ecology section - specifically the last two paragraphs - is 1) almost entirely unsupported and 2) written in an incongruously aggressive tone that suggests a bias on the part of the author. "People unused to living in forests cannot see the fields for the trees" is a completely unnecessary statement. The claims in the last paragraph regarding cultivators' management of ecosystems are speculative and, again, unsupported. The claim that "[i]ts disadvantages include the high initial cost, as manual labour is required" is incorrect - the entire point of shifting cultivation is arguably that it minimizes human labor and relies on natural regeneration of fertility (see Ester Boserup, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth). 118.238.230.163 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply