Talk:Shifting cultivation

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Forestry (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

1

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]

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]

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]