Forests in sentence

675 examples of Forests in a sentence

And we need to remember that forests aren't just a bunch of trees competing with each other, they're supercooperators.

Jigs's fall into the outhouse showed me this other world, and it changed my view of forests.

I hope today to have changed how you think about forests.

We often talk about losing the forests for the trees, but one also loses a tree within a forest.

It was a pro-environmental essay as well, and it said things like, "Keeping our forests, drinking water, and skies pure is of vital importance."

And we've gained control of the other animals, of the rivers, of the forests, and reshaped them completely, causing an ecological destruction without making ourselves satisfied.

Protecting forests and wetlands safeguards, expands and creates new carbon sinks that directly draw down carbon.

The same process is used to compare recycling versus landfilling, regenerative versus industrial agriculture, protecting versus cutting down our forests.

And tropical forests tell their own story.

That means we don't need to cut down forests for food production.

You may filthy up the oceans callously and cut down all the forests.

Unfortunately, forests are often cleared to supply it, and that causes emissions from deforestation.

But if existing farms produce enough food, forests are less likely to be lost.

Support women smallholders, realize higher yields, avoid deforestation and sustain the life-giving power of forests.

At that level of impact, gender equity is on par with wind turbines and solar panels and forests.

As I began traveling around Africa talking about the problems faced by chimpanzees and their vanishing forests, I realized more and more how so many of Africa's problems could be laid at the door of previous colonial exploitation.

Forests disappearing, deserts where once there was forest.

As you've probably noticed, in recent years, a lot of western forests have burned in large and destructive wildfires.

I've spent my entire career studying these western landscapes, and the science is pretty clear: if we don't change a few of our fire-management habits, we're going to lose many more of our beloved forests.

It's time we confront some tough truths about wildfires, and come to understand that we need to learn to better live with them and change how they come to our forests, our homes and our communities.

Well, the forests that we see today look nothing like the forests of 100 or 150 years ago.

The best word to describe these forests of old is "patchy."

The historical forest landscape was this constantly evolving patchwork of open and closed canopy forests of all ages, and there was so much evidence of fire.

And it's important to understand that this landscape was open, with meadows and open canopy forests, and it was the grasses of the meadows and in the grassy understories of the open forest that many of the wildfires were carried.

Fires were frequent here, and when they occurred, they weren't that severe, while further up the mountain, in the moist and the cold forests, trees were more densely grown and fires were less frequent, but when they occurred, they were quite a bit more severe.

They used fire to burn meadows and to thin certain forests so they could grow more food.

And from this point on, it was now fire suppression and not wildfires that would become a prime shaper of our forests.

Thin-barked, fire-sensitive small trees filled in the gaps, and our forests became dense, with trees so layered and close together that they were touching each other.

So when you compare what forests looked like 100 years ago and today, the change is actually remarkable.

Instead of putting all the fires out, we need to put some of them back to work thinning forests and reducing dead fuels.

Related words