English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

The area would become a big meadow. So long as there was no development the animals would stay. Water?? Is there a river, if so it would also continue to flow, rain would still be soaked into the ground and new plants would grow. Most environmentally friendly nations do not clear cut lumber anymore. They practice selective cutting, and replanting.

vkb??? Where are you from?? Do you have trees? Where I come from, we have thousands and thousands of square km's of forest, and a hundred years ago clear cutting was common practice, I have hunted and camped in these forests and there is no desert there, and it rains and snows in the winter, it is not more humid there from evaporation nor are there dry river beds or dry lakes in these massive clear cut areas. Not only that you can see young trees 50 years or so starting to slowly encroach back into the clear cut area. Are you saying the Sahara is a desert from clear cutting? If you look at a globe you will see the Sahara is one of many deserts that span the globe along the same general lines of latitude. Dinos did not clear cut the once vast forest and swamp lands that were there. The environment and tectonic plate shift did. In fact it does still rain in the Sahara and green desert grass grows for about a month in the spring. Then it gets too hot. It took thousands of years to make the Sahara. If your hypothisis is true then the Amazon rain forest should be drying up and turning desert too. But it's not, in fact it annual rainfall is close to 2 meters.

2006-07-10 01:04:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

First of all, the amount rain will start reducing. Then, heat start developing and water will start evaporating at an alarming rate. Then slowly, what happened to Sahara years before will repeat. No wild life will be possible after some years. All changes are subject to many geographical parameters.

2006-07-10 09:34:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

its sad to say but there would probaly be no more wildlife left although some people may take animals in and help them etc im not sure what would happen to the water,it may get used for human use

2006-07-10 06:43:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

6 feet under

2006-07-10 13:52:56 · answer #4 · answered by Piffle 4 · 0 0

good question. ask the people who chopped them down.

2006-07-10 06:24:23 · answer #5 · answered by pokpokgei 1 · 0 0

up in ya ***

2006-07-10 04:27:51 · answer #6 · answered by Whatever 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers