you can also say the Saharan desert played a major role on turning what Amazon is...
now, wow, calling it a grassland before humans 10,000 years ago is to smoke too much pot before reading/making papers. 5,000,000 AD then yes, maybe... /s but Terra Preta and other indigenous interferences is not even 10% of Amazon territory. various other animals are responsible for spreading diversity be it by shitting seed or just moking stuff around to make nests or impress some partner. the rainforest are also there because mountains changing courses of rivers.
This is common knowledge. Even the Wikipedia page states:
> There is evidence that there have been significant changes in the Amazon rainforest vegetation over the last 21,000 years through the last glacial maximum (LGM) and subsequent deglaciation.
the Wiki citation doesn't even have a source, nor is calling that indigenous people made it
your last link is about Llanos de Moxos, which isn't in Amazon. you don't seen to understand even basic geography... even if Llanos was 100% man-made (and isn't) and it was part of the Amazon (and not a region that borders it) it would be the equivalent of 2.6% of the whole Amazon area. concluding such a thing because 3% of an area that benefited (soil quality wise) from billions of years of geologic events and was partly modified by humans is ignorant but again, Llanos isn't even Amazon
it was common knowledge among middle age that Earth was flat. doesn't seem an argument to me
>it was common knowledge among middle age that Earth was flat. doesn't seem an argument to me
And you don't seem to know basic history, casting doubt on other things you say. Nobody serious in the middle ages (or since much further back than that either) thought seriously that the Earth was flat.
actually i meant "geocentrism" but it was too late to edit but you are right, middle age didn't thought Earth was flat
now if you are defending this absurd commentary that Amazonia was a grassland 10,000 years ago and turned out to be what's because humans, i think you both are on the level of flat earth 21° century people
No, not defending that, since evidence points to it having been a forest, but that a place like the Amazon could form from grassland in the span of a few thousand years is absolutely possible.
the western part once turned into a huge wetland, after the Andes emerged from the ocean. that was more than 10 Ma ago although. that was also what made the western Amazonia part differ on its biodivesity
humans may altered the biodiversity of Amazonia by breeding only wanted species. but we don't have too much evidence of that (yet). but if it was, the biodiversity of pre-humans was probably richer, as indigenous apparently managed the forests with fire and farmed hyperdominant cultures [0]
There were elephants there that humans hunted to extinction, elephants typically keep forests down and create grasslands. So it seems likely it happened, and that humans was the cause (by killing the elephants).
Edit: So it is likely that the change happened and had nothing to do with the soil change.
now, wow, calling it a grassland before humans 10,000 years ago is to smoke too much pot before reading/making papers. 5,000,000 AD then yes, maybe... /s but Terra Preta and other indigenous interferences is not even 10% of Amazon territory. various other animals are responsible for spreading diversity be it by shitting seed or just moking stuff around to make nests or impress some partner. the rainforest are also there because mountains changing courses of rivers.
[0] "Geology and geodiversity of the Amazon: Three billion years of history" https://www.theamazonwewant.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/C...
[1] the grassland hypothesis (somewhere in the text) and other curiosities about its biodiversity https://www.science.org/content/article/feature-how-amazon-b...