From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ecoregions
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecoregions, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of each of the earth's ecoregions 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.
WikiProject Ecology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

A note[edit]

Is an ecozone/ecoregion similar to a biome? Is there a case for merging or cross linking these artiles? quercus robur 10:57 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. In fact the term 'ecozone' is the official term for a large scale biome, and the term 'ecoregion' for a smaller one, but I am not sure if the term 'biome' is in use any more, since these terms are rather better defined...
For now, cross link like crazy, and use the Ecozone/Ecoregion articles NOT to define 'what they are' but to list 'the ones there are actually on Earth'.
Another way to say it - a biome is a theoretical thing that we use to find real ecozones and real ecoregions - and potentially we can make artificial biomes... ?

Another note[edit]

The article says there are eight, but lists only seven. One is missing. Which?

I've noticed that the usage of the words ecozone and ecoregion differ, sometimes ecozone refers to larger areas and sometimes to the smaller ones. The way I have learned it in university, the main biogeographical regions are defined little differetly in zoology and botany, and the usage of only one set for both is not very practical. The way they're now defined here in Wikipedia is not very good, but I'm reluctant to rewrite it because things may be defined differently in other countries. Anyway, the biome refers to certain types of ecosystems, like deserts, savannah, steppes, etc. and it's a different thing than ecoregions/ecozones, which refer to actual areas on Earth. ---Timo Honkasalo

I agree. Biome and ecozone do not have the same reference frame at all. The word ecozone appear to be very little used in some countries. However, from what I saw both from the last IUCN and WWF classification systems, the ecozone was first defined from the Udvardo biogeographic realms system, and these are used in other countries.

Yet another note[edit]

Note: 'ecoregion' article defines what one is - they are too small to create a map that shows them all effectively - while this article can do so easily with the larger ecozones.


How established is it really that what once were called 'biogeographical realms' are now to be called 'ecozones'? Is the latter really the predominant and preferred designation or only so for ecologists? 14:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Besides the fact that first the article says this "According to Schultz (1988, 2000, 2002 and 2005) nine ecozones can be defined" then later talks about 8 regions and in the picture beside it, it shows 6 of the 8 ecozones.

What???? Lsjzl 12:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


(See also previous post) The emphasis is stressed too much on conservation ecology than on zoogeography. I would even say that the concepts presented by the separations in Holarctic etc. are only interesting when dealing with vicariance, dispersion, and island biogeography (and other related concepts). Biomes are much more applicative and useful to conservation ecology. Well, that's how I learned it... Phlebas 20:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


I'm suggesting that Biogeographic Region be merged into this article. Perhaps a section can be added that expands on the terminological debate and adapts the plotted historical development listed in the other article. Overall, however, I don't understand why these are two separate articles; they seem to overlap considerably. If someone can clarify it for me, it would be appreciated; otherwise, I'd appreciate it if someone more skilled with Wiki than I could facilitate the merger. 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Looking at this article I cannot make heads or tails of this. Somebody divided up the world into something dubbed "ecoregions", but it is unclear why. What is the point in having this entry at all? Brya 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


I just attempted a major cleanup of the article, to address the comments above:

  • tried to improve the overall organization, structure, and tone of the article.
  • tried to explain the important distinction between an ecozone as described here, which reflects evolutionary history, and a biome, which reflects life-form and vegetation type regardless of evolutionary history.
  • removed the J. Schultz system from this article; although he uses the term "ecozone", it is really a system of biomes, as they are generally defined in Wikipedia.
  • tried to clarify the historical development of different classification schemes for plants, animals, and both plants and animals, and present them chronologically.
  • added the WWF bioregions.
  • Added references.

Tom Radulovich 02:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ecozones; Biogeographical kingdoms, regions and provinces, biocorology and biocenology[edit]

As several people have pointed, the point of view supported in this article and related ones is mainly usefull just from an ecological angle of view or, saying it in other words, it is mainly biocenological (ecological biogeography), wich is not bad at all, but it probably lacks a better biocorological vission (I mean estrictly zoogeographical and fitogeographical taxonomic and historical point of view). This article and its related group needs an update as to adopt the hierarchical structure being developed by the most modern authors like J.J. Morrone which takes into account not only the differences but also the historical conexions amongst biogeographical areas as to classify and group them into large biogeographical kingdoms (Holarctic, Holotropical and Holantactic), each one containing several biogeographical regions, each one divided in sub-regions, those into provinces and them finally into districts. This hierarchical system have been developed on a historic geological and systematic-evolutive basis, giving to the biogeographical areas a more natural system of classification.Bolosphex (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's actually mainly floristic. If you check out the detailed classification of the WWF, you'll find that it is based on plant communities. For animals, for example Australia and perhaps even the Horn of Africa would need to be considered separately, Pacific S America down to S Peru/N Chile has at least as much in common with Central America as with Atlantic S America, the Malayan region is if anything more strongly linked to E Asia than to India, and Micronesia too has plenty of East Asian influence, there is a strong India-E Africa connection in birds but also squamates, and so on and so on.
Basically, the effect of high mountains and wide oceans on plant dispersal is less severe. For plants, it is quicker to go right over a mountain range than around it, for animals it's the other way around. But on the other hand, plants are more strongly limited by latitudinal climate belts than most animals. The system proposed by Morrone is not perfect, nbut it sees to me to need not altogether much polishing; it is a good start and deserves as much mention as the WWF scheme. This seems like a good source to improve the article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


The realm map on this page, though very nicely done, contains some major inaccuracies. For instance, Sulawesi is classified as Indo-Malay when it should be Australasian. I'm looking into fixing it, but meanwhile not sure how to flag this -- would it be appropriate to note on the main page that it is in error? Sharp11 (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I found a drop-in replacement that is accurate and up-to-date. Sharp11 (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Plant geography[edit]

What on Earth happened to the article on plant geography? PG is a field of study and although there are relations with this article, it should have its own article. As far as I can fathom from the history of this article, it actually started out as an article on PG and then gradually got modified until it became the current article with the current title. I'm not enough of an expert to untangle this mess, though, but perhaps somebody else can. --Crusio (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of CEC Ecozones mention/coverage re POV[edit]

See Talk:Temperate rainforest#POV problems re CEC ecozones, floristic provinces and other systems.Skookum1 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re same issue, File:The 14 WWF biomes and 8 biogeographical realms of the world.jpg shows t he WWF/UN system but not the CEC one - and it's the CEC system, primarily in Canada, that actually uses the term "Ecozone" (in the US the same system uses a Class I ecoregion for the same "tier"). The article also equates floristic provinces etc which is incorrect. I'm also of a mind that the Category:Nearctic etc are not encyclopedic in nature and serve to enhance/promote one particular classification system at the expense of others. i.e. re Undue weightSkookum1 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Paleartic Anyone?[edit]

Hey, what happened to the bioregions of the Paleartic? Someone has left Europe, most of Asia, and North Africa off of the map... Did we forget something? Oh, my god, what happened to the baby... Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


I moved this article to "Terrestrial ecozone" because that is what it seems to be about. Currently there is no mention whatsoever of the maritime (marine) ecozones. Perhaps they belong in another article as yet not created? Invertzoo (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

New map[edit]

File:20121224zoogeographicalmap.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. —Darkwind (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Terrestrial ecozoneEcozone – I'd like to revert a prior undiscussed move. Until such a time that we identify life outside Earth, the adjective terrestrial is not needed. With regards to move by User:Invertzoo, I don't think that the lack of discusion of marine ecology in this article justifies using the new name, unless it can be shown that this confers to existing literature. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment is the distinction perhaps between terrestrial and aquatic/marine, instead of terrestrial and extra-terrestrial? -- (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • With only two sources, it's hard to say. The BBC source backs Piotrus's view—most tellingly, the "Oceania ecozone encompasses all the islands of the Pacific except New Zealand." So just the islands, not the water. But the Dinerstein et al. uses "Terrestrial Ecoregions," which seems to support Invertzoo, although without any footnotes or a link to that source, it's hard to verify it further. More sources will be necessary. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for procedural reasons (to undo an undiscussed move) and per nom. While "terrestrial ecozone" is used some, "ecozone" is used more frequently and almost always to refer to land ecology. E.g., see this book. —  AjaxSmack  00:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.