Talk:Tundra

Uncategorized

...Is tundra humid? Amount of precipitation is very low in tundra, which is about 12cm/year of snow. I don't understand how it is called 'humid biome'.   

Because the temperatures are so low, evaporation is very limited. So although precipitation is low, there is almost always an excess of precipitation over evaporation. Almost all tundra environments are very wet underfoot. The exception is a few areas of alpine desert tundra in the Atacama Desert. - MPF 15:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wolf and Wolverine removed, as they are more widespread than just tundra; Wolverines are mainly in the taiga, not tundra. - MPF 15:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that. -- hike395 17:57, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that the table of tundra ecoregions is too long for this article (even after I compacted it). I suggest that we move it to List of tundra ecoregions, and then make a link. -- hike395 04:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Why shrink the size of the photo? The larger thumbnail is more visible. -- hike395 15:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think your right sometimes ther to small.We need to see it.Some younger people get test and need this.And they have hard times looking at a small pic.It makes them happy when they are bigger.

Origin of word "Tundra"

Origin of word "Tundra" is in sami language, through russian, accordingly Finnish language board [1]. --Mikko Paananen 22:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep, Finnish speakers might recognise tanner "(firm, solid) ground" and tunturi "fjeld" to be the same word. It's ironic that the permafrost tundra the word "tundra" usually refers to isn't found where the Sami live (in North Scandinavia). For "actual" tundra with permafrost and all, you have to go east of that. -- Vuo 02:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tundra list of ecoregions: in or out of this article?

Should the list of ecoregions be part of this article, or in its own article?

I didn't delete the ecoregion list (an anonymous user did), but then I realized that the long list of ecoregions did not add substantially to the article, especially considering a large majority of the links were red. This article is the only article where the WWF term for a biome ("Tundra") is a generic term.

In general, Wikipedia usage is to discourage long lists within articles. See Wikipedia:List, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), and Wikipedia:Lists (embedded lists).

Therefore, I prefer the list of tundra ecoregions being in their own article. -- hike395 06:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree that text is preferable to lists in articles; in editing the other biome articles, I tried to get rid of short bulleted lists in favor of text (this article still has a few; "Notable animals in the arctic tundra include", "Notable animals in the alpine tundra include", etc). But as Wikipedia:Lists (embedded lists) says, "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles"; all of the biome and ecozone articles include lists of ecoregions (and this list is one of the shorter ones); most of the articles in WikiProject Tree of Life include lists of species as well. A list of ecoregions at the end of this article makes it consistent with the other biome articles, adds substantively to the article, and doesn't make the article over-long. Tom Radulovich 07:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of consistancy with other articles on the topic, I would prefer that the list stays here. I do not think the fact many of the links are red is a good argument. Opening to other topics yet to be written is one of the way wikipedia naturally grows. User:Anthere

Another idea: must we have ecoregion articles have the exact WWF name? Or can we wikify the name to disambiguate it? In other words, would people be happy moving [[List of tundra ecoregions to something like Tundra (WWF ecoregions), to distinguish it from the generic Tundra article? With an disambiguation notice at the top of both. That way, the Tundra WWF ecoregion article can be completely consistent with the rest of the topic.

By the way, Anthere, what ever happened with the WWF anyway? Years ago, you stopped working on the WWF ecoregion articles, because you weren't sure about the licensing (WWF didn't respond, I seem to remember). Is all of this stuff OK to put into Wikipedia? -- hike395 14:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I did not stop years ago :-) I stopped (only) nearly one year ago, when I just quit having enough time to edit really. However, I still go edit the ecoregions on the french wikipedia from time to time. Not much though I actually miss editing... Last year, I sent a grant request to National Geographic on the matter... they didn't even answer me. ([2]). Hmmm, and then I was overwhelmed by life. But it is not a lost story for me. As soon as I have more time again, I'll go back to it. I made recently some contacts in the green party in France, then I went to the TIC21 meeting in France in january (new technologies and sustainable development), who invited me to talk next year to present wikipedia. It is my intent to present then the "ecoregions" project. This will be a good place for this. If I am no more on the board next year, it will be on my list; if not, it will wait a little bit more... I am patient

As for the "names", I thought about it carefully... I do not think a "name" is problematic... However, I noticed that the WWF removed their map and this is unfortunate. I hesitate, renaming would sometimes help. On the other hand, it helps to have same naming scheme between basically the two sites taking care of the matter.

It is unfortunate to have so little time. I brought many great pictures from my last trip to Algeria and hardly had time to insert them and edit many articles; I only did a half dozen in french on the matter. Tomorrow, I am leaving for Marroco, I hope to bring back a bunch of nice pictures :-) Anthere 21:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Another thing that has bothered me for a while is that the common definition of Tundra maps into two of the WWF biomes, Tundra and Montane grasslands and shrublands. That's been part of my motivation to split the article, because they don't map to the same concept. -- hike395 14:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

True. I similarly met the problem with Antarctica. Anthere 21:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that alpine tundra as it is defined in this article is equivalent to the WWF's montane grasslands and shrublands. A number of ecoregions have vertical zonation that includes montane, subalpine, and alpine zones. Pockets of alpine tundra in these ecoregions are generally small, and the WWF convention is to include these alpine zones with the montane ecosystems below. A number of the montane grasslands and shrublands ecoregions do include pockets of alpine vegetation surrounded at lower elevations by montane zones, but so do a number of Temperate coniferous forests ecoregions, notably the Sierra Nevada forests and the Alps conifer and mixed forests. Including some text in the Alpine tundra section along the lines of "a number of montane ecoregions include pockets of alpine tundra at the highest elevations" reconciles the WWF system of biomes with the definition of tundra used here. Tom Radulovich 02:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that not all Montane grasslands and shrublands map to alpine tundra reinforces my point: the generic idea of Tundra is different concept from the WWF Tundra biome. They just aren't the same, they don't map one-to-one.

What Anthere did at Antarctic ecozone is the perfect precedent for this situation. She didn't add the ecoregion list to the Antarctica article, but instead made a separate article to disambiguate. Can we move List of tundra ecoregions to Tundra biome or Tundra WWF biome, and keep that as a separate article? We can then cross-link between Tundra and that other article, and cross-link between Tundra and Montane grasslands and shrublands, and cross link between Montane grasslands and shrublands and subalpine (if it exists). -- hike395 02:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. To do as you suggest, and move the WWF list of ecoregions to "Tundra biome", suggests that Tundra as presented here is not a biome type, although it is. "Tundra WWF biome" is ungainly, and implies that the WWF definition of tundra differs substantively from this one, which it does not. The WWF definition of tundra is essentially the same as that presented here, and that all tundra ecoregions listed in the article are indeed tundra. The only difference, which isn't much of a difference at all, is that some of WWF's montane ecoregions include areas of alpine tundra habitat as well. Remember that the ecoregions are meant to be large enough to serve as viable conservation units, which means that they may contain more than one habitat type. A number of the WWF ecoregions include multiple habitat types, but are classified according to the predominant type. It doesn't mean that WWF defines tundra differently. Take WWF's South Western Ghats montane rain forests; the biome is predominantly wet tropical forest, but also includes enclaves of shola-montane grassland (not tundra) mosaic at higher elevations. But that doesn't mean that WWF disagrees that the montane grassland in this ecoregion is in fact montane grassland; it simply means that the ecoregion includes small areas of differing habitat types in addition to the predominant one. My own ecoregion, California chaparral and woodlands, has quite a complex mosaic of habitats within it (grassland, shrubland, woodland, savanna, coniferous forest, etc). but is delineated as a single ecoregion. Tom Radulovich 03:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because all WWF tundra ecoregions are tundra doesn't make them have the same definition. This article defines tundra as alpine tundra, arctic tundra, and antarctic tundra. WWF tundra comprises arctic tundra and antarctic tundra, but excludes alpine tundra. The WWF placed alpine tundra into Montane grasslands and shrublands. A + B + C is not the same as A + B, with C placed somewhere else.

For more than a year now, I've been unhappy using WWF's definition of ecoregions as the definitive one for Wikipedia. This business of alpine tundra not being tundra has been bothering me. Enshrining the WWF definitions as the only Wikipedia ecoregions also disturbs me: what about Bailey's ecoregions (for the world, at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/cdroms/ged_iib/datasets/b03/bec.htm; for the US at http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/ecoreg1_home.html)? I believe that the exclusive unlabeled use of WWF ecoregions for Wikipedia is actually POV. To make it NPOV, I would label them explicitly as coming from the WWF. Just like we label Koppen climate classification as coming from Koppen explicitly in the title: Koppen is one common climate classification system, not the only one.

I'm all in favor of keeping the WWF classification in Wikipedia. Let's just keep it clearly and cleanly labeled.

Tom: if you don't want to label the WWF classification system explicitly (say, with Tundra WWF biome or something like that), what compromise would you suggest? There is probably a common ground here. Please don't just reject my concerns: how would you address them in a way that would be acceptable to both of us? -- hike395 06:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your concerns. If we agree that the WWF tundra ecoregions are indeed tundra ecoregions, we could add a disclaimer below the "Tundra ecoregions" heading saying that "the following tundra ecoregions have been delineated by the WWF", and could discuss and/or list other ecoregion delineations (Bailey, Udvardy) as well. I don't think the WWF scheme is perfect, but I think the idea of using it as the primary means of organizing these ecoregion articles while making reference to other delinations is basically sound. Check out Ecoregions of Australia or as one attempt to present two different ecoregion delineations and cross-reference them; the articles about biodiversity hotspots which include multiple WWF regions (Wallacea, Sundaland, East Melanesian Islands) simply cross-reference the WWF scheme. I also work on articles on plant classification, where there is general consensus that we use the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's classification scheme to organize the articles while cross-referencing other important schemes, including Cronquist. Seeking a consistent classification scheme across a set of related articles isn't necessarily POV pushing, so long as others are represented as well, and of course nothing prevents one from writing ecoregion articles that don't follow the WWF scheme, or articles about distinct habitat types (i.e. shola) that the WWF includes within a larger ecoregion.

That leaves the question of alpine tundra. I still disagree that WWF's montane grasslands and shrublands is synonymous with alpine tundra. Most of these ecoregions have substantial areas below the tree-line. WWF makes the distinction between montane and alpine habitats, but generally includes the alpine habitats with the montane system below. As I mentioned before, the WWF system includes the alpine habitats of the Sierra Nevada, Pyrenees, and Alps within the surrounding Temperate coniferous forests ecoregions. These ecoregions could be referenced in this article if you like, by saying that "The WWF ecoregions generally include areas of alpine tundra habitat within montane forest or grassland ecoregions; the following ecoregions contain areas of alpine tundra habitat" and then listing them. Tom Radulovich 14:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay: I thought about it, and came up with a possible compromise. I realized what was bothering me: the hierarchy of article did not match the WWF hierarchy and they were presented each in their own monolithic block. The two blocks were inconsistent. I think it is much better if we split up the WWF ecoregions into the existing article hierarchy. Arctic tundra section includes the WWF arctic tundra ecoregions. Antarctic tundra section includes the WWF antarctic tundra ecoregions. Alpine tundra section just points to Montane grasslands and shrublands.

Is this OK with you, Tom? -- hike395 03:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Interference?

"In recent time this has begun to change, and in Alaska, Russia and some other parts of the world the tundra is being ever more subjected to human interference."

Interference is such a loaded word. It implies that people are not part of the biosphere, like we don't belong here. I find this to be an annoying editorialization. We are part of this planet, we evolved on it, and as such any manner in which we alter it is also by definition "natural" so save the hippie crap for your rallies and quit editorializing encyclopedias.

What an attitude. Do you consider the Russian practice of dumping unprocessed oil-production and nuclear waste into tundra not "interfering"? --Vuo 16:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• I changed this sentence to be more neutral - it's not Wikipedia's place to say whether what humans are doing on the tundra is good or bad, just that it is happening. However, this statement is still unsourced. Some supporting details and clarification on what "some other parts of the world" means would be nice. -- Beland 07:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists and POV

This article was starting to look a little bit like a WWF brochure, which, regardless of whether or not what the WWF is doing is good or not, does not seem NPOV. As it happens, I noticed the lists here were completely redundant with the separate article, List of tundra ecoregions. Removing the lists also seems to improve article flow and reduce the over-emphasis on WWF definitions, so that's what I did. Keep in mind that WWF is an advocacy organization, so it's important to get corroboration that its findings are scientifically meaningful from other sources. Are their definitions politically motivated, scientifically uncontroversial, or actively debated in ecology journals? It would be nice to have some context about that. -- Beland 07:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Great NPOV edit! Thanks. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 08:01Z

See the discussion, at #Tundra list of ecoregions: in or out of this article?. Note that, by default, Wikipedia uses the WWF definitions of ecoregions. This has made me uncomfortable for years (for exactly the POV reasons you list above). In general, it's not really a problem, because most of the WWF ecoregions have idiosyncratic names that uniquely belong to the WWF. The only overlap with common terminology is here at Tundra, and at Antarctica. In Antarctica, we separated out the list of WWF ecoregions at Antarctica ecozone and don't use WWF lists in the main article. By analogy, you have removed the WWF lists from this article and have a separate List of tundra ecoregions.

Just to be clear: I'm in favor of removing the list. Tom Radulovich may be unhappy --- you may wish to contact him, given his strong opposition to this exact edit last year. -- hike395 06:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

Hi. I'm trying with some difficulty to beat Isla Navarino and other locations of Tierra del Fuego into shape. These articles mention "tundra" as characteristic vegetation of this regions. Tundra says that "Antarctic tundra occurs on Antarctica and on several antarctic and subantarctic islands, including South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the Kerguelen Islands." Should Tierra del Fuego also be added to this list? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The grasslands on Tierra del fuego are a cold steppe not a tundra. One of the criteria for tundra is the existence of a least discontinious permasfrost and that is missing in Tierra del Fuego. The climate of Tierra del Fuego is not so marked by the different seasons as the arctic tundra is because of its low latitude (53 S) and strong maritime influence. What tierra del fuego has is "Alpine tundra" and if we are expanding the criteria this way we have tundra on all higher mountains including kilimajaro.Dentren | ^Talk 17:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect again?

What is it about tundra that attracts vandalism, anyway? Should we semi-protect the article, again? hike395 07:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I know there's a lot of controversial subjects out there. But tundra? Haha :D --Tunheim 15:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

lol! --Lo'oris 00:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

All of the new material added on 4 Mar 2007 was lifted from Encarta, e.g., see http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557297/Tundra.html .. I reverted. hike395 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC) i need to now more things on the tundra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.118.176 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alpine temperatures?

Can someone please put in the average alpine temperatures? OneDoubleO 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

Is there a reason that the links to pages about names of fungi in Antarctic Tundra that are red have not been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red XII ftw (talk • contribs) 02:01, May 16, 2008

Because they can plausibly be Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia:Red link. Please don't remove them. hike395 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Two types of tundra, or three?

The introductory paragraph says there are two types of tundra; the article defines three. The reference given for the statement in the introduction ([3]) does not even mention Antarctica at all, so the parenthesis, "(which also occurs in Antarctica)," is not supported by the reference. The implication in that reference is that there is no tundra of any type in Antarctica, which may undermine its credibility.

I know nothing about this subject, but the article needs to be internally consistent. If it says two in the introduction, it should say two in the body as well, and include Antarctica in the Arctic tundra section. If, however, it's the introductory statement that is incorrect, it should be changed.--Jim10701 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs change.

I can't edit the article, for whatever reason. Maybe Wikipedia's changed its definition. Elsewise I'd just make the change myself.

Scarcity or lushness (by polar standards) of native vegetation of tundra regions depends more upon the severity of the temperatures than upon the scarcity or copiousness of precipitation. The alpine tundra also lacks in precipitation compared to the Arctic tundra.

This is very difficult to read. Copiousness should be changed with a ... more common word. Abundance is a big step in the right direction, and much of the text in this section could be written in a less cryptic way. This is especially true in that scarcity and copiousness aren't precise terms, and really are interchangeable with other, more straightforward ways to explain the same concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.201.209 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has been protected from edits by anonymous (non-logged in) editors, due to previous excessive levels of vandalism. I tried to simplify the section you did not like. If you wish, you can either get a Wikipedia:User account, or make proposed changes on this talk page: I would be happy to paste them in for you. —hike395 (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

I went hiking last weekend, up into the higher mountains, above tree line. Actually I started in a pretty dense forest, but after a long enough hike uphill, the last tree was hundreds of feet below. Nothing remained but minor shrub, other small plants, and lots of rock.

Was I hiking through tundra at this point? I'm not asking someone on this "talk page" to answer me personally - I'm saying the article really isn't clear on this. Part of it sort of leads to imply that I was, because I was above tree line. Part says otherwise, in that I was not hiking through tundra because the temperature climbs above 50 degrees in the summer, so that there is no permafrost. It's not clear whether "alpine" tundra is an exception to this rule, or how exactly I would go about determining the answer to my question.

It would be great if somebody could make this a little clearer in the article?