Talk:Ecosystem

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Schneidl12 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Billyroberson (article contribs). Template:WP1.0

Nitrogen cycle image is wrong

It has been translated into Turkish, I tried to see how to revert it back to the English ver but I don't get how these things are stored on commons. 142.58.240.61 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

but hey this is a frod though and they have to die all animals have to die

71.29.216.22 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mz7 (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Where to put grasslands among terrestrial ecosystem types?

Among the types of ecosystem I miss something, what covers the area of grasslands??? But it might not be grasslands but a broader term?

a steppeWinterysteppe (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The consideration of your question has raised some doubts in me. Reading the section Classification and subsection Types gives the impression that the link between both is not clear, because the exposition in classification does not lead to the information in types. So instead of offering a solution, I am adding more questions.--Auró (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before February 28, 2016 as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article has been reviewed by an external expert. Notes and remarks written by the external expert are available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. We'd like to thank Mariasole Bianco for her work and for her helpful notes. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk)

To facilitate the editing process, I copied Mariasole notes below.

Quality of the Summary

Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?

Yes, the summary is a complete and concise introduction to the topic. I think some areas like Ecosystem goods and services, Ecosystem Management could be more detailed and explained (see comments in review). The nutrient cycling and the decomposition sections may be too dense for a general overview of the topic.
I also believe that information about the relationship between ecosystems and climate change is missing and should be integrated (see comments in review and additional references provided)

Structure and style of the article

Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?

Some information from the introduction and in ecosystem processes was repetitive. I highlighted this information in the pdf to bring it to your attention. Some information may be too dense for a high school level such as in nutrient cycling and in ecosystem ecology. I noted these sections as well. I will add more information about

• the economic value of ecosystem goods and services
• protected areas as ecosystem management tools

I will also add a section about ecosystem reaction/adaptation to global stressors like climate change

Content

Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.

Yes, the article successfully goes into detail about major facts and processes related to the topic. I think the anthropogenic section can be expanded on more. Give more examples and historical data in this section as it something we are currently living and facing. I also think a section on viable solutions for how to reduce and prevent anthropogenic effects is necessary. I’ve listed some examples in my edits.

International and local dimension

Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.

I think the article does a nice job of providing examples from around the world however I believe that more example about marine and freshwater ecosystems should be made. The article does not include any bias.

References (essential to allow the articles to be improved)

Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.

• EbA http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/oceans_and_cc_brochure_final_1011.pdf (page 4)
• Global IUCN Red List of ecosystems http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062111
• Ecosystem Services and Climate Change http://hal.cirad.fr/cirad-01264738/
• The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital http://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/5983
• Placing marine protected areas onto the ecosystem-based management seascape
• http://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18312.short
• Natural solutions: protected areas helping people cope with climate change.
• http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20103347633.html;jsessionid=652B2222738B3E82A75B50375E6A4E4F
• Protected area "A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_area
• Biodiversity and Ecosystem Stability http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/biodiversity-and-ecosystemstability-17059965

Semi-protected edit request

I am a new comer to the Earth & Space Science Edit-a-Thon at the American Geophysical Union. Suggestion to the "Ecosystem Services and Goods" section, in the sentence "While Gretchen Daily's original definition distinguished between ecosystem goods and ecosystem services, Robert Costanza and colleagues' later work and that of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment lumped all of these together as ecosystem services", add citation of Daily, G. C.; Söderqvist T; Aniyar S; Arrow K; Dasgupta P; Ehrlich PR; et al. (21 July 2000). "ECOLOGY: The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value". Science. 289 (5478): 395–396. doi:10.1126/science.289.5478.395. PMID 10939949. 192.102.233.66 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I will add it. Guettarda (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecosystem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150813135309/http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx to http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecosystem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502051519/http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6920_spring2010/readings/Grumbine_1994.pdf to http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6920_spring2010/readings/Grumbine_1994.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ecosystem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525213257/http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nrj/47/2/04_brown_goods.pdf to http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nrj/47/2/04_brown_goods.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501031912/http://www.ci.uri.edu/CIIP/SummerPracticum/Docs2007/Likens_LongTermResearch_Ecology2004.pdf to http://www.ci.uri.edu/CIIP/SummerPracticum/Docs2007/Likens_LongTermResearch_Ecology2004.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161006125220/http://www.ecology150anniversary.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/tansley-1935.pdf to http://www.ecology150anniversary.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/tansley-1935.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718233357/http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/ to http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

where is the addicostic ductif?

Aren't you going to mention about the addicostic ductif? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.193.84 (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

See also climate change

Wouldn't adding a link to the climate change page be helpful for those who want to read more about effects of our climate? WingRiddenAngel (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, WingRiddenAngel. I have added it now under See Also but it should probably be linked to in the text somewhere! But where exactly? EMsmile (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have mentioned it in the main text now but I think we should expand on this aspect. Any suggestions? EMsmile (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Improvements needed for section on "Anthropogenic threats"

I think the section on "Anthropogenic threats" needs improvement. The second paragraph reads like an opinion piece and has no references. We should decide which are the main other Wikipedia articles that deal with this topic and then ensure we link to there, rather than listing all the facts here again (thus dublicating what is elsewhere). EMsmile (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been making some changes along those lines. EMsmile (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Taking out excessive detail - overview article

I've done some more work on this article today. My approach is to see this as an overview article for laypersons. In cases where I found excessive detail I moved that detail to the other Wikipedia article that already exists on the topic. Because this is an overview article on a broad concept I think it is our job to give people an overview and then to point them to all the wonderful other Wikipedia articles that exist on related sub-topics - where they can find more detail. E.g. on ecosystem management or Ecological land classification. I am going to continue along those lines with the rest of the article (I am working from the end of the article towards the start). EMsmile (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Could we discuss these changes? You've taken out a lot of information I think is important, while added back info that, IMO, doesn't belong. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure, very happy to discuss. When making major revisions to an article there are always things that may not appear sensible, I am very happy to discuss and collaborate. In fact, I have been surprised at the lack of responses so far, given that the article has 350 watchers! I purposefully only do about 1-2 hours per day, then take a break in order to let people follow and discuss. EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know which information that I have removed you think should have stayed? Note that I did not delete anything but rather move it to the other Wikipedia article that was given as "main article" for that section - thereby enriching those sub-topic articles which are on specific aspects of ecoystems.

• This isn't a sanitation or medicine article, so why use their MOS? This should match other articles in ecology and evolutionary biology (and Wikipedia as a whole), which go with history first. Guettarda (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I just mentioned those two WikiProjects as examples. The WikiProject Medicine is hugely successful so I tend to use their MOS for everything. Which WikiProject's MOS would you rather follow? As far as I kow there is now "Wikipedia guidance as a whole" that history has to come first? If you put yourself into the shoes of a layperson wanting to read about ecosystems. Do you really think there first interest would be to learn about the history of the term? But if you and others feel strongly about that, sure we can move that back up. EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since you removed the frog, can you find a better image for the energy flow section? We need something to break up all that text. Guettarda (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the frog for several reasons. Firstly, the exact same image and caption appears in the Wikipedia article that deals with the energy issue which is linked from there. Secondly, I consider the amount of text in the image caption as totally excessive. Remember we are writing for laypersons here. I think the article has plenty of images already, so I don't think we necessarily need to replace it with another one. If people agree with my approach then the text will still become more condensed (my approach is to move excessive detail to the existing other articles on sub-topics). EMsmile (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Types

Ecoystems may be terrestrial ecosystem or aquatic ecosystems. These can be divided further: Six primary terrestrial ecosystems exist: tundra, taiga, temperate deciduous forest, tropical rain forest, grassland and desert. The two main types of aquatic ecosystems are marine ecosystems and freshwater ecosystems.

Terrestrial ecosystems are also grouped into agroecosystems, forest ecosystems, grassland ecosystems.

Terrestrial ecosystems are distinguished from aquatic ecosystems by the lower availability of water and the consequent importance of water as a limiting factor. Terrestrial ecosystems are characterized by greater temperature fluctuations on both a diurnal and seasonal basis than occur in aquatic ecosystems in similar climates. The availability of light is greater in terrestrial ecosystems than in aquatic ecosystems because the atmosphere is more transparent in land than in water. Gases are more available in terrestrial ecosystems than in aquatic ecosystems.

Some examples of ecosystems that are rich in diversity are: deserts, forests, large marine ecosystems, marine ecosystems, old growth forests, rainforests, tundra, coral Reefs.

References

These are biomes, not ecosystems. The fact that the term ecosystem is often used very imprecisely doesn't mean we need to follow that convention here. Sure, add a section distinguishing processes in terrestrial and aquatic systems. But not here. Guettarda (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I am no expert on this and in fact found it terribly confusing when I went to the article on biome and saw lots of stuff about ecosystems there. I have written on the talk page there. Perhaps you can help to clear up this mess by replying on the talk page of biome? To me it seems a mess in the article on biome. However, I do think we should tell people about terrestrial ecosystem and marine ecosystem for example, don't you think? Surely they are ecosystems?? After all in the caption of the lead the term marine ecosystem appears but nowhere in the article to we describe what kind of ecosystems there are. Or are you saying the term marine ecosystem is wrong and must not be used? If that was the case we should explain that. In fact, how about a section on "nomenclature" or "related terms" where we could explain what the difference is between ecosystem and biome and explain that they often get mixed up etc. - I didn't understand your point about "processes"? EMsmile (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Guettarda I have now made a proposal on how this could be addressed in the article (see my recent edit). Please help. I think we cannot ignore the fact the the term terrestrial ecosystem is used and if it's a "wrong" use, then let's clarify that. Do we have references for this? EMsmile (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Improving readability

The other thing I am working on is to improve the readability by making sentence shorter and easier to understand. I am using this really neat website to get the readability score (Flesch score), see here. Before I started to get involved the readability score was 31 which was bad (60 would be great). The readability of just the lead was: 24 (even worse). My aim is to get it up 40 or 50.- It would be great if there was other people here who'd like to help with that.EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing excessive detail from the section on "decomposition"

I am planning to cull and condense the section on decomposition. Why? Because there is a whole separate article on decomposition which is where those people should go that want to know more about it. That long text block on decomposition is hard to read. If I wasn't going to cull/move it then it would require a sub-structure with sub-headings in my opinion. EMsmile (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have condensed and removed some content in the section on "dynamics". Nothing is lost from Wikipedia, I have moved the two text blocks to the two more specialised sub-topics where they fitted. This is an overview article. EMsmile (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Good idea. PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Improving Readability of the lead

Let's consider moving some of the detail from the lead. The last few sentences of the last and the second to the last paragraph both offer too much detail for an overview. It's interesting stuff, but without an opportunity to fully explain things I believe readers will get discouraged. Right now the lead readability is a 33. Not good. Removing longer sentences with long words can only help that too.PlanetCare (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

just deleted a few of detail-oriented sentences. Raised the score to (drumroll) 35. More work needed to simplify some of the sentences.PlanetCare (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

made some further simplifications but didn't get the readability socre to higher than 35.EMsmile (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That re-write of the lead was not good.

Global warming is an alleged example of a cumulative effect of human activities

Not true.

Ecosystems can be studied in two different ways.

One of at least two sentence fragments If you look at the ORES score, we went from an article that resembled an FA to one that fluctuates between B and C. Guettarda (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

An ecosystem is a community made up of living organisms and nonliving components

This is also incorrect. A community is not made up of living organisms and non-living components. Guettarda (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Ecostyms 188.123.231.88 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead image caption

The lead image caption used "ecosystem" is a way that is inconsistent with the article and the scholarly literature.

There are many different ecosystems on Earth. Left: Coral reefs are a highly productive marine ecosystem[1], right: Temperate rainforest on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington state.

The caption is using ecosystem as a synonym for biome, which is confusing given the content of the article. It also uses Hatcher (1990) to support what it says. Problem is that Hatcher uses "ecosystem" to mean "ecosystem", not biome. So this is doubly misleading. Guettarda (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Mispelling - "ecoystem"

"Ecosystem" is misspelled under the Dynamics section: "When a perturbation occurs, an ecoystem responds by moving away from its initial state."

Is corrected now. EMsmile (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Spelling

It's is used incorrectly in the 'Dymanics' paragraph. It should be its. VWScully (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have been corrected by now.EMsmile (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Limiting Error in scope of ecosystem by disregarding chemosynthesis in introduction.

"Energy enters the system through photosynthesis and is incorporated into plant tissue. By feeding on plants and on one another, animals play an important role in the movement of matter and energy through the system."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis#:~:text=In%20biochemistry%2C%20chemosynthesis%20is%20the,energy%2C%20rather%20than%20sunlight%2C%20as

pretty lazy imo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.48.108 (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Who says that "history" has to come first?

Hi User:Guettarda, I saw your edit where you had reverted my edit to move history to later. In the edit summary you wrote: "starting with a history section is standard for articles like this. whether the usual layout of articles is good or bad is a question for to be settled at a much higher level than individual pages". Who says it's "standard"? Where is that standard prescribed? I am following the Manual of Style of the hugely successful WikiProject Medicine which has moved history towards the end for all the medicine related articles. For good reason, I think. See here (and we did the same for WikiProject Sanitation as well, see here). I think if users are searching for historical information they would be putting in the search field "history of". E.g. "history of water supply and sanitation". So why should history come first, directly after the lead? When you look at the leads themselves, they don't start with history, usually. They are meant to be a good summary of the article but historical aspects are not usually the main focus of any such article from the scientific fields. Terminology can come early, yes, but not history. For this article here, we could actually just rename it back to "Terminology" in that case. Might be better. But overall, I would be happy to "settle at a much higher level than individual pages". Where do you want me to take this to? Which WikiProject, or where else? EMsmile (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And I've just looked at these related articles and found there is no "standard" about what the heading is called and where in the article it appears: Biosphere > Biome > Ecosystem > Biocenosis > Population > Organism > Organ system > Organ > Tissue > Cell > Organelle > Biomolecular complex > Macromolecule > Biomolecule. I saw some of the other articles use the section heading "Origin and use of the term" which I think is clearer than "history"; so it's more of a "definition" section in which case it's alright to be at the start. But a purely "historical" section I would always put towards the end, and that's how I've seen it done for many articles. EMsmile (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)