Template talk:Biome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Order of Biomes[edit]

Now, I'm no oceanographer, but judging from the Riparian zone article, it appears to me that it more properly belongs in the Terrestrial biomes category, rather than Aquatic biomes. Can you explain why you listed it there?

Also, I think it would be useful to list the various biomes in some kind of order. Of course, it's possible that you did and I just don't know enough about it to recognize the order!

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts! Thanks for creating a LOVELY template! ~ Mpwrmnt 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's there because riparian areas flood at times? I don't know a lot about biomes, it's something we seldom use in California ecology for some reason. I'll post your question on the Biome article talk page, and maybe someone can explain it. I believe classification systems are used, so it probably was not the choice of the editor of this template, but rather a list he/she pulled from a book. KP Botany 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I prefer link trees on the foot of a page but this one is ok. I miss one terrestrial Biome. Flooded Grasslands and Savannas is missing. "Chaco", "Pantanal". (Olson, David M. et al. (2001); Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth). Ecoregion World Wildlife Fund (Content Partner); Cutler J. Cleveland (Topic Editor). 2008. "Ecoregion." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). I think this paper and this page should guide the whole link tree of the Ecology portal, 14 Terrestrial Biomes, 8 Biografical Realms and 867 Ecoregions. And the colours of the map should be used as guide for the template. I tried a compromise at the portuguese version. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wetland[edit]

I originally added this under "other", since wetlands are by definition neither aquatic nor terrestrial. It's kinda both. Someone moved it up into the aquatic section. I'm not really sure myself where it belongs, although... flooded savannas are currently under terrestrial, and those are considered wetlands. If anyone has any opinion please speak. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:07, 28 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Riparian was listed under aquatic, but it's really an ecotone between water and land. See discussion above. Perhaps we should just move both Riparian and Wetland to be at the bottom (wettest) of the terrestrial biomes. hike395 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:37, 29 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Riparian and wetland should be excluded of this template. I think they are a bioregion of a specific Ecozone/Biome. WWF Global 200 should be followed for terrestrial biomes, freshwater biomes and continental shelf biomes. Deep sea biomes can be moved down to "other". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up a point that has been bothering me for years. WWF is just one source for definitions of biomes and ecozones. CEC (from NAFTA) is another, and I'm sure there are many more. If we write article text about biomes or ecozones, we can attribute the definition to a particular entity, and make it NPOV. But, if we choose our navigation boxes and our category hierarchy based only on one source, that seems very single-POV to me. Why should we pick only WWF? hike395 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with the inclusion of Riparian and Wetland. The WWF divided the terrestrial Biosphere in 14 Terrestrial Biomes (major habitat type) & "rocks, snow and ice lands". This is a closed concept. You can't mix up concepts. Riparian and Wetland are more local habitats. Not good at all. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a world scientific consensus, in my opinion, even if it is a recent one. Beginning at Alfred Russel Wallace and Alexander von Humboldt. Then Udvardy (1975) [1], Pielou (1979) [2] , Dinerstein et al. (1995) [3], Ricketts et al. (1999) [4] and WWF, IUCN and UNESCO (2001) [5]. The reference list of Olson et al. (2001) [5] has everybody. Schultz (2000 and 2002) [6] [7] and CEC maps are good too, but the consensus was published afterwards and so they are outdated, overuled, in my opinion. I am sure the work of the WWF team was based on CEC maps (from NAFTA) too. If it is a good work, why should we neglect it? Wikipedia does not do research, it just publishes a nice layout of the scientific consensus.

We need a worldwide systematic on ecology, an order, an hierarchy, an outline, and guideline;

and this is a really good one, in my opinion

(is this the birth of a new taxonomy as the Carl Linnaeus' one):


References:


Citation ([WWFBinaryitem6596.zip]):

  • "This map depicts the 825 (now 867) terrestrial ecoregions of the globe. Ecoregions are relatively large units of land containing distinct assemblages of natural communities and species, with boundaries that approximate the original extent of natural communities prior to major land-use change. This comprehensive, global map provides a useful framework for conducting biogeographical or macroecological research, for identifying areas of outstanding biodiversity and conservation priority, for assessing the representation and gaps in conservation efforts worldwide, and for communicating the global distribution of natural communities on earth. We have based ecoregion delineations on hundreds of previous biogeographical studies, and refined and synthesized existing information in regional workshops over 10 years to assemble the global dataset. Ecoregions are nested within two higher-order classifications: biomes (14) and biogeographic realms (8). Together, these nested classification levels provide a framework for comparison among units and the identification of representative habitats and species assemblages. Ecoregions have increasingly been adopted by research scientists, conservation organizations, and donors as a framework for analyzing biodiversity patterns, assessing conservation priorities, and directing effort and support (Ricketts et al. 1999a [8]; Wikramanayake et al. 2001 [9]; Ricketts et al. 1999b [10]; Olson & Dinerstein 1998 [11]; Groves et al. 2000 [12]; Rosenzweig et al. 2003 [13]; and Luck et al. 2003 [14]). More on the approach to ecoregion mapping, the logic and design of the framework, and previous and potential uses are discusses in Olson et al. (2001) [15] and Ricketts et al. (1999a)".
  • "Delineation of (terrestrial) ecoregions: We began by accepting the biogeographic realms of Pielou (1979) and Udvardy (1975) and modifying the biome systems of Dinerstein et al. (1995) and Ricketts et al. (1999). We then consulted existing global maps of floristic or zoogeographic provinces, global and regional maps of units based on the distribution of selected groups of plants and animals, the world's biotic province maps, and global maps of broad vegetation types. These were useful for evaluating the extent of realms and biomes, the first two tiers in our hierarchical classification. We then identified published regional classification systems to be used as a baseline for ecoregion boundaries. Data and consultations from regional experts were also important for final ecoregion delineations. Caveats: Three caveats are appropriate for all biogeographic mapping approaches. First, no single biogeographic framework is optimal for all taxa. Ecoregions reflect the best compromise for as many taxa as possible. Second, ecoregion boundaries rarely form abrupt edges; rather, ecotones and mosaic habitats bound them. Third, most ecoregions contain habitats that differ from their assigned biome (e.g., for example, rainforest ecoregions in Amazonia often contain small edaphic savannas). With these caveats in mind, ecoregions can form useful units for biological analysis and for conservation planning and action. More information: Please consult citations listed here and with abstract, and references therein, for additional information on these ecoregions and the analyses and assessments for which they are suited". [1] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my objection is still valid: the authors that you list in the references work for the WWF. It seems to me be to circular reasoning --- the WWF ecoregions are the best because the WWF says so. If I saw strong third-party independent scientific validation that the WWF ecoregions are the consensus way to classify the world's ecology, I would stop making these objections. In the meanwhile, it still seems quite POV to me. —hike395 (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Udvardy, M. D. F. (1975); A classification of the biogeographical provinces of the world. IUCN Occasional Paper no. 18. Morges, Switzerland: International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
  2. ^ Pielou, EC. 1979 ; Biogeography. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  3. ^ Dinerstein E, Olson DM, Graham DJ, Webster A L , Primm SA, Bookbinder M P, Ledec G. (1995); A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean .Washington (DC): World Bank.
  4. ^ Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, C. Loucks. 1999; Who's where in North America? Patterns of species richness and the utility of indicator taxa for conservation. Bioscience 49(5):369-381.
  5. ^ a b Olson, David M.; Dinerstein, Eric; Wikramanayake, Eric D.; Burgess, Neil D.; Powell, George V. N.; Underwood, Emma C.; D’Amico, Jennifer A.; Itoua, Illanga; Strand, Holly E.; Morrison, John C.; Loucks, Colby J.; Allnutt, Thomas F.; Ricketts, Taylor H.; Kura, Yumiko; Lamoreux, John F.; Wettengel, Wesley W.; Hedao, Prashant; and Kassem, Kenneth R. (2001); Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth, BioScience, Vol. 51, No. 11., pp. 933-938.
  6. ^ Schultz, J.: Handbuch der Ökozonen, Ulmer Stuttgart 2000. ISBN 3-8252-8200-7
  7. ^ Schultz, J.: Die Ökozonen der Erde, Ulmer Stuttgart, 3rd ed. 2002 (1st ed. 1988). ISBN 3-8252-1514-8
  8. ^ Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, C. Loucks (1999); Who's where in North America? Patterns of species richness and the utility of indicator taxa for conservation. Bioscience 49(5):369-381
  9. ^ Wikramanayake, E., E. Dinerstein, C. Loucks, D. Olson, J. Morrison, J. Lamoreux, M. McKnight, and P. Hedao (2001); Terrestrial ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: a Conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC
  10. ^ Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, C.J. Loucks, W. Eichbaum, K. Kavanagh, P. Hedao, P. Hurley, K.M. Carney, R. Abell, and S. Walters (1999); Ecoregions of North America: A conservation assessment. Island Press. Washington DC. 485 pp.
  11. ^ Olson, D.M., and E. Dinerstein (1998); The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the Earth's most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12:502-515
  12. ^ Groves, C., L. Valutis, D. Vosick, B. Neely, K. Wheaton, J. Touval, and B. Runnels (2000); Designing a Geography of Hope: A practitioner's handbook to ecoregional conservation planning. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA
  13. ^ Rosenzweig, M.L., W. Turner, J.G. Cox, and T.H. Ricketts (2003); Estimating diversity in unsampled habitats of a biogeographical province. Conservation Biology 17(3):864-874
  14. ^ Luck, G.W., T.H. Ricketts, G.C. Daily, M. Imhoff (2003); Spatial conflict between people and biodiversity. Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences - US. 101(1):182-186
  15. ^ Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D'Amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W. Wettengel, P. Hedao, and K.R. Kassem (2001); Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: New map of life on earth. Bioscience 51(11):933-938

Too long[edit]

This template is too long to use in many articles. Would it be possible to use hide and show to collapse the three sections so that it would be more acceptable? --Bejnar (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind hide/show. —hike395 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall there be a vote for the hide/show modification or just modify it? If need opinion, I prefer add the hide/show, too. But I am not familiar with programming so I don't know how to do that. By the way , I think the biomes may be classified into concepts of WWF system:terrestrial, freshwater, and marine. The [[Template:Ocean habitat topics]] also collects a lot of different biology communities, may be a good reference. -- shangkuanlc (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read the discussion above (Wetland) and found out that there are objections against the concept of "sole classification standard". I want to point out that my idea of classification concepts is just for big concept, I don't mean to follow the WWF system, the whole system, and nothing but the system. I just want to make the template could be more navigable -- shangkuanlc (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would really help. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs navbox template coding[edit]

It would be really great if someone smarter than I could add the View/Discuss/Edit links that all other navboxes have (this is a navbox). I can't figure it out without destroying the code. StevePrutz (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a navbar (using the mini v•d•e option). - Steve3849talk 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I was inspired by this navbox and made a set of userboxes based on the color scheme Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/Misc#Biome, thank you. - Steve3849talk 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadleaved and mixed[edit]

The term "broadleaf forest" is equally common as "broadleaved forest" and the latter is more correct grammatically (in analogy to "mixed forest" and "small-leaved lime", for example). So I suggest that we should correct the endings everywhere.

Another question concerns classification. There is an article about ""temperate deciduous forests" (="temperate broadleaf forests"). Should we divide the biome "temperate broadleaved and mixed forests" into two biomes: "temperate broadleaved forests" and "temperate mixed forests"?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that "deciduous" includes also larch and some other coniferous trees that are not evergreen, so the term "broadleaved" seems more correct for biomes.)--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Biome&oldid=1146700610"