Talk:Shrubland

Merge
Is there an distinction in ecology between shrubland and scrubland? I cannot find such a distinction in a quick literature review: I'm not an expert, however.

If there is no distinction, I would suggest merging these two articles: both articles contain useful information that does not overlap.

Comments? —hike395 (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there must be a difference between a shrub and a scrub. I use to translate into Esperanto : shrub in "arbedo" and scrub in "arbusto". In my opinion a shrub is quite a woody plant, but it has many stems from the ground. A scrub is similar but only partly or feebly woody, and generally smaller. Perhaps I am not right : english isn't my native tongue. --Forstbirdo (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is about the ecological terms shrubland and scrubland: do they have distinct meanings? The articles do not describe a distinction. —hike395 (talk)

I don't support a merge - both scrubland and shrubland are 2 distinct ecological terms describing different vegetation structure. Scrubland is thicker, with more dense foliage cover (see the classification in the article). I wrote the article because I was frustrated that the many references to shrubland were redirected to 'scrubland', which is a totally different type of vegetation. I do agree that the distinction is not very clear at this stage, but I think that this is because the article on scrubland does not define what it is adequately. Worse still, the article on 'scrubland' uses this term synonymously with 'shrubland'. So, to summarise, yes there is a distinction in ecology, but the article on scrubland is mostly talking about shrubland. So it would be more useful to rewrite the article on scrubland, rather than merge the 2 together. --Pkravchenko (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC).


 * We don't have to merge if the concepts are distinct. Do you have some references for the distinction? Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some references that imply that they are the same:
 * http://www.tarleton.edu/~range/Shrublands/Mountain%20Scrub/mountainshrub.html
 * http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/530112/scrubland
 * http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Environment/Plants%20and%20animals/Scrubland%20Facts%20.pdf


 * I am now tending to lean towards merging the articles...! It may be better in wikipedia to reflect the confusion in the real world, rather than trying to figure out the mess that many writers have created. The more I look at various references, the more I realize that a) the terms are used interchangeably, b) it all depends what classification system one uses and in what country, and c) it all depends on whether the article is for 'popular use', or for ecologists. Out of the 3 references above, I would only take notice of the Brittanica article. The first article is much too confusing, and very poorly written -  I would question anyone who cannot correctly spell the main heading of their article! The second article is a New Zealand brochure for 'landcare' groups and so is for a non-technical audience. Interestingly, the Brittanica article itself is confused! It points to an 'exhaustive' reference - titled 'Mediterranean-Type Shrublands'! which happens to have, as one of the authors (Specht), the author of the classification system that distinguishes between shrubland and scrubland! This is the basis of the classification system I have already included in the article. I have checked my 1st year ecology textbooks, and all Australian classification systems use 'shrubland' as an ecological/scientific classification term, while 'scrubland' is used only by those using or modifying the Specht one. So, I would prefer to keep the title 'shrubland' and incorporate scrubland, though I would not like to do this myself due to the difficulty of trying to reflect a universal point of view. --Pkravchenko (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I can make a first attempt at merging scrubland into shrubland. Feel free to edit and correct my attempt. —hike395 (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have done great work Hike395! I am very pleased with the result. --Pkravchenko (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not. What you see in the picture is scrubland, not shrubland (I think). What's the name for land with taller woody plants ( that are not trees with one stem ) ? Don't say it is woodland, because that is rather open forest (with real trees). You are right if you say that english writers make a mess of it. I think Wikipedia should try to be better and make things clear. [[Image:Nullabor plain from the indian pacific.jpg|thumb|220px]] --Forstbirdo (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added your example picture to the article. I'm not sure how to act on your comment: the ecological literature seems to be confused on any distinction between scrubland and shrubland. I would be happy to split or edit the article if we can find clear verifiable distinctions in reliable sources, but so far, neither I nor PKravchenko can.
 * One possibility is to move this article back to scrubland: when I googled scrubland, there were more hits than shrubland. But I am not sure that would satisfy Forstbirdo. —hike395 (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Later: the World Wildlife Fund calls the Nullarbor plain a shrubland: see . —hike395 (talk)